Post on 01-Feb-2023
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY2
Background
According to U.S. News and World Reports (2013) there are
more than 70 accredited doctoral programs in social work and/or
social welfare in the United States. The growing number of
doctoral programs in social work demonstrates a broadened world
view of social work as not only a profession, but also an
academic discipline (Kirk & Reid, 2002). While the Council on
Social Work Education (CSWE) oversees BSW and MSW programs in
social work, the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education
(GADE) oversees and helps to develop doctoral programs in social
work. GADE emphasizes five major focus areas that doctoral
programs should strive to promote and build among the program and
students; knowledge of social work as a profession and
discipline, research and scholarship, teaching,
resources/administration, and recommend aspirational outcomes to
students (GADE, 2013). Many articles have been written about
doctoral education from an institutional/program level, speaking
to resources, supports, and evaluation of doctoral programs
(Bentley, 2013; Pryce, Werner-Lin, Browne, & Smithgall, 2011).
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY3
While supportive structures and resources are undoubtedly
important to the success of students pursuing doctoral education,
many graduates of doctoral programs have mixed emotions about
their experience (Pemberton & Akkary, 2010; Powers & Swick,
2013). Consequently, despite improved literature on best
practices in doctoral education, graduation and retention rates
on average for doctoral programs have stagnated at around 50% for
decades (Holloway & Alexandre, 2012; Rosen & Stretch, 1982). The
factors contributing to whether someone has a positive or
negative experience in doctoral education or whether or not they
finish their degree are not entirely known; however, graduates’
experiences good and bad tend to stay with them over the course
of their careers (Anastas, 2012; Mayadas, Smith, & Elliott,
2001). This article will seek to expand upon current
understanding of a seldom considered, yet highly important,
characteristic of doctoral education; the impact of a positive
and supportive cohort. This article is based on the viewpoints of
eight members of one PhD cohort that came together in 2008 and
forged lasting friendships and support systems that will
transcend our journey through doctoral education.
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY4
Review of the Literature
Doctoral education presents many challenges to individuals
choosing to embark upon the journey. There are many variables
that can impact an individual’s experience in doctoral education
including; program philosophy, resources, funding, research
support, mentorship, individual characteristics, learning styles,
and social support (Rosen & Stretch, 1982; Walker, Golde, Jones,
& Bueschel, 2008). While much has been written about
institutional contributions, curriculum, and faculty student
relationships in doctoral education, little has been written
about the meaning and influence of the cohort dynamic on
individuals’ experience of doctoral education (Holmes, Birds,
Seay, Smith, & Wilson, 2010; Ford & Vaughn, 2011). In preparation
for this narrative inquiry of one cohort’s experience, a review
of relevant literature about how individuals learn, how group
dynamics impact individual learning, and how learning in groups
can lead to the development of critical consciousness and
empowerment.
Cognition and Learning
In order to understand how group membership impacts
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY5
learning, it is first important to understand perspectives on
cognition and learning. Cognitive development and social learning
are important constructs to understanding knowledge acquisition.
In his Psychology and epistemology—Towards a theory of knowledge, Piaget
(1971) asserted that knowledge is “a process more than a state”
(p. 2), and “doubtless supposes an intervention of experience”
(p. 28). Other contributions to understanding how learning occurs
were made by Vygotsky (1978), who viewed learning as socially
constructed and dialectical. Vygotsky emphasized the importance
of language, signs, and symbols on how individuals learn and
construct meaning. While practical intelligence (the ability to do
practical tasks) and the sign system (composed of language,
writing, and numbers) operate independently among children, they
become a “dialectical unity” in adults, which refers to the
interplay between perception, cognition, and actions in shaping
the consciousness of adults (Vygotsky, 1978).
