Doctoral Students’ Perceptions of Mattering

Abstract

The key to doctoral student persistence lies in the relationship between the student and their advisor. This study aimed to investigate doctoral students’ perceptions of mattering to their advisors within the context of their college and to determine how these perceptions influenced their commitment to degree completion, employing a qualitative multiple-case study design. Through the use of semi-structured interviews and observations, ten doctoral student participants across two academic colleges at a doctoral-granting research university in the western United States was obtained to understand their perceptions of mattering, using the three dimensions of attention, importance, and dependence. This study found that students who had more interactions and stronger relationships with their advisor also had a heightened perception of mattering, thus resulting in a stronger commitment to degree completion.

1. Introduction

In the book Academic Betrayal (Mayshark, 2017), Loren Mayshark recounts his six-year experience at Hunter College, during which he faced persistent mistreatment from faculty and an administration marked by outdated policies and characterized by apathy. Thousands of dollars in debt and without a degree, he dropped out of the program. Unfortunately, his experience is not unique in graduate education. The National Center for Education Statistics reported that just over three million students enroll in graduate education in the United States, which accounts for approximately 15% of all enrollments in higher education (NCES, 2021; Parker, 2024). While this constitutes a smaller population of postsecondary enrollments, graduate students are necessary to institutions. In particular, doctoral students contribute to the teaching and research of their institutions, primarily as teaching or research assistants. A recent report by the Georgetown University Center on Education and Workforce notes that by 2031, approximately 72% of jobs in the U.S. will require a postsecondary degree. Specifically, fewer than six percent of jobs will require only a high school degree, while 16% will require a graduate degree (Carnevale et al., 2023).

However, despite an increasing need for and the demonstrated value of graduate education, low graduation rates, particularly for doctoral students, is cause for concern. Doctoral student attrition rates have been a persistent problem in higher education for decades (Berelson, 1960; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Nerad & Cerny, 1993). Although a recent report issued by the Council of Graduate Schools notes a rise in doctoral student graduation rates of approximately nine percent, depending on discipline, only 57% of students graduate within ten years of beginning a program, and only 20% graduate within seven years (Lanier et al., 2024; Parker, 2024). Doctoral attrition incurs costs to both the student and institution; beyond the loss of time and money, doctoral students often suffer emotional and psychological damage, while institutions and departments lose the resources they have invested (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Gardner, 2009a; Golde, 2005; Lovitts, 2001). In determining the causes of attrition, there have been disparate views regarding where the responsibility lies. Lovitts’ (2001) interviews with faculty and students who had not completed their degrees revealed that the majority attributed the blame for attrition to the student. These findings have been partially corroborated by Gardner (2009a). However, approximately one-third of the participants attributed attrition to personal problems of the student, and were also more likely than faculty to point out programmatic, departmental, or institutional issues influencing attrition. For example, the most commonly reported departmental issue by students was bad advising. Previous research on doctoral student attrition and persistence has identified the importance of the student-advisor relationship and departmental community (Bair & Haworth, 2004; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Breitenbach, 2019; Gardner, 2009a; George & Newhouse, 2024; Golde, 2000, 2005; Lovitts, 2001; Nerad & Miller, 1996; Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2019; Stallone, 2004; Zhang et al., 2019). Consequently, the key to doctoral student persistence is the relationship that develops and is maintained among the student, faculty, and programmatic communities that comprise a particular unit or department. Specifically, graduate student persistence is shaped in large part by the degree to which the personal and intellectual interactions between the student and program faculty are developed, nurtured, and maintained to support student progress and subsequent graduation (Tinto, 1993). The importance of the doctoral student and advisor relationship is essential as it ultimately rests on the Humboldtian Master/Apprentice tradition, with references to the integration of research and teaching in which the professor (master) guides the student (apprentice) in the pursuit of knowledge (Anderson, 2004). Thus, the importance of socialization as it relates to nurturing a sense of being valued and seen, and as it pertains to doctoral student persistence, is critical to understanding subsequent degree completion.

Emerging as the reciprocal of significance, the construct of mattering was first introduced by Rosenberg and McCullough (1981). While their initial work on defining the construct relied on theoretical replication using existing data from four large-scale surveys of adolescents, Rosenberg and McCullough revealed an association between perceptions of mattering to parents and various measures of emotional disturbance independent of self-esteem, as well as a significant association between mattering and delinquency in adolescent youth. Although studies have primarily examined mattering of adolescent populations (A. L. Dixon et al., 2009; Elliott et al., 2008, 2005, 2009), more recent attempts at validating the measure of mattering have included samples of undergraduate students (Elliott et al., 2004; France & Finney, 2009; Tovar et al., 2009). Schlossberg (1989) first argued the importance of mattering in her discussion of the polar concepts of marginality and mattering and their effects on student involvement. She posits “that people in transition often feel marginal and that they do not matter” (Schlossberg, 1989, p. 6). This led to the development of the Mattering Scales for Adult Students in Higher Education (Schlossberg et al., 1990), which assessed student perceptions of the college environment. Only one study using the construct in the graduate student population has been performed (White & Nonnamaker, 2008).

