Description
InstructionsReview the rubric to make sure you understand the criteria for earning your grade.Read Chapter 6 of Arbnor and Bjerke (2009): Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge.Study Hanson, Loose, and Reveles’ (2020) article A Qualitative Case Study of All-But Dissertation Students at Risk for Dissertation Noncompletion(new tab).Write a short paper, 500-700 words in length, analyzing Hanson et al.’s (2020) article. In your essay, respond to the following questions:What is the problem, as described by the authors? Do you detect any bias or presupposition of solutions in the researchers’ description of the problem?What is the driving research question posed by the authors? Does it align well with the problem? How so?What gaps did the authors identify in their literature review that needed to be explored with further research?What methodology did the researchers choose to address these gaps? Does this methodological approach align with the research gaps? How so?Do the recommendations align with the research findings? How so? Your paper should be properly formatted per APA guidelines. Robustly support your points with appropriate sources. Cite these sources and provide a correctly formatted reference list.Do not feel limited by the reading assignments above in your analysis. Feel free to branch out to find additional sources that may aid with your analysis or support your inferences. In other words, don’t hesitate to conduct a little research!
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Article
A Qualitative Case
Study of All-butDissertation Students
at Risk for Dissertation
Noncompletion: A New
Model for Supporting
Candidates to
Doctoral Completion
Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice
2022, Vol. 24(1) 234–262
! The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1521025120910714
journals.sagepub.com/home/csr
Janet Hanson , William Loose, and
Ursula Reveles
Abstract
This study identified emergent themes from the interview data of at-risk-forcompletion doctoral candidates (N ¼ 13; 59%), from a diverse demographic,
who participated in a successful dissertation completion intervention program.
The findings revealed four major themes including extrinsic factors, socioemotional,
formal structures of the program, and personal development. The findings highlight
the need for conscious processes used by vital leaders to develop program design in
four key areas of leadership within a framework of open vital systems. Vital leadership acts as proxy agents to influence development of formal structures in the university leading to equity in educational opportunity for all students. Conclusions and
parsimonious explicit implications are provided for doctoral program redesign
focused on improving graduate student retention and completion rates for diverse
student populations.
Department of Educational Leadership, Azusa Pacific University, Azuna, CA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Janet Hanson, Azusa Pacific University, PO Box 7000, Rm 137, Azusa, CA 91702-7000, United States.
Email: [email protected]
Hanson et al.
235
Keywords
dissertation completion, graduate school retention, leadership within open vital
systems, task and socioemotional integration, self-authorship, personal agency,
qualitative case study, All but Dissertation, diversity
This qualitative descriptive case study proposes that much can be learned from
interviews of at-risk-for-completion doctoral students who successfully completed an intervention program designed to promote dissertation completion.
Student completion rates across the nation in university doctoral programs
range as low as 40% (Wao et al., 2011; Xu, 2014, p. 392; Zhou & Okahana,
2016). A variety of factors have been suggested in the literature for
low completion rates in graduate programs including design of the doctoral
programs, influences of program phases on student integration (Tinto, 1988),
demographics of the doctoral student population (Ali & Kohun, 2006), behavior
of faculty members/advisors, and institutional attitudes toward student retention (Simpson, 2013). Program administrators seek parsimonious frameworks as
guides to implement supports for graduate students to completion. In addition,
Pruitt-Logan (2003) recommended performing future research to determine the
influencing of minority status on time to degree (TTD).
Purpose and Significance
The purpose of this study was to develop a deep understanding of the features of
a successful Dissertation Completion Grant Program (DCGP) intervention at
the researchers’ university. The qualifying students included in the DCGP had
standing designations as all but dissertation (ABD) for a period between five
and seven years since completing their coursework. The Dean of the School of
Education sited the university’s responsibility to noncompleters. The university
provost approved the use of $150,000 of School of Education funds for a grant
to assist 22 identified doctoral candidates. Students, who persisted and completed the requirements, received a tuition scholarship for up to the three semesters
of the program.