While Piaget and Vygotsky focused much of their work on
studying learning in children, Bandura (1991) explored learning
across the lifespan. According to Bandura, learning is in large
part a product of socialization. Individuals learn by observing
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY6
and interacting with others in the world. Additionally, Bandura
states that while children often learn through the modeling of
behaviors expressed by adults, adult learning is often a
reciprocal process of give and take. Adults in close knit social
groups learn through exposure to new ideas and knowledge, which
motivates individual change in cognition and consciousness
(Bandura, 1991). Social learning also impacts and shapes
individual values and morality through exposure to new ideas that
were not previously considered or contradictary information that
forces an individual to rethink a previously held value position
( Berman, 1997; Kohlberg, 1984). Doctoral cohorts, especially in
social work, can provide opportunity for this as group members
are often faced with tackling provocative topics leading members
to approach alternative ideas not previously considered.
Intercultural Learning
In the context of social work doctoral education, students
must regularly consider and reconsider professional and personal
values related to social justice, social responsibility, ethics,
the causes of inequality, and diversity in relation to practice,
research, and teaching (Kirk & Reid, 2002; Ford & Vaughn, 2011).
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY7
Another key attribute of doctoral education comes by way of
intercultural learning. Intercultural learning relates to social
learning and more specifically to how individual values,
stereotypes, and perceptions of people significantly different in
some way than one’s self is shaped and challenged through
dialogue, exposure, and the forging of positive relationships
that may not have otherwise been experienced (Adams, Bell, &
Griffin, 2007; Bennett, 1993). The learning process of doctoral
students is thus an exercise in social learning by definition;
however, the degree to which learning is shaped among individual
cohort members as well as whether or not it is shaped for better
or worse is likely impacted by how close or distant cohort
members are in the context of a doctoral program.
Adult Education
The literature on adult education discusses the constructs
of consciousness and empowerment as the ideal goals of learning
among adults (Freire, 1998; Kagitcibasi, Goksen, & Golgoz, 2005;
Lange, 2004). The theoretical starting point for understanding
critical consciousness begins with the writing of Gramsci (1971),
Freire (1973, 1990), and is further complemented by the work of
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY8
Kieffer (1984), and Gutierrez (1988). Each of whom, start from
the premise that consciousness is shaped by social relations that
in turn shapes how individuals are positioned socially and how
they relate with the material and physical world” (Lange, 2004,
p.124). Thus, consciousness is most easily seen on a continuum,
which includes differing degrees of awareness that is both
affected and shaped by history, social relations, and the
interface between the individual and the social world (Freire,
1970). Consciousness is therefore reality of individuals
constantly shaped and redefined through new experiences.
Although education can impact individual consciousness
through the acquisition of new knowledge and skills, it takes
critical learning in the context of groups to promote the
development of critical consciousness and empowerment (Freire,
1970; Gutierrez, 1990; Kieffer, 1984). Freire (1970) stated that
critical consciousness “refers to the process by which humans, as
knowing subjects, achieve a deepened awareness of the socio-
cultural reality that shapes their lives and of their capacity to
transform that reality.” (p. 26). Additionally, Freire proposes
that experiences with others directly impacts individual
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY9
consciousness, and in order to reach one’s potential level of
consicousness, critical learning in groups is necessary (Freire,
1970;1998). Gutierrez also states that learning in the context of
groups is critical for the development of empowerment in
individuals, specifically at the interpersonal dimension
(Gutierrez, 1990). In Kieffer’s developmental theory of
empowerment, individuals needed to come together with others
dealing with similar issues in order to advance in their own
empowerment process (Kieffer, 1984). As well studied outcomes of
critical adult education within the literature, critical
consciousness and empowerment contain great potential in
perceiving the benefits of cohort relations on individual
learning and experience in doctoral education.