The absence of research on mattering in graduate education presents a need for further studies that specifically address this topic in this population. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine doctoral students’ perceptions of mattering to advisors within the context of their college and determine how those perceptions influenced commitment to degree completion. The following research questions guided this study: how do doctoral students perceive that they matter to their advisor?, and what is the relationship between doctoral students’ perceptions of mattering and their commitment to degree completion? A qualitative, multiple-case study design was used for this study. The use of case study is advantageous when “how” and “why” questions are being asked, which lends itself as appropriate to the current study. Additionally, case study design is appropriate because it seeks to examine a contemporary issue, doctoral students’ perceptions of mattering, in the real world, bounded in the context of their college, and in which the researcher can exert little to no control (Yin, 2018). We begin with a brief review of the literature addressing doctoral student persistence and mattering.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Doctoral Student Stages of Persistence and Program Context

The important work of Tinto (1993) characterized the process of doctoral student persistence as three stages: transition, attainment of candidacy, and dissertation completion. The first stage, transition, incorporates approximately the first year of study and is characterized by the student establishing themselves as a member of the academic community, i.e., program, department, or school. Evaluation of the merits of such membership, thus, is shaped by both formal and informal academic and social interactions. The second stage, attainment of candidacy, entails the development of knowledge and competencies necessary to conduct research. Accordingly, a focus on competencies rather than community membership is central to this stage of development. Completion of the dissertation marks the third and final stage, spanning the period from gaining candidacy (e.g., passing comprehensive exams or defending the dissertation proposal) through to the conclusion of the research project and the defense of the dissertation. During this stage, interactions with the faculty advisor become paramount to the successful completion of the program. Accordingly, persistence at this stage may be highly idiosyncratic, as it largely hinges on interactions and the relationship with the faculty advisor (Tinto, 1993). Tinto’s stages of doctoral student persistence allow for consideration of the fact that the needs of the student change over time during the course of their program. Factors that may be significant in one stage, for example, close student-faculty interaction (transition stage), may become less significant or change over time, such as student-to-student interaction (attainment of candidacy). Thus, as students more fully integrate academically and socially into their programs, there may be a requisite shift in who is central to the student.

Additionally, the context of the doctoral program has an influential impact in several ways. Depending on the field of study, different structures inherent to the discipline influence the ways in which students interact with their faculty advisor. In the seminal work by Kuhn (1962), he introduced new ways of thinking about scientific progress, taking into consideration paradigm shifts. Paradigms refer to the shared beliefs, theoretical orientations, values, and methodologies of a particular discipline or field. Therefore, similar to institutional type, academic disciplines differentiate the structure of an academic profession. Thus, some disciplines can be characterized as having either high or low paradigmatic development. For example, disciplines such as biology and chemistry are considered high-level, whereas disciplines like history or English are considered low-level. Hence, the nature of training or the experiences students receive, as well as the nature of interactions with a faculty advisor, will differ, for example, working in a lab on a research team or one-to-one (Braxton et al., 2011). The structures and culture of a doctoral program can either inhibit or facilitate students’ integration, thereby supporting their persistence. In their conceptualization of mattering, Rosenberg and McCullough (1981) considered mattering to be a source of social cohesion. The following section reviews literature on the conceptual framework guiding this study.

2.2. Mattering

Rosenberg and McCullough (1981) first drew attention to the concept of mattering as the reciprocal of significance, specifically that some people matter more to an individual than others. They propose that mattering is independent of approval, motivates behavior, and is attached to relationships with specific others. Thus, while criticisms from someone significant to us may initially appear negative, they can be interpreted as a form of mattering. Similarly, having others depend on us may be experienced as a burden; however, it compels us to act because we matter to them. Their conceptualization of mattering proposed three components: attention, importance, and dependence. A further description of each component is presented below.

Attention. At the most basic level, mattering can be described as a feeling that one can gain notice, attention, or interest from another individual. In essence, it is recognition from others that one exists. Although acknowledgement of existence does not represent the strongest expression of mattering, it is essential to nurturing a sense of value for another.

Importance. Importance is the perception that one is an object of concern to another individual. The doctoral student who perceives their advisor as expressing joy in their success or disappointment in their failures or shortcomings likely feels they are an extension of their advisor. Rosenberg and McCullough (1981) also make the distinction that mattering is not bound by approval, rather, an individual who criticizes may be indicating the extent to which the recipient of their critique matters to them. The professor who critiques a doctoral student’s work on a research paper by questioning the student’s line of reasoning and providing copious notes may be interpreted as harsh, but also communicates that the student is important enough to the professor to dedicate time to provide such feedback.

