As part of a sequential exploratory mixed methods study, 9 months of ethnographically guided observations and interviews were used to develop a survey examining graduate engineering student retention. Findings from the ethnographic fieldwork yielded several themes, including international diversity, research group organization and climate, perception of value, and individual and group learning. In this article, the authors present the final themes from the ethnographic analysis and discuss how these data were configured into constructs and survey questions. The authors discuss the final survey, including validity and reliability analysis, and how constructs were developed to test hypotheses for future studies. The article concludes with implications for mixed methods researchers interested in using qualitative methods to create new surveys.
AbediJ.BenkinE. (1987). The effects of students’ academic, financial, and demographic variables on time to the doctorate. Research in Higher Education, 27(1), 3-14.
2.
AltbachP. G.BerdahlR. O.GumportP. J. (1999). American higher education in the twenty-first century : social, political, and economic challenges. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
3.
AllenK.Reed-RhoadsT.TerryR. A.MurphyT. J.StoneA. D. (2008). Coefficient alpha: An engineer’s interpretation of test reliability. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 87-94.
4.
AndersonM. S.LouisK. S.JasonE. (1994). Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 331-350.
5.
AndersonM. S.SwazeyJ. P. (1998). Reflections on the Graduate Student Experience: An Overview. New Directions for Higher Education, 1998(101), 3-13.
6.
BairdL. L. (1993). Using research and theoretical models of graduate student progress. In BairdL. L. (Ed.), Increasing graduate student retention and degree attainment (pp. 3-12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7.
BessJ. L. (1978). Anticipatory socialization of graduate students. Research in Higher Education, 8, 289-317.
8.
BolgerN.DavisA.RafaeliE. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579-616.
9.
BoundJ.TurnerS.WalshP. (2009, March). Internationalization of U.S. doctorate education (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 14792). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
10.
CarnoyM. (1998). The globalization of innovation, nationalist competition, and the internationalization of scientific training. Competition & Change, 3(1/2), 237.
11.
CastroF. G.KellisonJ. G.BoydS. J.KopakA. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342-360.
12.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory, a practical guide to qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline demographic data from the Ph.D. completion project. Washington, DC: Author.
15.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2009). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Findings from exit surveys of Ph.D. completers. Washington, DC: Author.
16.
CredeE.BorregoM. (2010a, June). The effect of international diversity on graduate engineering education: A literature review. Paper presented at the 2010 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Louisville, KY.
17.
CredeE.BorregoM. (2010b, October). International diversity in graduate engineering education: Development of a multi institutional survey. Paper presented at the 2010 Frontiers in Education Conference, Arlington, VA.
18.
CredeE.BorregoM. (in press). Learning in graduate engineering research groups of various sizes. Journal of Engineering Education.
19.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods research in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
CummingJ. (2010). Doctoral enterprise: a holistic conception of evolving practices and arrangements. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 25-39.
23.
CunyJ.AsprayW. (2002). Recruitment and retention of women graduate students in computer science and engineering: Results of a workshop organized by the computing research association. SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 168-174.
24.
DeemR.BrehonyK. J. (2000). Doctoral Students’ Access to Research Cultures-are some more unequal than others?Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-165.
25.
DellingerA. B.LeechN. L. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 309-332.
26.
ElliottK. M.ShinD. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24, 197-209.
27.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
FriedmanT. L. (2007). The world is flat (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Picador.
30.
FullerT. D.EdwardsJ. N.VorakitphokatornS.SermsriS. (1993). Using focus groups to adapt survey instruments to new populations. In MorganD. L. (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 89-104). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
GardnerS. (2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education, 58, 97-112. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9184-7
32.
GirvesJ. E.WemmerusV. (1988). Developing models of graduate student degree progress. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 163-189.
33.
GoldeC. M. (1998). Beginning Graduate School: Explaining First-Year Doctoral Attrition. New Directions for Higher Education, 1998(101), 55-64.
34.
GoldeC. M. (2005). The Role of the Department and Discipline in Doctoral Student Attrition: Lessons from Four Departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669-700.
35.
GoldeC. M.WalkerG. E. (Eds.). (2006). Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education (First ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
GreggW. E. (1972). Several factors affecting graduate student satisfaction. Journal of Higher Education, 43, 483-498.
37.
GrevholmB.PerssonL.-E.WallP. (2005). A dynamic model for education of doctoral students and guidance of supervisors in research groups. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 173-197. doi:10.1007/s10649-005-4497-2
38.
HenninkM. M. (2008). Language and communication in cross-cultural qualitative research. In LiamputtongP. (Ed.), Doing cross-cultural research (Vol. 34, pp. 21-33). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
39.
HermanowiczJ. C. (2002). The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed. Qualitative Sociology, 25, 479-499.
40.
KuhG. D.WhittE. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry. Culture in American colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
41.
LeeA. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281.
42.
LeechN. L.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2010). Guidelines for conducting and reporting mixed research in counseling and beyond. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 61-70.
43.
LitzlerE.LangeS. E.BrainardS. G. (2005, April). Climate for graduate students in science and engineering departments. Paper presented at the 2005 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Dekalb, IL.
44.
LouisK. S.HoldsworthJ. M.AndersonM. S.CampbellE. G. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The effects of work-group size and organizational climate. Journal of Higher Education, 78, 311-336.
45.
LovittsB. (1996, April). Who is responsible for graduate student attrition—The individual or the institution? Toward an explanation of the high and persistent rate of attrition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
46.
LovittsB. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
47.
MalfroyJ. (2005). Doctoral supervision, workplace research and changing pedagogic practices. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(2), 165-178.
MertonR. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
50.
National Science Foundation. (2007). U.S. doctoral awards in science and engineering continue upward trend in 2006. Arlington, VA: Author.
51.
National Science Foundation. (2010). Doctorate recipients from US universities. Arlington, VA: Author.
52.
NettlesM. T.MillettC. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to PhD. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
53.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.BustamanteR. M.NelsonJ. A. (2010). Mixed research as a tool for developing quantitative instruments. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 56-78.
PearsonM.BrewA. (2002). Research Training and Supervision Development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 135-150.
56.
PruittF. J. (1978). The adaptation of African students to American society. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 90-118.
57.
RossmanG. B.RallisS. F. (2003). Learning in the field, an introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
SalomonG.PerkinsD. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1-24.
59.
SeidmanI. (2005). Interviewing for qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and social sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
60.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation. (2006, November). Measuring the moment: Innovation, national security, and economic competitiveness. Washington, DC: Author.
62.
TurnerM. M. (2006). The research team concept, II: (Still) An approach to graduate training. Communication Research Reports, 23, 225-230.
63.
Van MaanenJ.ScheinE. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In StawB.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209-264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
64.
WardC.KennedyA. (1993). Where’s the “culture” in cross-cultural transition?Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 221-249.
65.
WeidmanJ. C.SteinE. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in Higher Education, 44, 641-656.
66.
WeidmanJ. C.TwaleD. J.SteinE. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? (Vol. 28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
67.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