Cohorts in Doctoral Education
Doctoral programs of social work hold the potential for
promoting empowerment among students (Lange, Pillay, & Chikoko,
2011; Pemberton & Akkary, 2010). Doctoral programs, unlike
undergraduate and graduate programs, maximize the cohort model to
promote intercultural learning, social support, and critical
thinking (Ford & Vaughn, 2011). Doctoral students are also more
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY10
likely to be in the same classes with members of their cohort,
experience smaller class sizes, and have more voice in the
classroom and school than students at other levels of education
(Anastas, 2012; Holloway & Alexandre, 2012; Holmes, Birds, Seay,
Smith, & Wilson, 2010). Although students have the potential to
experience positive gains as a result of the cohort model of
doctoral education, many students end up feeling isolated and
discouraged as a result of individual and program values that may
breed competition among cohort members, students perceiving some
cohort members as being faculty favorites, and the splitting of
cohorts into sub-groups that may not get along with one another
(Ford & Vaughn, 2011; Pemberton & Akkary, 2010; Powers & Swick,
2013). One important question for many current and future social
work doctoral students as well as faculty and administrators of
doctoral programs is what factors, attributes, and/or conditions
promote and contribute to the positive development of a cohort as
well as transformative experiences for members of that cohort? It
is this question that this study will attempt to discern at a
basic beginning level through the unique experience and lens of
one cohort’s narrative.
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY11
Conceptual Framework
The cohort narrative experience discussed in this study,
built through an iterative process of inquiry, included cohort
members working together to discover and understand how their
individual experience of cohort relates to one another to form a
collective or grand narrative of cohort. This study approached
building a collective narrative through grounding the inquiry in
narrative and phenomenological methods in order to explore the
meaning of cohort in the experience of eight students in a social
work doctoral program situated at a mid-sized university in the
Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. This inquiry is grounded in
Husserl’s (1999) work in phenomenology and Riessman’s (2002) work
in narrative inquiry.
Phenomenology takes its roots from the philosophy of
Aristotle and later the work of Immanuel Kant, both of whom
viewed philosophy as a form of science concerned with human
consciousness (Fay, 1996). Later philosophers and theorists, such
as Hegel (1977), Husserl (1999), Heidegger (1962), and Gadamer
(1975) coined the term phenomenology and defined it as the
exploration and study of the lived experience through an inquiry
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY12
into the consciousness of human beings (Manen, 1990). While there
are many differing views and descriptions of phenomenology, this
study relies on the perspective of Husserl (1999) that in order
to understand the lived experience of human beings in the
lifeworld (the world as experienced by an individual’s
consciousness), one must identify the major ideas and
conceptualizations present in an individual’s consciousness
understanding of an experience (Manen, 1990). Although many
scholars and theorists see phenomenology as reductionistic in
nature, Husserl argued that phenomenology is only reductionistic
in the sense that in order to comprehend the complexity of the
lived experience, it is important to understand the major
components of human consciousness in order to better understand
the whole of one’s consciousness (Husserl, 1999; Manen, 1990).
Narrative inquiry or theory in the realm of social science
takes much of its roots from existential philosophy,
phenomenology, and naturalistic inquiry (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
Narrative inquiry seeks to ascertain how individuals experience
an event, events, or life history through their own lens of
consciousness (Riessman, 2002). Narrative inquiry may focus on a
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY13
single person’s life or on the experiences of many. Additionally,
narrative inquiry seeks to understand how different people
experience a common event, circumstance, or era in order to
capture different perspectives or versions of the lived
experience (Riessman, 2002).
In narrative inquiry, no narrative or perspective is better,
more accurate, or more rational than any other, nor does
narrative inquiry seek to reduce people’s experiences and stories
into something deemed objective or generalizable, but instead
attempts to work with those involved in the inquiry to identify
common threads from their story (stories) that hold significant
meaning or shed light on different aspects of an individual or
group’s story (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Although narrative
inquiry is often thought of as existing in an interpretive
paradigm, characterized by subjectivity and social order,
narrative inquiry processes can have emancipatory gains for those
involved as they remember and uncover their stories, they may
identify personal metaphors or collective power in their
narratives, which could lead to more radical changes for the
individuals involved (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Riessman, 2002).
