PSI CHI: The International Honor Society in Psychology

• Home
• Members
• About
• Regions
• Merchandise
• Publications
• Awards/Grants
• Resources
• Conventions
• Search

2000-01 Hunt Grant Research Report

Predictors of Successful Supervision of Undergraduate Researchers by Faculty

Jeanne M. Slattery, PhD
Clarion University of Pennsylvania
Crystal L. Park, PhD
University of Connecticut

Although both students and faculty believe that undergraduate research is important for students' professional development and that it increases their success in acceptance into graduate programs, very little research has been conducted on the experiences of faculty supervision of undergraduate research. The present study was designed to describe the experiences of faculty and undergraduate students working together in the conduct of research. Furthermore, we examined the types of problems that faculty encounter in working with undergraduates and faculty responses to these problems. Of the 298 psychology faculty who responded to our national mail survey, 257 reported that they conducted research with undergraduate students. Faculty reported generally high satisfaction in supervising student research, and a variety of strategies to increase the success of research with students. Specific strategies, particularly training students, meeting with them regularly, choosing their student researchers carefully, and choosing only honors students were weakly correlated with fewer reported problems in the supervision of student research.

The strong emphasis on empirical research within psychology is typically transmitted to students through required courses in statistics and experimental methodology. Many students are also encouraged to get involved in ongoing research with faculty (Meyers, Reid, & Quina, 1998). Both students and faculty believe that undergraduate research is important for students' professional development and as a factor that increases their successful acceptance into both experimental and applied graduate programs (Carmody, 1998; Mayne, Norcross & Sayette, 1994; Norcross, Sayette, Mayne, Karg, & Turkson, 1998; Thomas, Rewey, & Davis, 2002).
     Whereas there have been anecdotal reports about factors that increase the perceived success of faculty-student research (Gibson, Kahn, & Mathie, 1996; Plante, 1998), there has not been systematic research on factors that increase its success. Furthermore, little research has examined the motivations of faculty and undergraduates in participating in this research, the tasks in which undergraduates engage, and the satisfaction of the undergraduates and the faculty. A recently published study by Thomas, Rewey, and Davis (2002) is a notable exception. The present study examined research tasks, problems experienced, and satisfaction with the experience in a U.S. national sample of psychology faculty.

Problems in Research With Undergraduates
     In spite of the importance of this research collaboration and the amount of attention and resources devoted to it, faculty members have reported frequent disruptions in their research with undergraduate students and moderate levels of dissatisfaction with the process (Slattery & Park, 2000). In that study, faculty reported a wide range of problems and tended to blame students for them. To limit problems, several faculty members reported severely limiting the kind of students with whom they would accept to conduct research. Based on their reported criteria, even many Psi Chi members would not be eligible to join these faculty-student research teams.
     This attribution of problems to the student rather than the faculty member is striking, given that such attributions take the opposite form at the graduate level. For example, studies by Biaggio, Paget, and Chenoweth (1997), Goodyear, Crego, and Johnston (1992), and Tabachnik, Keith-Spiegel, and Pope (1991) have focused entirely on the role of the faculty member. Goodyear and his colleagues (1992), for example, described eight types of problems in this setting (i.e., supervision that is incompetent, inadequate, interrupted without warning, or abusive and exploitative, as well as intrusion of supervisor's values, dual relationships, encouragement to commit fraud, and problems with authorship), each related to faculty behavior.
     Although it is possible that graduate faculty alone create conditions that lead to problems in the conduct of research with their graduate students, whereas faculty working with undergraduates lack any responsibility for the conditions that lead to problems in the conduct of research with their undergraduate students, we think this is unlikely. Instead, it is likely that both faculty and students engage in behaviors that lead to problems in the conduct of research. In the present study, we examined behaviors that faculty reported using that are associated with self-reported success supervising students. We also examined the corrective measures that faculty reported employing to deal with problems that they encounter in conducting research with undergraduates.

Method
     A mailing list of United States' faculty teaching introductory psychology courses was purchased from MSGi Direct (187 Ballardville Street, Suite B110, Wilmington, MA 01887). In the spring and fall of 2001, questionnaires assessing attitudes towards student research, faculty behaviors while conduct ing research with students, tasks assigned, problematic behaviors, and demographic descriptors of respondents were mailed, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope, to a random sample of this population (N = 1,338).