Dependence. Mattering is a powerful motivator of behavior and is tied to social integration. That is, “… we are bonded to society not only by virtue of our dependence on others, but by their dependence on us” (p. 165). Doctoral students working as part of a team in a research laboratory or as a teaching assistant may experience the feeling that others are dependent upon them, which, as a result, may compel them to persist. Furthermore, they indicate that mattering is independent of approval, motivates behavior, and is attached to relationships with specific others.

Although the majority of studies on mattering examine adolescents, Rosenberg and McCullough (1981) assert that mattering is salient across the lifespan. As a result, the mattering construct has been applied to college students (S. K. Dixon & Robinson Kurpius, 2008; Dixon-Rayle & Chung, 2007; Elliott et al., 2004; France & Finney, 2009; Gossett et al., 1996; S. K. Marshall et al., 2010; Raque-Bogdan et al., 2011; Schlossberg, 1989; Tovar et al., 2009). To date, only one published study has investigated mattering of doctoral students within the United States. White and Nonnamaker’s (2008) longitudinal study of doctoral students in the sciences examined how they experienced community, a sense of belonging, and a sense of mattering. However, the concept of mattering was conflated with a sense of belonging (White & Nonnamaker, 2008). Despite these constructs being combined, the findings revealed the discipline, lab, and advisor as salient communities to which the students belonged. Thus, additional research on the importance of perceptions of mattering in graduate education is warranted as it pertains to or contributes to student persistence.

3. Research Methodology

The purpose of this study was to examine doctoral students’ perceptions of mattering to advisors within the context of their college and determine how those perceptions influenced their persistence or commitment to degree completion. A multiple case study design was used and included two cases bounded by college, a College of Science (COS) and a College of Liberal Arts (COLA) at a doctoral-granting research university located in the western United States. The university’s Institutional Review Board approved the study. Creswell (2014) advocates using no more than five cases, as each case can provide sufficient opportunity for identifying common themes and conducting cross-case analyses. Purposeful sampling (Creswell, 2014) was used to identify participants who were recruited via email through the respective college’s student listservs, as well as printed flyers posted on student organization bulletin boards. Gall et al. (2007) indicate that there are no set rules for determining sample size; however, “the ideal sampling procedure is to keep selecting cases until one reaches the point of redundancy, that is, until no new information is forthcoming from new cases” (p. 186). The data reported were obtained from interviews with ten doctoral students regarding their perception of mattering to their advisor and their intent to complete their program.

3.1. Participants

Using Tinto’s (1993) stages of doctoral persistence, the selection of students was based on whether they were either at the end of stage one (e.g., transition) or at the beginning of stage two (e.g., Attainment of Candidacy). Individuals who are within the first year of study have had sufficient time to develop relationships and begin to academically and socially integrate with their advisor and fellow students or academic community. Likewise, in stage two, the academic and social experiences are intertwined, and although students are focused on developing competency, the faculty advisor continues to influence their persistence. In addition, selection was based on the context of the discipline and college, e.g., sciences and liberal arts. Ten doctoral students consented to participate in the study; Table 1 provides a breakdown of the participants and additional demographic information.

Table 1. Participant Profiles.

Pseudonym	Gender	Race/Ethnicity	College	Stage
Emily	Woman	White	Liberal Arts	1
Abigail	Woman	White	Liberal Arts	1
Joseph	Man	White	Liberal Arts	1
Penny	Woman	White	Sciences	1
Barbor	Man	White	Sciences	1
Daniel	Man	White	Sciences	2
Adrianna	Woman	White	Liberal Arts	2
Ernie	Man	White	Liberal Arts	2
Luke	Man	White	Liberal Arts	2
Allison	Woman	Black	Sciences	2

3.2. Data Collection

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. Additionally, unit or program observations and supplementary documentation were collected to provide context for each case. Table 2 presents the data sources for the two cases examined in this study.

Table 2. Data Sources for Cases.

Data Source	College of Science	College of Liberal Arts
Interviews	4 doctoral students	6 doctoral students
Observations	2 department-sponsored events (research colloquia)	2 department-sponsored events (research colloquia)
Documents	Department handbooks, program requirements, other documents relevant to program/department	Department handbooks, program requirements, other documents relevant to program/department

Participant interviews. Semi-structured interviews were the primary data source for this study, conducted by the second author, and lasted between 45 and 60 min. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by the second author immediately following each interview. In addition to the interviews, notes were taken and included as research memos. An interview guide was created, including questions regarding background characteristics considered important to doctoral persistence (Nevill & Chen, 2007; Tinto, 1993), as well as items representative of the three dimensions of mattering (Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981). Table 3 provides examples of interview questions. Lastly, consistent with qualitative methodology, when no new data emerged, no additional participants were included, i.e., at the point of data saturation (Saunders et al., 2017).