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY14
Data Collection and Analysis
The data collection and analysis process in narrative
inquiry is often an iterative process undertaken by the
participants and researcher, which in this inquiry is known as
the facilitator (Riessman, 2002). The typical process of data
collection and analysis in narrative inquiry includes the
following stages: attending, telling, transcribing, analyzing,
and reading. Data collection was initiated by the facilitator of
the inquiry, who used the attending phase to reach out to cohort
members about telling their story. After consenting to
participate, cohort members were asked to write a brief narrative
addressing the meaning of cohort in their experience of doctoral
education, which represents the telling stage of narrative
inquiry. Eight out of nine cohort members provided narratives
that ranged from 1-4 pages in length, which in this study is the
transcribing stage. Individual narratives were placed into one
document in their entirety. Cohort members were instructed to
edit, revise, or otherwise change anything in their narrative
that they wished to. Some cohort members made minor changes,
while the majority left their narratives as they originally wrote
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY15
them; thus analysis of data actually began with cohort members
examining their own narratives. The facilitator analyzed
individual narratives utilizing the framework provided by
Reissman (2002) to uncover the sequence of events relating to the
cohort, description of the setting for which the cohort
interacted and experienced one another, and the major themes of
commonality shared by cohort members. The facilitator used the
sequence of events, setting, and major themes identified from
individual narratives to construct the grand narrative of the
meaning of the cohort experience.
The final stage of analysis in narrative inquiry is the
reading of the narrative by participants, which provides a rigor
check for trustworthiness and authenticity. Cohort members were
also able to view the individual narratives alongside the
collective narrative, and were able to edit, revise, or pose
questions related to the grand narrative in order to promote
trustworthiness and authenticity of the final product; therefore,
while one cohort member helped to facilitate the narrative
inquiry, all cohort participants helped shape and ensure the
accuracy of the final collective narrative.
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY16
Cohort Narrative
The experience described here began in the late summer of
2008 in a large school of social work at a midsized university in
the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The school of
social work that serves as the setting for much of our narrative
housed an undergraduate, masters, and doctoral program. In any
given year more than 700 students come and go through the doors
of the school with anywhere from 25-45 being doctoral students or
candidates at various stages.
Thick Description
The physical building that existed when we began our journey
was a historic building with three floors and a basement, where
the doctoral offices were located. When you enter the building
you are hit immediately by a slight mildew or stale smell. The
paint on the walls is old and chipping away, after being painted
over countless times over the years. The elevator was a scary
experience for anyone who took it for the first time as it made
clangs and jarred your entire body upon stopping. Despite all of
the dated features of the building, it also possessed the
character of an old southern Victorian home somewhere out of a
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY17
Faulkner novel with the high ceilings, craftsmanship, and
portraits of former deans aligning the hallway. The classrooms
were plain, small, and often had pillars in the middle of them
that made presenting and listening to one another difficult.
The doctoral offices or tombs as some of us called them,
were void of almost all daylight, always either too hot or too
cold, and had an even stronger mildew smell than the rest of the
building. There were only four old desktop computers when we
began the program with slow operating systems and outdated
software. There were donated furniture in both doctoral offices
and tables to gather around. Regardless of the smell, lack of
technology, and dated décor, we spent many days and evenings here
often engaged in work, but also conversations. We were seldom
very quiet as a group, something that in hindsight seemed unique
about our time. We immediately made the doctoral offices our
temporary home and our voices, laughter, and rants could be heard
down the halls.