The researchers sought to provide a rich thick description of the site, program
design, context, participants, and doctoral candidates’ perceptions of the influences supporting candidates’ progress toward completion. Confidential student
exit interviews, collected during a program review, provided data for this
current study’s analysis. Codes and themes provided constructs from which
the researchers developed conclusions and assessed the overall success of the
program. The case university Educational Leadership Doctoral Department
236
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 24(1)
program leadership used the results to inform decisions related to the curriculum
for future coursework and guidance for a doctoral program redesign. This study
is significant because the data collected explores at-risk-for-completion student
perceptions that identify values, elements of school cultures guiding doctoral
programs, and factors that influence both positively and negatively toward graduate school completion rates.
Overarching Question
The overarching question of this study was “How do the at-risk-for-completion
dissertation candidates perceive and experience influences on their progress
before and after participating in the DCGP for three semesters during the
2015/2016 school year?” The following section of this article provides a
review of relevant literature on the topic of graduate student completion.
Subsequent will be a description of the methods, results, analyses, conclusions,
implications, and recommendations.
Literature Review
The lead author performed a purposeful selection and review of 41 articles
representing a broad range of study designs until saturation of the topic was
evident across a range of theories, such as extended TTD, factors contributing
to dropout, doctoral noncompletion, and factors contributing to graduate student retention. The literature called for external mandates to promote systematic improvement in graduate programs because of the implications they have
on the national welfare including “economic and social progress, cultural and
intellectual life, and political and moral leadership” (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992,
p. 15). Leaders’ conscious choice to develop equitable processes in doctoral
program design becomes an ethical mandate. Diverse subgroups of students
may need additional supports to ensure successful completion. For example,
racial minority and female students were less likely to complete their graduate
programs than their male counterparts were (Xu, 2014). One factor influencing
women noncompletion included fewer discussions with advisors than male students had. Minority students were reported as spending less time with their
professors than majority students (Lovitts, 1996). Underrepresented minority
students, from low socioeconomic backgrounds, older students, students from
small rural communities, and those who lived off campus, showed greater difficulty integrating into the formal and informal structures (Tinto, 1982). The
literature on the topic of graduate student retention, completion, and TTD is
vast and varied. This study provides a parsimonious model useful to organize
the concepts and theories identified into a comprehensible framework.
Theoretical frameworks help to provide clarity to complex topics and are
useful to develop interpretations, inferences from the data, and future
Hanson et al.
237
interventions. Following is a discussion of the leadership within open vital
systems (LOVS) model (Hanson, 2017) used as the theoretical lens in this study.
LOVS Model
The LOVS model (Hanson, 2017) provides a framework to understand the
relationship and application of the many and varied factors found in the literature on the topic of graduate retention and TTD and for suggesting interventions for successful candidate degree completion. The LOVS model organizes
the variety of factors for equity in educational outcomes into four categories:
vital leadership, informal open systems, formal flexible structures, and individual integration leading to personal development, autonomy, and selfauthorship. Hanson (2017) developed the LOVS model over several years consolidating research on leaders’ influence within their systems leading to healthy
structures. Healthy structures were shown to promote positive communication,
knowledge transfer, and well-being for the individual and the group. When a
leader acts as proxy agent for all individuals in the group, he or she designs
formal systems that ensure positive social norms promoting trust, individual
agency, and personal growth.
Vital Leadership Promoting Open Social Networks
The context of the university, and of the graduate school/departments, is a
central contributor to candidate attrition or retention. Individuals in positons
of leadership, both administrators and faculty, can act as proxy agents for all
students and can use their influence to design systems and processes that recognize diverse learners’ goals and cultural capital (Hanson, 2017; Simpson &
Johnston, 2006). Following is a discussion of elements of the LOVS model that
vital leaders can promote to increase candidates’ likelihood of completing their
degrees. First, the features of Vital Leadership are presented including ways a
vital leader acts as a proxy agent for all students. Subsequently, discussions,
under the headings of Informal Structures and Formal Structures, provide elements that work through the systems to promote students’ integration, understanding of the expectations, and successful personal development to selfauthorship and completion. Finally, the section titled Integration provides a
discussion of elements supporting student completion from the perspective of
the student. Although each section includes unique elements contributing to
student success, all features of the model work together and overlap. The features have the common goal of developing the candidate’s well-being as an
autonomous individual, who is self-motivated and capable of self-authorship
to dissertation project and degree completion. Overlap of the features compares
favorably with Campbell and Tierney’s (2015) description of a “distribution of
238
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 24(1)
structures [that] refers to a model of contexts that work together to integrate
doctoral students into the graduate school experience” (p. 1).