Table 3. Sample Interview Guide.

Attention	Talk about the ways your advisor demonstrates they pay attention to you or show interest in you?
Importance	Talk about how your advisor expresses or shows they value you. Can you share an experience that highlights this?
Dependence	What are examples of the commitments, responsibilities, or ways your advisor relies on you?
Persistence	How have your interactions with your advisor either confirmed or led you to question your commitment to completing your PhD?
Is there anything else you would like to share about your relationship with your advisor?

Unit/program observations. To understand the context in which the doctoral students were situated, observations of department-sponsored events, such as seminars and colloquia, within their respective departments were conducted. In total, four observations were conducted. Two observations were performed within the COS case (e.g., weekly seminars) and two observations were conducted within the COLA case (e.g., research colloquia). In addition, documents were reviewed to augment the understanding of the context for each case, including department and program handbooks, as well as program requirements.

3.3. Data Analysis

For this study, we systematically drew upon C. Marshall and Rossman’s (2006) seven phases of analytic procedures: organizing data, immersion in the data, generating categories and themes, coding data, offering interpretations through analytic memos, searching for alternative understandings, and writing the report. It is essential to note that, although the phases of analysis may appear sequential, execution occurs as an iterative process. Research memos were recorded beginning with the first interview and following each observation. Data were organized throughout the collection process, including the creation of a research log that facilitated the cataloging of data by date and time, location of the event, activity (e.g., interview or observation), participant pseudonyms, and researcher memos. Using Atlas.ti v. 7.5 (ATLAS.ti, 2023), a priori themes were identified in advance using the three components of mattering, e.g., attention, importance, and dependence (Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981). Given the scarcity of research using the framework of mattering in relation to doctoral student advising, the researchers sought, in part, to assess the framework’s applicability within the context of doctoral advising, and thus, employed a priori coding. Additionally, a codebook with definitions was developed to ensure consistency in coding. During the coding process, data that did not fit within these themes were categorized with similar data to see if additional themes emerged. Reflective of qualitative methodology, the coding phase in this study involved multiple iterations (Saldaña, 2013) and included meetings between the first and second authors throughout the process to ensure consistency and rigor of the analysis. Additional interpretations, as noted in analytic memos, which were generated simultaneously during the coding phase, were also utilized. After initial coding was conducted, the data were organized into themes. Furthermore, external audits were conducted by the first and second authors, and member checking with participants also contributed to the search and confirmation of alternative understandings. These procedures were integral to the coding process, prompting the researchers to revisit the data and recode when necessary. Lastly, the writing of the report was guided by the multiple case study research approach, as recommended by Yin (2018).

4. Results

Data were collected from ten doctoral students using a semi-structured interview protocol. Two research questions guided this study: how do doctoral students perceive they matter to their advisor, and what is the relationship between doctoral students’ perceptions of mattering and their commitment to degree completion? The study took place at a large four-year, doctoral-granting, public institution. Over the course of this study, the institution transitioned to achieve the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education designation of Research University or Very High Research Activity. Student enrollment included 23,813 undergraduate and 4712 graduate students at the time of the study. The following section provides a brief description of each case context, followed by the cross-case results.

4.1. Case Context

College of Science (COS). The college comprised six departments, with five of the six offering PhD programs. Participants in this study hailed from the two largest enrolled departments within the COS. Given the small sample size, specific references to each department hereafter will be referred to as Department A and Department B. At the time of data collection, the ratio of doctoral students to full-time faculty was nearly one-to-one for both of these departments. The departments held rigorous academic standards for their doctoral students. Students must pass all coursework with a 3.0 GPA or higher. Additionally, the departments had similar program requirements with respect to advising, participation in colloquia, and teaching. Both require initiation of the advising process early in the student’s program. In Department B, doctoral students are expected to meet with their research advisor prior to enrollment in the first semester to design the initial degree program. At the same time, Department A requires the selection of an advisor by the end of the first semester. According to the participant inclusion criteria, all participants were within the first two years of their program of study and had not yet taken their comprehensive examinations.

College of Liberal Arts (COLA). The college comprised nine departments, with six of these offering PhD programs. Participants represented three departments, and given the small sample size, are hereafter referred to as Department 1, Department 2, and Department 3. At the time of data collection, the ratio of doctoral students to full-time faculty was nearly one-to-one for Department 3, and approximately two-to-one for Departments 1 and 2. As with COS, the departments hold their doctoral students to rigorous academic standards and require a minimum 3.0 GPA. Although there was variation in program requirements across the departments in this case, according to program documentation, students were required to meet regularly with their faculty advisor, had specific degree completion timelines, and were required to submit yearly progress reviews. Lastly, as per the study’s inclusion criteria, all participants were within the first two years of their program of study and had not taken their comprehensive examinations.