While much of our narrative will be told from our collective
experience in the doctoral program from 2008 through our comps
exams in the fall of 2010, it is important to point out that
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY18
little remained the same from then until now. The old smells and
sights no longer remain with the school being housed in a new
building. The doctoral offices have been upgraded and have little
resemblance to the tombs. The faculty offices and classrooms are
updated, yet the once noisy hallways and offices have now grown
quieter, and the doors that were once always open, have begun to
close, one by one. Despite the changes to the doctoral program,
school, culture, and environment from 2008 until now, our
experience as a cohort was shaped by it all. While some of us
left before significant changes occurred, others remained to
experience them firsthand. For the purpose of this paper, our
collective narrative in the subsequent pages of this paper is
primarily based on the 2+ years that we spent in close proximity
to one another in coursework and in preparation for comprehensive
exams. We are not telling our story to impart any wisdom upon
you, we make no claims that our story is generalizable to any
other cohort, however it is our story to tell. We have written
this story for ourselves as a means of expressing our gratitude,
respect, and love for one another. We encourage other doctoral
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY19
students, faculty, and administrators to take away what they like
from our narrative.
Our Grand Narrative
As we walked out of classes our first day in 2008, we
wondered if we had bitten off more than we could chew. We all had
doubts on the first day. Some of us doubted if we were smart
enough for doctoral education, while others wondered if a PhD was
really what we even wanted. We were anxious, scared, unsure, and
yet also excited and hopeful. We came from small towns and large
cities dotting one side of the country to the other as well as
from outside U.S. borders. We differed in terms of gender,
spirituality, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic
class, and age. For some of us a PhD was the crowning achievement
of a career, a pathway into a teaching career for others, a
spiritual pathway for some, and the fulfillment of a dream for
many.
During the first semester we all had to grapple with program
and personal challenges. In the classroom, we were feeling each
other out, trying to get to know each other. Many of us had
experiences in higher education or had heard stories about the
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY20
perils of doctoral education. There was no shortage of tales of
super competitive cohorts, the stealing of intellectual property,
backstabbing, bullying, and professors pitting cohort members
against one another in the classroom and for funding
opportunities. Many of us felt as though we were the dumbest one
in the room at any given time. We raveled at how smart everyone
else was compared to us. We were cautious of one another during
our early days together as we attempted to build trust,
community, and identity as a cohort.
Although we spent time getting to know each other during the
first semester of the program, and again during the start of our
second year, due to the addition of a new cohort member and the
loss of others, we were also developing bonds and cohesiveness as
a group. While the strength of the bonds we developed with one
another varied due to common interests, age, and circumstances,
as a group we were forging an identity rooted in mutual support,
respect, and trust. Many, if not all of us, had points in time
during our doctoral program where we doubted whether or not we
could do engage in the doctoral process. These are the times that
can make or break a doctoral student, and for some it can be the
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY21
most isolating of times as you feel like you are the only one who
is having doubts. It was during these times that we would reach
out to one another and learn that our feelings were not occurring
in isolation, but often similar to what others were feeling or
had dealt with at some point during the program. What is
interesting is that while we each had our own friendships among
various cohort members, some of the most powerful conversations
and dialogues occurred between members who were not necessarily
close friends. Our ability to engage in these conversations
demonstrated just how close we were as a group.
As a cohort we did many things to help build community and
to support one another. During our statistics classes, we formed
study groups to help each other grasp and understand the
material. Everyone was welcome to attend, but if some people
could not make it, they would get together with others of us in
the doctoral offices to study or go over homework. The doctoral
offices were another place where we forged relationships through
venting about classes, studying on occasion, and more than
anything, getting to know each other beyond academic interests.
Where else in life can a diverse group of people in their early
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY22
20s to 60+, from every end of the socioeconomic spectrum, who all
possess differing sexual orientations, religions, experiences,
interests, and values come together and create a space of mutual
respect, caring, and admiration? Was there difference that
existed between us and sometimes caused conflict? Of course, but
somehow our spats and disagreements were less similar to the
destructive kind that occurred among other cohorts that we knew
and more like those that occur between sisters and brothers.