Vital Leadership. The LOVS model (Hanson, 2017) describes the proxy influence
of a vital leader to embed healthy social norms into the informal and formal
systems of the organization. Acting in proxy means to use the power inherent in
one’s leadership position/role to leverage changes in the system that provide
resources needed for candidate success. Student satisfaction develops from
vital leaders, including university, school, and department level administrators,
dissertation chairs, committee members, and mentors, who understand students’
unique and common needs. A proxy agent clearly and explicitly communicates
the rules, regulations, structures, and processes of the department, school, and
doctoral program. The quality of the communication, perceived sense of fairness, caring of the leaders, and the level of consistency and guidance provided to
students directly influences students’ completion rates (Bair & Haworth, 1999).
Another resource proxies provide is supporting students’ participation in the
social and intellectual life of the program and university, which Tinto (1988)
explained is the same as effective retention.
Influence of the Social Context. The relationship between dissertation completion
and cognitive, psychosocial, and socioemotional factors provides a framework
of social context versus social constructs (Brickman et al., 1982; Lovitts, 1996).
Baker and Lattuca (2010) emphasized the important influence of relationships
on the learning process, suggesting the social processes of an institution and
program can “either facilitate or hamper learning and identity development in
graduate studies” (p. 220). Increased integration into the cultural and social
elements of a program results in increased understanding of the tasks required.
Task integration. Tinto (1975) explained task integration (TI) means a candidate understands the formal and informal expectations of the doctoral program. As the level of formal interactions between peers and faculty increase, the
student’s ability to perform the complex tasks required for the degree completion improves. Graduate students showed greater social adjustment when they
had both TI and socioemotional integration (SI).
Socioemotional factors include the level of connection, participation, and
identification the candidate feels with those at the university (Fox, 2007;
Novak, 1990; Sillitoe & Webb, 2007). SI is the result of casual interactions
outside the formal school setting. SI results from the need for identification
with others with common interests. TI and SI have an interaction effect. A
mutual relationship exists between one’s cognitive map of program expectation
and a student’s successful integration into the program (Lovitts, 1996).
Candidates with both TI and SI were shown in the research to persist to
degree completion unless they were required to leave due to external factors,
such as financial need, ill-health, or family matters (Ali & Kohun, 2006).
Hanson et al.
239
In contrast, graduate students with low levels of TI and SI had a higher likelihood of negative affect, feelings of detachment and isolation, and an increased
probability of leaving the program early (Simpson, 2013).
Consequences of Student Failure to Integrate. Isolation was a principal factor in the
high probability of college student dropout (Ali & Kohun, 2007). Time together
reduces a sense of isolation as well as the actual distance from others. Time
together can be face-to-face, communicating through email or phone, and especially in online programs, includes synchronous video meetings, online chat
rooms, messaging services, and learning management systems that support
high levels of participant interaction. The formal system should require students
spend time together in structured settings. Formal requirements take away the
embarrassment of intervention-type gatherings for students at risk (social outliers) because students know all are required to attend. Doctoral candidates’
time in the school context is necessary for the process of building social constructs, relationship development, and bonding that promotes the transfer of
information and builds student cognitive maps of the expectations of the program. To be successful, doctoral students need a clear understanding of their
role and the university’s role in completing each task of the dissertation process
(Kluever & Green, 1998). When students understand the expectations, they are
more empowered to perform them.
Transactional distance (TD) theory can be used to understand influences on
student dropout by considering the inherent distance between students and
institutional representatives. Moore (1997) first used the term to describe distance education. As a pedagogical concept, TD refers to “ . . . the universe of
teacher-learner relationships that exist when learners and instructors are separated by space and/or time” (para. 1). Student self-direction is profoundly
affected by “psychological and communications space” (para. 2), that is, separation because it affects the teaching and learning process. TD occurs in face-toface as well as online programs and varies in its degree by teacher and student.