Results
     Respondents (N = 298, 22.27%) were nearly evenly divided by gender (52% male, 48% female). Regarding rank, 42% were full professors, 33% were associate professors, 22% were assistant professors, and 3% were instructors. Twenty-eight percent of respondents reported their school's size as having 2,000 or fewer students, 51% as having 2,000 to 15,000 students, and 21% as having over 15,000 students. When asked about the highest degree offered by their department, 1% responded associate, 20% responded bachelor, 20% responded master's, and 27% responded doctorate. When asked about whom they involve in their research, 35.5% responded graduate and undergraduate students, 51.4% responded undergraduate students only, 3% responded graduate students only, and 6.1% responded neither. Four percent reported not doing research of any kind.
     Because this study was focused on performing research with undergraduates, only the 257 respondents who reported working with undergraduates in research were included in the remainder of analyses in this paper. These participants reported that 30.17% (+/ - 18.82) of their time was spent doing research and that publishing was moderately important for them (5.98 +/ - 2.91, on a Likert scale between 1, very unimportant, and 11, very important).
     In general, faculty reported high levels of satisfaction with undergraduate researchers (3.06 +/ - 1.67, between very and moderately satisfied, on a Likert scale between 1, very satisfied, and 10, very dissatisfied). They believed that their goals were met moderately well (3.50 +/ - 1.68) and that their students' goals were somewhat better met (2.62 +/ - 1.42, on a Likert scale between 1, very well met, and 10, very poorly met). They reported giving their students moderate levels of autonomy (6.08 +/ - 1.83, on a Likert scale between 1, minimal autonomy, and 10, significant autonomy), and moderately high levels of supervision (7.02 +/ - 1.64, on a Likert scale between 1, minimal supervision, and 10, significant supervision).
     Respondents overwhelmingly reported believing that students worked for them to increase their probability of getting into graduate school and because they were interested in research (see Table 1). On the other hand, they reported choosing to work with student researchers because they believed it was an important part of their students' educational experience and to increase their students' probability of getting into graduate school (see Table 2). Only 24.0% reported that getting the labor to do research that would lead to tenure and promotion was a factor in their decision to involve students with their research.
     Faculty doing research with undergraduates reported "often" allowing students to run subjects, enter data, and do library research (see Table 3). They were less likely to "often" allow students to choose a research topic, design the study, or write it up.
     Relatively few problems in faculty-student research were reported (see Table 4). Faculty reported that students "rarely" failed to show up for research meetings, missed internal or external deadlines, or made major mistakes in a study. They reported that students made "occasional" minor mistakes running a study and that they had "never" had students falsify data or fail to submit their written product when that was their responsibility.
     Respondents reported engaging in a number of behaviors to make their work with undergraduate students more successful. They described "always" meeting with their students regularly, mentoring student researchers in whatever ways possible, training their students carefully for the tasks given them, and choosing student researchers carefully (see Table 5). There was less consensus on the importance of commenting on the things that student researchers did well, having regular research meetings, matching students' skills to the task assigned, giving their students the opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them, or closely supervising their work at every step. Few reported only accepting honors students or students with high grade point averages.
     Faculty who had run into problems reported using a variety of strategies to deal with the problem; the modal response is reported here. Many reported "always" discussing the problem with students (see Table 6). They "often" clarified their expectations for later student researchers and "sometimes" reevaluated their expectations, gave a lower grade, or discussed the problem with peers. They reported "never" discussing the problem with chairs or administrators, dropping students from authorships, dropping students from the research group, or moving students to a lower authorship.
     Finally, some faculty behaviors were significantly correlated with fewer reported disruptions in faculty/student research (p < .05). Faculty who reported training students, r(248) = - .19, meeting with them regularly, r(251) = - .16, holding weekly research meetings, r(254) = - .16, choosing their student researchers carefully, r(252) = - .14, and choosing only honors students were less likely to report problems, r(246) = - .13. On the other hand, none of the following behaviors was related to reported problems: mentoring students, encouraging them to learn from their mistakes, assigning students tasks which matched their strengths, supervising their work closely, commenting on work done well or poorly, or choosing a project that was perceived to have a high probability of success.

Discussion
     Participants' responses to this survey indicated generally altruistic motives underlying their decisions to do research with students, few problems in doing research with undergraduates, and general satisfaction with this process. They also reported using a variety of strategies in order to resolve current problems or circumvent others in the future. However, between 25 and 81% of faculty reported at least "occasional" problems in response to each of the five most commonly reported problems. As these problems would seem to negatively impact a faculty member's willingness to continue doing research with particular students, and perhaps students in general, this is clearly an important issue to be addressed further.
     Problems in research with students are not, however, inevitable. Faculty who report meeting regularly with their students, holding weekly research meetings, training their students carefully, and choosing among student applicants, were less likely to report having a history of research disruptions than those faculty reporting use of other strategies. Although these correlations are relatively weak, they do suggest that this process is one that can be structured to create greater success and, presumably, greater satisfaction with this process.
     Limitations of the present study should be noted. In particular, the sample may not be representative of psychology faculty in general. Our response rate was reasonable for a mail survey with no follow-up (Chiu & Brennan, 1990), nonetheless most recipients chose not to respond. This raises the question of bias in our respondents. Furthermore, our sample appears to be biased in favor of full professors and women (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2001b), although finding adequate data to compare our sample to is difficult. The percentage of faculty reporting that they conduct research with undergraduates also appears to be quite high, and may be due to the fact that faculty who do not conduct research with undergraduates chose not to respond to the survey. In addition, they seem to report considerably more time spent doing research than is typical (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2001a). This may be due to a self-presentation bias that leads psychology faculty to report that they conduct research with undergraduates and that research is an important part of their job. Conversely, this may be another way in which this is a very unusual sample.
     Future directions for this research include differentiating between those faculty reporting greater and lesser numbers of problems in this process as well as amounts of satisfaction. Our data support our hypothesis that faculty who report fewer problems are behaving differently. We expect that faculty behaviors will also be related to their satisfaction with the process. We believe that identifying helpful strategies will increase the probability that students will have positive experiences with research and will continue doing research, and that faculty will continue to supervise student projects.