During the summer prior to comprehensive exams, we held
study sessions and posted notes online for those who could not
always attend. These study sessions were highly important to the
cohort as it felt like we were in the process of studying for
comps together. We could have easily all went our separate ways
to study on our own, but many of us came together, and even those
who could not physically be there, regularly touched base with
the group. When we all successfully passed through comps, we
celebrated together, all nine of us, for what would be the final
time together. While we all knew that our days together were
numbered, no one wanted to say it. We wanted to enjoy one last
moment together, captured for all time in the only picture of all
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY23
cohort members that we took during our doctoral experience;
sometimes a picture says a thousand words.
After the comprehensive exams and during the dissertation
phase, we organized cohort breakfasts for those still in town,
communicated via Facebook and through e-mail. While some cohort
members kept in touch more frequently than others, everyone
touched base on occasion, and knew that the support was there if
they needed it. While some of us have finished and others are
preparing to finish up, we will all finish our journey through
doctoral education in part because of the strength and support
that we have provided one another. The friendships and
relationships forged during our time as a cohort transcends
geography, boundaries, and time. We are and always will be the
2008 cohort of one doctoral program, who came into it with our
own unique reasons, challenges, and purposes, and leave as
sisters and brothers forever united and bonded together.
Implications and Lessons Learned
Although narratives are not generalizable in the same way
that findings in more post-positivist studies are, narrative
inquiries are built from a tradition of learning through the
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY24
experience of others. In this discussion of the findings of our
cohort experience, we will also interweave potential lessons that
others may find useful to them. As with any narrative inquiry,
what the reader takes away from the story is entirely up to them;
however, it is our hope that those reading our story will pause
to think more deeply about the importance and impact of cohort on
the experiences of students in social work doctoral programs.
One of the major lessons learned from our cohort experience
is that we all experienced doubts about whether our decision to
enter a doctoral program was the correct one. While the doubts
may have been more frequent during our first semester, they arose
for all of us at various times during the program, especially
right before comprehensive exams and throughout the dissertation
phase. The cohort’s ability to come together and support one
another was essential to overcoming doubts. The cohort’s ability
to support one another inside and outside the classroom was
imperative to building the necessary trust needed to work
together in the program instead of on our own. Furthermore, the
supportive environment constructed by our cohort helped to create
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY25
a space where learning easily emerged. Some of us felted
empowered by the learning community we established which helped
facilitate opportunities for individual intellectual growth.
Another major shared experience of our cohort was in how to
deal with difference among cohort members. Difference was
expressed in our cohort through differences in social identities,
religious views, political ideology, and cultures as well as by
differing ontological views, perspectives on human nature, and
preference in research methods. Although some differences were
more quickly apparent than some, the cohort respected and
accepted difference. During the course of our time together,
starting from early on in the doctoral program, we established
rapport with one another beyond the classroom. Our regular cohort
gatherings, study sessions, and celebrations helped us get to
know each other as people, which helped us challenge previously
held stereotypes, assumptions, and viewpoints that otherwise may
have created divisions among us in the program. As time went on
in the program, many of us changed our thinking due to
interactions, relationships, and respect for the differing
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY26
perspectives of cohort members. We benefited and learned as much
from one another as we did from the program and classes.
Lastly, our cohort dealt with many individual and collective
challenges through the doctoral program, which is not uncommon
for many cohorts; however, when we experienced adversity or if
one of us was struggling, we came together to support them. While
this simple aspect of cohort may seem unworthy of analysis or as
something implicit in the meaning of cohort to begin with, many
cohorts go through doctoral programs segregated into different
groups or as individuals, only a cohort in namesake. Our cohort
has published together, presented together, guest lectured for
one another, and provided social and professional support for one
another. We engage in these actions, not because we are merely
colleagues, but also friends, who have shared a unique journey
together that few people, can ever fully understand unless they
lived it. It is through our cohort experience that we built
community; community that we can rely on not only in our doctoral
program, but also in the future.