In an effort to minimize negative effects from separation (time/space) between
teacher and student, vital leaders can act as proxy agents creating department
processes leading to opportunities for student participation. Simpson (2013)
described this as “institutionalized proactive motivational support” that
increased communication (p. 112). For example, Ruud et al. (2016) wrote the
most prevalent reason for a candidate staying in the program was a supportive
advisor. Specifically, Litalien and Guay (2015) reported completers received
greater support for their psychological needs from their advisor than noncompleters did. They proposed the support worked through increasing students’ perceived sense of competence. Faculty can reduce the TD by being proactive in
meeting with students and providing explicit information of timelines and
requirements. Evidence of the effect of reduced TD comes from the higher
rates of attrition for students in the humanities and non-laboratory-based
240
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 24(1)
social sciences than for sciences and laboratory-based social sciences where
students work closely, sometimes daily, with their advisors and cohort members
(Lovitts, 1996). Effective programs develop formal processes that support and
communicate student understanding of the expectations of the doctoral degree
and dissertation process, thereby increasing student-perceived competence and
reduced dropout intentions (Litalien & Guay, 2015). This occurs through vital
leadership influencing the design of the informal and formal systems leading to
student development, autonomy, well-being, and ultimately the skills of selfauthorship to complete their dissertation. Next, a discussion of the explicit processes useful in the formal and informal structures of the system is provided.
Formal Structures
Programs that embed flexible systems, processes, and hierarchy more easily
respond to the unique characteristics, backgrounds, and interests of students
and work to align student goals with the goals of the program, a key feature of
formal systems that support student retention and completion. Following is a
discussion of concepts on the topic of dissertation completion, graduate
student retention, and TTD situated in the model of LOVS formal structures
(Hanson, 2017).
Aligning Student Goals With System Goals. During the process of a doctoral journey,
students enter the university, perform coursework, demonstrate progress
through assessments, and ultimately self-author a dissertation. Each change of
circumstance is a transition. Schlossberg (1981) described a transition as an
event or nonevent that “results in a change in assumptions about oneself and
the world and thus requires a corresponding change in one’s behavior and
relationships” (p. 5). The individual’s adaptation and development through a
transition depends upon balancing the individual’s pre and posttransition environments (e.g., perceptions, supports, and individual characteristics). The transition theory model highlights the importance of aligning the individual’s goals
and values with the program’s goals. Therefore, candidates can be encouraged
to select topics of value to them. Candidates would also select dissertation committee members whose research expertise align with that topic rather than selecting a topic simply because it supports a dissertation chair’s research agenda
(Kelley & Salisbury-Glennon, 2015). Thus, aligning the goals of the individual
with the institution, department, and advisor promotes identification, integration, and acceptance of the expectations of the institution, ultimately leading to
successful transitions. Schlossberg (1981) attempted to develop a framework “in
which transitions . . . can be analyzed and possible interventions formulated” (p.
5). For example, during the process of selecting a graduate school and program,
the student seeks some alignment. However, many variables of a university,
department, and faculty remain unknown to students until they engage the
Hanson et al.
241
program. Early identification of students at risk for completion is a critical
component of the LOVS model. In the current atmosphere of data science,
student demographic information, data from exit interviews of prior candidates,
and other relevant data records can be used to predict success rates of incoming
cohorts and identify target areas for early intervention. Vital leaders can provide
proactive supports to increase student retention, skills, and sense of control
leading to self-authorship. Vital leaders seek to align students’ unique qualities
with the program goals. Proactive identification of student needs is an example
of the university taking responsibility for aspects of student success that lie
within the domain of the university and programs. This is discussed further in
the next section.
Responsibility for Problems and Solutions. The literature reports significant differences between the university personnel and students’ attributions of responsibility
for student completion of the doctoral dissertation (Kluever & Green, 1998).
For example, Wao et al. (2011) reported students expected faculty to prepare
them with the academic foundation to conduct independent research, while
faculty reported they expected students to be responsible to develop these
skills themselves or to come prepared from prior institutional education. Vital
leaders, according to the LOVS model, take responsibility for problems and
solutions that fall within the university and department domains and use
proxy agency to develop formal systems that provide explicit training to
students that develops their understandings of roles and responsibilities in
completing their degree.