4.2. Perceptions of Mattering

The cases selected for this multiple case study represent different academic disciplines, thus contrasting results as a function of these differences were expected. Using Rosenberg and McCullough’s (1981) framework of mattering, the first research question sought to answer how doctoral students perceive they matter to their advisor in the context of a college. The results will be presented using each of the three components of the framework.

Attention. Although attention emerged as a salient theme from the data, an additional theme, which we term conditional attention, was also identified. This theme is defined as attention that is more transactional in nature, i.e., having a shared interest in the advisor’s research or moving an advisor’s project forward. All students within the COLA case, as well as half of the COS students, perceived mattering in the form of attention from their advisors that was not defined as conditional. Attention manifested as the advisor’s interest in the student’s well-being beyond the program, and was demonstrated by behaviors such as inviting students to their homes, providing access to cell phones, or being responsive and available to students. For example, Penny (COS) describes the awareness and concern of her advisor, “My advisor is, he really does care about the students…. He is concerned with how we’re doing, and not in the sense necessarily, ‘are you doing what you’re supposed to do?’ But more like, ‘Are things going well?’” Similarly, Daniel (COS) elaborates: “My advisor has had us all over at his house several times to have lab meetings where it’s just all about socializing, and he can talk to you individually about your personal life and things like that that maybe at school or while you’re working you don’t get into those types of things”. Allison (COS) noted that her advisor makes her cell phone number available, “If I ever feel that I need help or to talk about something, she makes herself available. I can always contact her through text or email.”

Considering their perception of receiving attention, students acknowledge the heavy workload of their faculty advisors. Consequently, some felt the need to initiate contact with their advisors, but still felt that the advisor was available beyond such initial contact. For example, Penny indicates that while her advisor’s time is limited, he is available to provide attention when asked, and states, “…the poor guy is kind of running around having to do all this stuff. And so he has pretty limited time, but I would say for the time he has, if any of us have questions, he responds pretty quickly”. Barbor (COS) must also initiate contact with his advisor to receive attention: “So let’s see, he pays attention to me when I contact him, and sometimes otherwise. It’s very independent.” Adrianna, Emily, and Ernie (COLA) describe how interactions with their advisors must be student-initiated, with Emily noting that it [advising] is pretty hands-off. “They are available if I need them, but they don’t generally check in on me. I need to check in or do status updates with them.” However, the students did not necessarily perceive the need to contact the advisor first as a negative. Ernie notes, “A lot of the times it was contingent upon my going to seek that help out, but I never took that as a bad sign, I took that as he had a lot of stuff on his plate.” As noted, the university had recently transitioned to Very High Research Activity which appeared to account for the limited time for faculty advisement.

Across both the COS and COLA cases, some students perceived receiving attention from their advisors only as a consequence of having similar research interests or in the interest of a shared research project or conditional attention. Daniel’s (COS) advisor’s interest in him was tied directly to his research project, “He’s the one that dreamed up the project and got the funding for it, that’s kind of how science works. I’m helping him realize his goals and dreams.” Joseph (COLA) received considerable attention from his advisor by initiating a conversation about a paper he had been working on. The conversation with Joseph’s advisor led to additional attention to encourage submitting the paper for publication, and fostered another form of mattering, importance, which is addressed in the next section.

Importance. Rosenberg and McCullough (1981) define importance as the feeling that we are the object of concern to another person. They also assert that being an ego-extension of that person indicates importance. While the importance component of mattering was not as evident as the attention component within the COS case, students experienced it in two primary ways: the investment of resources and ego-extension, or the view that the student’s success is as important to the advisor as their own success or failures. Allison (COS) reveals how her advisor invested resources in her by sharing the opportunity to step into a research assistant position, noting, “She said I was the first person she thought of to take that position because she knew that it was in alignment with what I want to do after I graduate.” Barbor and Penny both repeatedly mentioned their advisors’ investment in them regarding funding. Penny states, “I know of at least one proposal that relates to what I would be doing. I am on his radar, even if it doesn’t always seem like that.” The indication of importance through ego-extension was less pronounced in the COS case; however, Barbor shared, “So I haven’t had too many successes since I’ve been here, but he seems to be pretty enthusiastic when I do something right. Which is good, or if I have a good idea or something like that, he applauds it …”

However, although some COS students felt that their advisors expressed some level of importance, many felt that the advisors only expressed levels of importance to the group, i.e., the research lab, rather than to the individual. For example, Barbor describes his advisor’s positivity about others’ accomplishments within his department, “Not relevant to me, but when someone else in the department has done well, he’ll send a congratulatory email to the entire department, noting whoever’s had the accomplishment.” Similarly, Daniel’s sense of importance to his advisor was couched within the interactions he had with the group. However, upon further contemplation, he notes, “yeah, just as important as I think anyone would hope to be.”