Recommendations
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY27
Although it is difficult to provide recommendations to
others from narrative inquiry, since every cohort and individuals
experience is different, it is possible to leave others with some
thoughts on what worked for us in building a cohort community.
Firstly, our cohort took time from the beginning to get to know
one another as people, not just as scholars or researchers.
Getting to know one another as people, as is consistent with
social work ideals, was essential for building trust and rapport
as a group. Secondly, we tackled classes, comprehensive exams,
and even to a lesser degree dissertation work together as a
cohort. When we had tough classes in statistics, we formed study
groups that were well attended. During the summer before
comprehensive exams, we held regular study sessions and posted
notes and materials online for other cohort members who could not
attend sessions. Finally, during the dissertation phase, cohort
members would meet for breakfasts, talk on the phone, and provide
social support via social media. Although it is not easy to
juggle schedules or to deal with the competitive culture present
in many programs, by working together from day one, it became a
habit to approach each hurdle of the doctoral program as a group
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY28
and not solely as individuals. Cohorts of social work doctoral
programs should remember that you do not need nor should you rely
solely on the program to build community among your cohort, but
should take it into your own hands to forge relationships and
establish the foundation for a cohort community.
Lastly, as a cohort we had many disagreements, debates, and
opposing dialogues in the classroom, but we handled them with
respect and professionalism. We all at different points in time
probably got on each other’s nerves, which is bound to happen
when you spend just about every day with each other over a two
year period; however, we never held grudges or allowed our
differences to divide us as a group. Different members of our
cohort may have built closer relationships with some members than
others, but all of us were always included in gatherings, study
sessions, etc. It was also our disagreements in the classroom
over science, philosophy, social problems, and research that were
the source of our individual growth as scholars. One could say
that our individual empowerment was directly linked to our
collective empowerment as a group. This may be important for new
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY29
cohorts to remember when they have heated debates or
disagreements inside or outside of the classroom. While it is
naïve to believe that a group of adults will always agree with
one another, it is not impossible to respect one another and to
embrace the differences in opinion as an opportunity for personal
and professional growth.
Conclusion
While this narrative inquiry can only speak to the
experiences of members of one cohort, we believe that our
experience is unique. While many doctoral students in social work
programs compete with one another and find themselves isolated,
we found a way to build and forge a cohort community. The
benefits of the cohort community were experienced at varying
levels among all of us who came together to write this article.
Our hope is that other doctoral students will read about our
cohort experience and understand the power and benefit inherent
in working together and supporting one another. For faculty and
administrators of social work doctoral programs, we hope that you
will invest more time in understanding, discussing, and promoting
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY30
the idea of building a cohort community. It is our belief that
because of the strength of our cohort experience several of us
were able to finish our journey to a PhD and others will
eventually reach that goal, and for all of us, the power behind
our cohort experience definitely enriched us as scholars,
researchers, social workers, and individuals.
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY31
Works Cited
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching for
diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge.
Anastas, J. W. (2012). Doctoral education in social work. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and
action. In W. M. Kurtines, & J. L. J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.),
Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 45-103).
Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental
model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. Paige (Ed.),
Education for the intercultural experience (2nd ed., pp. 21-71).
Yarmouth, MA: Intercultural Press.
Bentley, K. (2013). Toward an evaluation framework for doctoral
education in social work: A 10-year retrospective of one PhD
program's assessment experiences. Journal of Social Work Education,
49(1), 30-47. doi:10.1080/10437797.2013.755089
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY32
Berman, S. (1997). Children's consciousness and the development of social
responsibility. New York: New York Press.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Council on Social Work Education. (2012). 2008 Education and policy
accredidation standards. Retrieved September 12, 2012, from
http://www.cswe.org/Accreditation/2008EPASDescription.aspx
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science: A Multicultural
Approach. Malden: Blackwell.