Brickman et al. (1982) proposed four worldview orientations based upon the
responsibility attributed for causing and solving one’s problems. Organizations,
such as universities, can also hold these orientations. Brickman et al. suggested
that one’s orientation toward taking responsibility for solving an identified problem was more effective and helpful than assigning blame for the problem, which
had little influence on the outcome and was associated with a sense of helplessness. The four orientations include moral, compensatory, medical, and enlightenment. The moral model suggests individuals hold responsibility for both creating
and solving their problems. Under the compensatory orientation, though individuals feel they do not hold responsibility for their problems, the individual does feel
he or she holds the power to solve the problems he faces. An interesting model,
the medical model, holds that the individual is neither responsible for causing his
or her problems nor for solving them. Brickman et al. (1982) suggested the medical model orientation is “strikingly . . . embodied” in the medical profession (p.
372). The final model, the enlightenment model, holds that people are to blame
for their problems, though not responsible for solving them.
Brickman et al. (1982) hypothesized that the compensatory and moral orientations promote individual competence more than the medical and enlightenment models, where one does not hold responsibility for solutions. Brickman
242
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 24(1)
et al. further suggested the enlightenment model could be applied to understand
students who failed to complete their dissertations and is useful to suggest
interventions. For example, though students stated they were responsible for
their problem of progressing on their degree, they felt they lacked the ability to
solve the problem themselves. Necessary interventions suggested to resolve the
ABD status included developing processes that increased advisor, financial, and
family supports. Following are recommendations for designing formal structures that support student retention and completion of degree.
Structure Recommendations for Doctoral Program Formal Systems
Meeting together in formal and informal settings. Universities can provide a regular series of department gatherings throughout the program to connect and
build relationships and bonding with students. For example, Campbell and
Tierney (2015) suggested holding seminars where faculty share their research
and departmental gatherings, such as “brown bag lunches, colloquia, and happy
hours” (p. 2). Early orientations are critical for developing the intervention
process. Mandatory student orientations throughout the year, and mentorship
programs with peer students, will encourage matches between students and
advisors who can provide emotional and social supports.
Faculty development is a key intervention and formal system tool. Programs
can provide faculty members with training in ways they can collaborate with
students. Teach the LOVS model elements of vital leadership, which highlights
the leaders’ roles in going beyond the formal rules and regulations of the job to
promote relationship building and proxy agency to support student well-being
(Hanson, 2017). Faculty and advisors can receive training in how to identify and
support students’ psychological needs, as well as academic needs, in ways that
stay within the boundaries of reasonable expectations and propriety. For example, students of minority status such as students of non-male gender, students of
color, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and international students were shown to be at a disadvantage and to need “additional supports
and closer follow-up” (Litalien & Guay, 2015, p. 229). Support faculty in developing overviews of courses they will teach in the first cohort year and provide to
students in advance. Develop faculty skills in supporting students to purposefully and actively search for a dissertation topic and chair that match their goals
and unique capacities and background (Campbell & Tierney, 2015).
Accountability for administrator behaviors that promote student development include ensuring dissertation chairs and mentors hold regular meetings
with their students to develop clear expectations, advise students on setting a
work schedule and timetable for completion of drafts. Faculty can keep a log
and journal of key strategies and activities used to support student success
and share these at regular meetings. Students must be assured there is no penalty
for changing dissertation advisors/chairs if they find they are not progressing
Hanson et al.
243
and not receiving timely feedback or if there is any misalignment in the
research topics.
Mentorship programs create complementary relationships between entering
students and advanced graduate students. These programs can also provide
faculty advisor/mentors to help students with questions and processes until
candidates have identified and secured a dissertation chair. Require students
to complete a preacceptance campus tour and visit with faculty and current
cohorts. Provide office space for candidates who travel large distances to
campus in face-to-face programs, financial aid for students with limited resources, regular mentor meetings on a timely basis, with student accountability for
developing a plan of action, timelines and keeping them, and peer-to-peer collaborations where students learn from successful senior cohorts (Lovitts, 2001 in
Campbell & Tierney, 2015).
Exit interviews of completers and noncompleters provide key information to
the program for improvement. Vital leaders are responsive to student input.
University processes for continuous improvement should ensure the student
voice is included in assessing doctoral program effectiveness. Include quantitative items on a survey as well as interviews with open-ended questions that seek
qualitative information on program quality of the structures as well as faculty
advisers (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Campbell & Tierney, 2015). Data from
exit interviews should be included in the university database to support early
identification of at-risk candidates and key interventions.