By contrast, within the COLA case, students experienced many forms of importance. In addition to being on the receiving end of time and resources invested by their advisors, advisors in the COLA case demonstrated importance for students academically and personally. For example, Abigail’s advisor went out of his way to show concern for her during a difficult break-up by checking in with her. Additionally, after many years working with his advisor, Luke developed a family-like bond with his advisor, noting, “I think academically I’m the most important thing he’s got right now. And I would even say, probably also in his life. He and his wife have both kind of expressed that I am a family member…” In addition, advisors demonstrated ego-extension by showing both pride in their successes and support during failures. Adrianna’s advisor recognized her for progressing despite falling short on previous goals, by noting, “…the only thing that didn’t quite go as planned is I was hoping to have already finished my thesis proposal at this point, and I didn’t even come close. Whenever I’ve brought it up with him [advisor], he’s very much been like, “You know you’re setting pretty ambitious goals for yourself, and you have a large portion of a draft done… so don’t feel bad, you’re still doing great.” Importance as a component of mattering surfaced in many forms across both cases and can facilitate the next component of mattering: dependence.

Dependence. Dependence, the third component of mattering, is the feeling that one is relied upon by another individual. In both cases of this study, dependence was the least expressed form of mattering. In fact, students appeared hesitant to label their advisors as dependent upon them. Of those who reported experiencing dependence from their advisors, this primarily manifested as taking on additional teaching, lab, or other responsibilities to alleviate the advisor’s workload. For some, it also indicated that their advisor relied on them to alleviate the duties of their multiple roles. For example, Barbor (COS) notes “He does have all the administrative responsibilities, he’s not very active in his own research right now, so I’m working with one of his post-docs on this project, his samples of course, but we’re kind of doing the grunt work with it.” Although Penny (COS) was reluctant to state her advisor depending on her, she did note the importance of her work to the overall lab and that, “if I like just suddenly disappeared, that is going to leave a [hole]. It’s one less person to help out in the lab.” Abigail (COLA) discussed the many responsibilities her advisor depends on her for as a teaching assistant, including, “A lot of the lower, kind of, lab managerial tasks, I think that he would be incredibly swamped with work and be really stressed out if I wasn’t there to manage the little things and the organizational things, and scheduling participants, making flyers, that kind of thing.”

However, some students in both cases were reluctant to state that their advisors were dependent on them. Adrianna (COLA) laughs as she describes the lack of urgency and necessity related to the work she does for her advisor, “I don’t feel like he is dependent upon me. I work for him as part of my GA, ten hours a week, and it’s very much like he finds a few things to throw me to do as opposed to needing me to do things.” Additionally, students felt that the tenure status of their advisor related to whether or not they depended on them, as with Joseph, who noted, “I don’t feel that he needs me…considering he has full tenure…so I don’t know that I could say that he is dependent upon me.”

4.3. Commitment to Persist

Seven of the ten participants attributed their relationship with their advisor to confirming their commitment to persisting towards completing the PhD. Penny (COS) shares how her interactions with her advisor have influenced her commitment, “I guess that’s the best way to sum it up, the more I interact with my advisor, the more I feel I am in the right place, and the better I feel about continuing on this path to get the PhD”. Similarly, Barbor (COS) also attributes interactions with his advisor toward his commitment to degree completion, “… they’ve [advisor] confirmed it, because whenever we do meet, it’s very professional for the most part. So I want to impress him, of course, it drives me to get more work done and spend a little more time in the lab”. Although more than half of the participants attributed their persistence to their advisor, some of the participants responded with mixed feelings about their interactions with their advisors—a sort of in between—which may reflect the process of social and academic integration in real time, i.e., Tinto’s stages 1 and 2, leading them to either confirm or question their commitment to completing the PhD.

Emily (COLA) vacillates between questioning and feeling confirmed in her commitment as a result of interactions with her advisor, “Well, isn’t that a daily thing in graduate school? You know, don’t you constantly waffle between this is awesome and this is horrible, I’m going to drop out?” Following this revelation of interactions that led to questioning her commitment, Emily comments that her experiences with her advisors have overall confirmed her commitment. Meanwhile, Adrianna (COLA) feels supported by her advisor, but questions whether her advisor will be a constant for reaching her long-term goals, “So, because my goal is academia, and our research is not very conducive to that track. I’m not so sure.”