Ford, L., & Vaughn, C. (2011). Working together more than alone:
Students' evolving perceptions of self and community within
a four-year educational administration doctoral cohort. The
Qualitative Report, 16(6), 1645-1668.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. NewYork: Continuum
International.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Courage.
Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY33
Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. New York: Continuum.
Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education. (2012, April
14). GADE Constitution. Retrieved from
http://gadephd.org/AboutUs/GADEConstitution.aspx
Guba, E. G. (1990). The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Gutierrez, L. M. (1990). Working with women of color: An
empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35(2), 149-154.
Hegel, G., & Miller, A. V. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford
University Press: London.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper Row
Publishers.
Holloway, E. L., & Alexandre, L. (2012). Crossing boundaries in
doctoral education: Relational learning, cohort communities,
and dissertation committees. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 131, 85-99. doi:10.1002/tl.20029
Holmes, B. D., Birds, K., Seay, A. D., Smith, D. B., & Wilson, K.
N. (2010). Cohort learning for graduate students at the
dissertation stage. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 5-
12.
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY34
Husserl, E., & Welton, D. (1999). The essential Husserl: Basic writings in
phenomenology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kagitcibasi, C., Goksen, F., & Golgoz, S. (2005). Functional
adult literacy and empowerment of women: Impact of a
functional literacy program in Turkey. Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy, 48(6), 472-489.
Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental
perspective. In J. Rappaport, & R. Hess (Eds.), Studies in
empowerment: Steps toward understanding and action (pp. 9-36). New
York: Hawthorne Press.
Kirk, S. A., & Reid, W. J. (2002). Science and social work. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Lange, E. A. (2004). Transformative and restorative learning: A
vital dialectic for sustainable societies. Adult Education
Quarterly, 54(2), 121-139. doi:10.1177/0741713603260276
Lange, N. d., Pillay, G., & Chikoko, V. (2011). Doctoral
learning: a case of a cohort model of supervision and
support. South African Journal of Education, 31(1), 15-30.
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY35
Leanard, P. J. (1996). Consciousness raising groups as a
multicultural awareness approach: An experience with
counselor trainees. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 2(2), 89-98.
Leichty, J., Schull, C. P., & Liao, M. (2009). Facilitating
dissertation completion and success among doctoral students
in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(3), 481-499.
Manen, M. V. (1990). Researching lived experience. London, Ontario,
Canada: University of Western Ontario.
Mayadas, N. S., Smith, R. I., & Elliott, D. (2001). Social
groupwork in doctoral programs. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,
21(1/2), 175-197.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pemberton, C. L., & Akkary, R. K. (2010). A cohort is a
cohort...or is it? Journal on Research on Leadership Education, 5(5),
179-199.
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgement of the child. New York: Free
Press.
Piaget, J. (1971). Psychology and epistemology—Towards a theory of
knowledge. Kingsport, TN: Kingsport Press.
DISCOVERING THE POWER IN OUR COHORT STORY36
Powers, J., & Swick, D. C. (2013). Straight talk from recent
grads: Tips for successfully surviving your doctoral
program. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 48(2), 389-396.
doi:10.5175/JSWE.2012.201000073
Pryce, J. M., Werner-Lin, A. V., Browne, T. A., & Smithgall, C.
(2011). Teaching future teachers: A model workshop for
doctoral education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31(1), 457–
469. doi:10.1080/08841233.2011.601941
Riessman, C. K. (2002). Narrative analysis. In A. M. Huberman, &
M. B. Miles, The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 217-270).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosen, A., & Stretch, J. (1982). Doctoral education in social work: Issues,
perspectives, and evaluation. Columbus, OH: Group for the
Advancement of Doctoral Education.
Sussman, T., Stoddart, K., & Gorman, E. (2004). Reconciling the
congruent and contrasting roles of social work teacher,
student, and practitioner. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,
24(1/2), 161-183. doi:10.1300/J067v24n01_10
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society—The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.