References

Biaggio, M., Paget, T. L., & Chenoweth, M. S. (1997). A model for ethical management of faculty-student dual relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 184-189.

Carmody, D. P. (1998, Spring). Student views on the value of undergraduate presentations. Eye on Psi Chi, 2, 11-14.

Chiu, I., & Brennan, M. (1990). The effectiveness of some techniques for improving mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Marketing Bulletin, 1, 13-18.

Chronicle of Higher Education. (2001a). Faculty Activities, 1998-99. Retrieved January 21, 2002, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/almanac/2001/nation/0102804.htm

Chronicle of Higher Education. (2001b). Number of full-time faculty members by sex, rank, and racial and ethnic group, Fall 1997. Retrieved January 21, 2002, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/almanac/2001/nation/0102803.htm

Gibson, P. R., Kahn, A. S., & Mathie, V. A. (1996). Undergraduate research groups: Two models. Teaching of Psychology, 23, 36-38.

Goodyear, R. K., Crego, C. A., & Johnston, M. W. (1992). Ethical issues in the supervision of student research: A study of critical incidents. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 203-210.

Mayne, T. J., Norcross, J. C., & Sayette, M. A. (1994). Admission requirements, acceptance rates, and financial assistance in clinical psychology programs: Diversity across the practice-research continuum. American Psychologist, 49, 806-811.

Meyers, S. A., Reid, P. T., & Quina, K. (1998). Ready or not, here we come: Preparing psychology graduate students for academic careers. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 124-126.

Norcross, J. C., Sayette, M. A., Mayne, T. J., Karg, R. S., & Turkson, M. A. (1998). Selecting a doctoral program in professional psychology: Some comparisons among PhD counseling, PhD clinical, and PsyD clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 609-614.

Plante, T. G. (1998). A laboratory group model for engaging undergraduates in faculty research. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 128-130.

Slattery, J. M., & Park, C. L. (2000, August). Problems in student research: Ethical resolutions. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.

Tabachnick, B. G., Keith-Spiegel, P., & Pope, K. S. (1991). Ethics of teaching: Beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as educators. American Psychologist, 46, 506-515.

Thomas, J., Rewey, K. L., & Davis, S. F. (2002, Winter). Professional development benefits of publishing in the Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research. Eye on Psi Chi. Retrieved January 29, 2002, from http://www.psichi.org/awards/winners/hunt_reports/thomas.asp

__________________
Authors' note. Funding for this study was made possible by a 2000-2001 Thelma Hunt Research Grant and a Clarion University Arts and Sciences Faculty Professional Development grant awarded to the first author. Portions of this paper have been submitted for presentation at the 2002 meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.
     The authors express gratitude to Sandy Ferringer for preparation of the surveys for mailing and Ianita Zlateva for data entry and for handling the distribution and collection of surveys.
     Correspondence should be sent to the first author at the Department of Psychology, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, Clarion, PA 16214.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Jeanne M. Slattery received her PhD in experimental psychology in 1984 from Miami University, then completed a clinical respecialization from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. She is an associate professor at Clarion University and has served as Clarion's Psi Chi advisor since 1995. She is active in helping faculty identify strategies to develop as stronger teachers both at Clarion University and in her work as the assistant director for Project Syllabus at the Office of Teaching Resources in Psychology.
   In addition to her teaching, she is a licensed psychologist and maintains a small private practice. She consults with an in-home family therapy program that works to identify strategies to strengthen families that are at significant risk of having their children removed from the home. She is currently writing Contextualizing Therapy: Bringing Culture, Race, and Context Into Therapy, which is expected to be published in the fall of 2003.
   Crystal L. Park received her PhD in clinical psychology in 1993 from the University of Delaware and was a postdoctoral fellow in health psychology at the University of California, San Francisco. She is now assistant professor of psychology at the University of Connecticut, working with many undergraduate research assistants. Her research focuses on stress, coping, and adaptation, particularly on how people's beliefs, goals, and values affect their ways of perceiving and dealing with stressful events, especially health-related problems. Most recently, this research has been applied to studies of older people living with congestive heart failure and myocardial infarction.
   She has published articles on the roles of religious beliefs and religious coping in response to stressful life events, the phenomenon of stress-related growth, and people's attempts to find meaning in or create meaning out of negative life events. She received the Margaret Gorman Early Career Award from Division 36 (Psychology of Religion) of APA in 1999, and is president elect for Division 36 in 2002. Dr. Park's first experience conducting research was as an undergraduate at Clarion University, where she worked with Dr. Slattery on a project examining the role of mood and cognition on perceived passage of time.

Spring 2002 issue of Eye on Psi Chi (Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 29-33), published by Psi Chi, The National Honor Society in Psychology (Chattanooga, TN). Copyright, 2002, Psi Chi, The National Honor Society in Psychology. All rights reserved.