On the other hand, Allison (COS) and Daniel (COS) expressed a sense of self-motivation in their commitment to the PhD. Allison reveals, “I think all of my commitment towards completing the PhD is all on me, no matter what my relationship with my advisor is.” Similarly, Daniel states, “No, I think for a grad student you really have to take a lot of personal responsibility over whether you’re going to achieve enough in the end to graduate or not.”

5. Discussion

Using Rosenberg and McCullough’s (1981) framework, this study aimed to investigate students’ perceptions of mattering to their advisor, as situated in two different academic colleges, and how this perception may positively influence their intention to persist to degree completion. Data analysis indicated that most students across both cases perceived a sense of mattering across all components of the framework, e.g., attention, importance, and dependence. However, there were differences in the extent to which students described or perceived themselves as mattering. All students within the COLA case, as well as half of the COS students, perceived mattering in the form of attention from their advisors, but the manner in which the advisors displayed this differed. Participants across both cases noted instances in which their advisor actively reached out, invited them to gatherings, or provided them with their personal contact information. However, students in COLA more often reported having to initiate interactions with their advisors and stated that their advisors were more hands-off, which is consistent with findings in the literature that explain disciplinary differences in doctoral student experiences. Golde (2005) described the work of doctoral students in the humanities as solitary and autonomous. Furthermore, according to Lovitts (2001), students in the humanities and social sciences typically do not work closely with their advisors until after passing qualifying examinations, when they begin to focus on their dissertations; all participants in the COLA case had yet to complete this benchmark, Noy and Ray (2012) contrasted the social sciences and humanities with the physical sciences, pointing out that graduate students’ research in the former disciplines is often farther removed from that of their advisors. Thus, underscoring more solitary work and less one-on-one involvement with their advisor, it would not be uncommon for students to perceive the need to initiate contact with their advisor.

Conditional attention was defined as attention that was more transactional in nature, i.e., having a shared interest in the advisor’s research or specifically moving an advisor’s project forward. This finding reflects the structural differences across the disciplines in this study, as research conducted by graduate students in the physical sciences typically centers on the advisor’s proposed research (Noy & Ray, 2012). Thus, the perceived attention of the student by the advisor may be conditioned by the nature of the discipline. As noted earlier, the university’s recent transition to Carnegie Research Very High necessitates higher research productivity from faculty.

Although not as evident, the second component of mattering, importance, did emerge from the data across both cases; however, the manner in which students perceived being important to their advisor differed between the two disciplines. Students within the COS case expressed perceptions of importance more at the group level in contrast to students in the COLA case. This finding is supported by the paradigmatic development noted by Braxton et al. (2011), in that work in the sciences is often lab-based; thus, acknowledgement of the student’s contribution may more likely be given as group feedback or recognition. In addition, the nature of importance also differed between the two cases, with students in the COS case more often noting that importance was felt as a product of receiving funding or support in research. Previous research on the doctoral advising relationship has found that students in the physical, biological, and social sciences are more likely to receive career support, including research experiences from their advisors, than their peers in the humanities (Zhao et al., 2007). Although students in the COLA case also reported perceptions of importance by receiving research support, different than COS, they noted more personal levels of support from their advisors. This finding is consistent with Zhao et al.’s (2007) finding that doctoral students in the humanities and social sciences reported more personal touch behaviors than students in the physical and biological sciences. Personal touch behaviors include: taking a personal interest in the student, caring for the whole person, providing emotional support, having the student’s best interest at heart, and supporting any career path the student chooses (Zhao et al., 2007).

Lastly, the third component of mattering, dependence, did emerge from the data; however, students across both cases were reluctant to label the advisors as dependent on them. Students did note their role in supporting their advisors’ research (COS) or teaching duties (COLA), and thus acknowledged some level of dependence. This finding contrasts with previous research, which indicates that students, particularly in the biological and physical sciences, are more likely to experience exploitative behaviors from their advisors and perceive themselves as “cheap labor” (Zhao et al., 2007). Instead, for students in the current study, dependence on students to contribute to the advisor’s research agenda or teaching duties reflected a level of dependence, and that they mattered. However, it is important to note that the findings of the current study are based on a sample from one university and should therefore be interpreted with caution when generalized to a larger population.

Regarding the second research question, data emerged that students who felt they mattered to their advisors perceived this as important to their overall degree completion, i.e., graduation. Nettles and Millett (2006) state an advisor is “… a faculty person who establishes a working relationship with a student and shepherds her or him through the doctoral process to completion” (p. 98). Across both cases, students acknowledge the multiple challenges of being a doctoral student and perceive their value to their advisor in various ways, including periodic check-ins (attention), receiving funding and academic support (importance), and to a lesser degree, having advisors depend on their work in the lab or classroom (dependence). All of which results in the sum total of the students in this study perceiving they mattered, which ultimately supported their intention to graduate.