For online programs, formal structures may differ somewhat though the goal
remains the same—to reduce TD and promote student engagement, retention,
development, and success. Key areas for consideration in online environments
include the formal elements of the instructional design, styles of communication
used, and the instructor’s skills in promoting immediacy, or timely engagement
of the students (Fahara & Castro, 2015). Hanshaw and Hanson (2019) concurred and provided an explicit online scenario-based learning approach including elements of microlearning. The scenario-based learning approach included
five steps for using online strategies that promoted learners engagement and
learning outcomes. First, preplanning to develop, and explicitly communicate,
clear objectives. This aligns with face-to-face strategies that promote TI. Second,
delivering instructional content embedded in the culture where the learner works
and lives, using short learning scenarios and links to open educational resources.
Third, providing challenging assessment tasks at three levels: creative opportunities for the individual as well as collaborative online synchronous and asynchronous group discussions. Fourth, sharing artifacts using modalities that
record student video responses to relevant topic prompts and allowing feedback
from other students. This process facilitates students hearing contrary perspectives, seeing examples of real-time solutions to day-to-day situations, and opportunities for students to co-construct meaning. Fifth, writing a self-reflection to
develop metacognitive skills and self-regulation. The online learning context can
244
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 24(1)
provide structures to accomplish student reflection of the online learning experience as well as promote student goal development for future personal improvement (p. 154).
Integration
Personal growth and well-being leading to self-authorship is the result of successful integration into a system. The elements of the LOVS model can be
integrated into the formal and informal systems of the University for supporting
doctoral students to successful completion of their degree. This section discusses
key elements found in the literature that promote student development during
the doctoral program from the perspective of the individual as opposed to the
system perspective.
Self-Authorship. A student’s personal growth occurs through individual agency.
Self-authorship is the “ability to author one’s thinking, feeling, and social
relating” to function successfully as an adult (Baxter-Magolda & King, 1951,
p. 503). However, research on college students revealed they often have been
socialized to extrinsic motivators and develop their beliefs, personal identity,
and ideas about healthy relationships from others, thus evidencing a lack of
cognitive and reflective judgment that is necessary for self-authorship. Similarly,
using a lens of self-determination theory, Litalien et al. (2015) recommended
doctoral program designs that increased student autonomy, reduced extrinsic
control elements, and developed student well-being and choice to engage
learning.
Sense of Control (Autonomy). The processes and procedures of universities and
their graduate departments have an effect on students’ sense of control.
A reduced sense of control reduces students’ motivation. “The higher the
degree of integration of the individual into the college systems, the greater
will be his commitment to the specific institution and to the goal of college
completion” (Tinto, 1975, p. 96). Shaver (1985 in Kluever & Green, 1998)
explained individuals give reasons for the outcomes of their behavior, such as
for success or failure. One’s social environment can be seen as a system of “cause
and effect” and can be used as a lens to explain doctoral students’ needs for a
balanced program (p. 521). Students need perceptions of personal agency over
the dominant external obstacle of task difficulty, for them to persist. This particular situation requires proxy agency on the part of vital leaders to ensure the
university and departments provide sufficient access to resources and transfer of
knowledge for students to maintain perceptions of competency and motivation
to move forward.
Hanson et al.
245
Self-determination theory. Deci and Ryan (1985, 2012) proposed a theory of
motivation called self-determination theory that purports a variety of motivations direct individual behavior. Intrinsic motivation comes from enjoyment of
an activity “for its own sake.” Individuals experience extrinsic motivators as a
“means to an end,” not from the activity itself (Litalien et al., 2015, p. 2).
Extrinsic motivation was further divided into four types ranging from low to
high including external, introjected, identified, and integrated. Integrated regulation demonstrates the highest form of autonomous behavior by an individual.
External regulation is the least autonomous. The motivators/regulators were
then further categorized into two broad groups, autonomous (intrinsic, integrated, and identified) and controlled (external and introjected). The literature
reported research studies associated the autonomous category of motivators
with positive outcomes such as persistence, high performance, and individual
perceptions of wellbeing. Doctoral programs designed to enhance the three
autonomous types of motivation and ind
