The Power of Cohort in Doctoral Education

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).


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.


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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).


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., & Bueschel, A. C. (2008).

The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first

centure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The Power of Cohort in Doctoral Education

Documents

Transcript of The Power of Cohort in Doctoral Education