The use of the mattering framework (Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981) has not yet been studied in U.S. graduate education. This is the first study to examine doctoral students’ perceptions of mattering in the doctoral student-advisor relationship and how those perceptions support students’ intentions to complete their degrees. To date, only one published study has used the framework with doctoral students, but the construct was combined with other constructs (White & Nonnamaker, 2008). The current study also situates the student within a discipline in a specific college context (sciences or liberal arts) and stage of their program (end of year one and beginning of year two) (Tinto, 1993). Findings from this study suggest that the meaning of mattering to advisors varies across disciplines, and likewise that the influence of mattering on commitment to completing the PhD varies by discipline. This study confirms the importance of the doctoral student-advisor relationship and the variability of mentoring and support, reflecting the paradigmatic nature of the discipline.

6. Conclusions

The importance of recognizing the advisor-student relationship is crucial to fostering a sense of mattering. Although a recent report by the U.S.-based Graduate Council of Graduate Schools notes a nine percent improvement in doctoral graduation from 2021 to 2023, doctoral attrition rates have remained high (Lanier et al., 2024). The advisor-student relationship is central to the doctoral education process. Faculty are charged with several responsibilities and increased workload, especially in doctoral-degree-granting institutions, which can put a strain on their ability to advise doctoral students. This study has demonstrated that mattering, specifically to their advisor, is crucial to the subsequent intention to persist to graduation. Few studies have utilized the framework of mattering (Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981) to examine doctoral education. This study employed the components of attention, importance, and dependence to guide interviews and observations of ten doctoral students, aiming to understand their perceptions of mattering and how these related to their persistence in the program. The study found that attention begets importance, which in turn begets dependence, resulting in the perception that the student mattered. It is important to note that in this study, mattering was perceived differently depending on the discipline, ranging from very advisor-centric in the sciences to more phase-centric in the liberal arts. One notable finding was conditional mattering, which appeared to be more transactional in nature and may occur based on the stage of the program the student was in at the time, as well as the discipline. Gardner (2009b) notes that the initial socialization process encompasses both socialization into the academic discipline and that of being a graduate student. Overall, this study has shown that students’ perceptions of mattering to their advisor play a critical role in their persistence. Supporting faculty by reducing their workload responsibilities can help foster their ability to cultivate a sense of mattering. Likewise, professional development opportunities for faculty that are specific to the idiosyncratic characteristics inherent within disciplines may enhance and better support the advisor-student relationship. In addition, modeling and orienting doctoral students on what effective advising relationships look like may also assist in establishing productive student–advisor mattering and thus, persistence. More research is needed on how to effectively employ methods that foster a sense of mattering within this population.

7. Limitations

Using a multiple case study design requires the researcher to exercise discretionary judgment in determining the number of cases necessary for the study. Such a requirement cannot guarantee the absence of human error as a factor influencing the design. In addition, the case study researcher is expected to be knowledgeable about the issues relevant to their case, which may bias the researcher to be less open to contrary evidence that may emerge (Yin, 2018). Three approaches were employed to address this concern: first, multiple sources of evidence were consulted; second, a chain of evidence was maintained; and third, participants in the case enhanced the trustworthiness of the report by reviewing the draft. One of the primary sources of data for this study was interviews, which used self-reported data from participants. There is a tendency for people to over-report socially desirable behaviors, which may influence the accuracy of data reported by participants (Bernard & Ryan, 2010). “Generalizing qualitative findings to other populations, settings, and treatment arrangements—that is, its external validity—is seen by traditional canons as a weakness in the approach” (C. Marshall & Rossman, 2006, p. 202). However, Yin (2018) argues that the purpose of case studies is not to generalize to populations, but to theory. The current study extends the theory of mattering as pertains to doctoral students. The use of a multiple case study design in the current study limits the findings to doctoral students within the two cases of the College of Science and the College of Liberal Arts at a single institution. Likewise, due to difficulty in recruiting participants that met the inclusion criteria, this qualitative case study was limited to 10 participants representing two colleges from one institution. After reading the description of these cases, the reader may decide if the context is similar to their own to determine the transferability of the findings. In addition to counter the limitation of generalizability, C. Marshall and Rossman (2006) advocate the use of a theoretical framework to guide data collection and analysis, and using multiple sources of data for triangulation. Rosenberg and McCullough’s (1981) framework of mattering was used to guide this study. As a result, the interview protocol used for this study is limited to questions regarding the construct of mattering. While the researchers were open to participants’ experiences of not mattering, the interview protocol did not include questions actively seeking those experiences. Lastly, participants in the sample did not represent a diverse population. Therefore, a more diverse sample may have yielded different perceptions of mattering to the advisor.