Invisible Labor in Doctoral Advising
A National Survey Study of Dissertation Committee Workloads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2026.522Keywords:
faculty advising, faculty workload, doctoral dissertationsAbstract
The purpose of this nationwide survey was to study dissertation service workloads for faculty members in the field of higher education. There is a problem with attrition in doctoral education and literature has shown that the advisor-advisee relationship is one of the most significant factors relating to doctoral student success. Researchers have aptly recommended that advisors should only take on students when they feel they can get students through to completion. However, no literature to date documented faculty workload related to dissertations. This study sought to document the time commitment and caring capacity in EdD and PhD programs. The results showed that faculty on average spend 291 hours a semester in their major advisor roles and an additional 89 hours a semester on average in other dissertation committee service roles (e.g., as the content expert or methodologist). A third of faculty are not compensated for these roles, and there were few formal or informal guidelines related to the caring capacity, which the majority of faculty reporting that there were not enough advisors available to support the number of admitted doctoral students. No prior studies have documented the workload related to dissertation committee service, and the findings of this study offer insight for departments and individuals seeking to support doctoral students. It highlights a potential concern in doctoral education of an uncompensated, invisible faculty labor related to dissertation service. Finally, it raises concerns about the potential quality of advising given caseload and care capacity.
References
American Association of University Professors (2023). Data snapshot: Tenure and contingency in US higher education. https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/AAUP%20Data%20Snapshot.pdf
Baker, M., Halberstam, Y., Kroft, K., Mas, A., & Messacar, D. (2023). Pay transparency and the gender gap. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 15(2), 157–183.
Barnes, B. J., & Austin, A. E. (2009). The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the advisor’s perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 297–315.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. Global Textbook Project, USA.
Cheng, S. (2014). Executive compensation in public higher education: Does performance matter?. Research in Higher Education, 55, 581–600.
Coin, F. (2018). When love becomes self-abuse: Gendered perspectives on unpaid labor in academia. In Y. Taylor & K. Lahad (Eds.), Feeling academic in the neoliberal university: Feminist flights, fights and failures (pp. 301-320). Palgrave Macmillan.
Cook, R. M., Crabtree, R., Sackett, C. R., Baylin, A., & Sharma, J. (2023). Doctoral students’ experiences of nondisclosure with their dissertation chair. Counselor Education and Supervision, 62(1), 64–79.
Council of Graduate Schools (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline demographic data from Ph.D. completion project. https://cgsnet.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/01/phd_completion_and_attrition_analysis_of_baseline_demographic_data-2.pdf
Craft, C. M., Augustine-Shaw, D., Fairbanks, A., & Adams-Wright, G. (2016). Advising doctoral students in education programs. NACADA Journal, 36(1), 54–65.
Curtin, N., Stewart, A. J., & Ostrove, J. M. (2012). Fostering academic self-concept: Advisor support and sense of belonging among international and domestic graduate students. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 108–137.
Dericks, G., Thompson, E., Roberts, M., & Phua, F. (2019). Determinants of PhD student satisfaction: The roles of supervisor, department, and peer qualities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 44(7), 1053–1068.
Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Van der Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O. (2017). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: A matter of sense, progress and distress. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32, 61–77.
Doubblestein, D. A., Yorke, A. M., & Larson, C. A. (2021). Faculty survey on the status of lymphology education in professional doctor of physical therapy programs. Rehabilitation Oncology, 39(3), E58–E66.
Duke, D. C., & Denicolo, P. M. (2017). What supervisors and universities can do to enhance doctoral student experience (and how they can help themselves). FEMS Microbiology Letters, 364(9), 1–7.
Eller, L. S., Lev, E. L., & Feurer, A. (2014). Key components of an effective mentoring relationship: A qualitative study. Nurse Education Today, 34(5), 815–820.
Esterman, A. (2020). Supervising doctoral students: A practical guide for supervisors and potential PhD and doctoral candidates. Independently Published.
Evans, J. D. (2013). Factors influencing recruitment and retention of nurse educators reported by current nurse faculty. Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(1), 11–20.
Fiore, T. D., Heitner, K. L., & Shaw, M. E. (2019). Academic advising and online doctoral student persistence from coursework to independent research. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 22(3), 111–122.
Freeman Jr, S., & DiRamio, D. (2016). Elitism or pragmatism? Faculty hiring at top graduate programs in higher education administration. Journal of the Professoriate, 8(2), 94–127.
Foster, H. A., Chesnut, S., Thomas, J., & Robinson, C. (2023). Differentiating the EdD and the PhD in higher education: A survey of characteristics and trends. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 8(1), 18–26.
Gay, L. R., & Diehl, P. L. (1992). Research methods for business and management. Macmillan Publishing Company.
Gray, A. C., Steel, A., & Adams, J. (2020). Attitudes to and uptake of learning technologies in complementary medicine education: results of an international faculty survey. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 26(4), 335–345.
Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 79–92.
Hamblin, L., Barker, D., & Arghode, V. (2020). A phenomenological approach to explore faculty perceptions about invisible labor. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 44(10-12), 804–818.
Harrington, S. E., VanHoose, L., & Westlake, F. (2023). Current state of entry-level physical therapy oncology curricula in the United States: A faculty survey. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 37(3), 171–177.
Heath, T. (2002). A quantitative analysis of PhD students' views of supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 41–53.
Hendra, R., & Hill, A. (2019). Rethinking response rates: new evidence of little relationship between survey response rates and nonresponse bias. Evaluation Review, 43(5), 307–330.
Hill, R. (1998). What sample size is “enough” in internet survey research. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 6(3-4), 1–12.
Inman, A. G., Schlosser, L. Z., Ladany, N., Howard, E. E., Boyd, D. L., Altman, A. N., & Stein, E. P. (2011). Advisee nondisclosures in doctoral-level advising relationships. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 5(3), 149–159.
Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph. D. students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 535–555.
Lally, D., Forbes, C. T., McNeal, K. S., & Soltis, N. A. (2019). National geoscience faculty survey 2016: Prevalence of systems thinking and scientific modeling learning opportunities. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(2), 174–191.
Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281.
Mavletova, A., & Couper, M. P. (2014). Mobile web survey design: scrolling versus paging, SMS versus e-mail invitations. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 2(4), 498–518.
McCallin, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 63–74.
Mehan Jr, W. A., Schaefer, P. W., & Hirsch, J. A. (2019). Academic performance–based compensation models. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 16(11), 1621–1627.
Minnick, A. F., Norman, L. D., Donaghey, B., Fisher, L. W., & McKirgan, I. M. (2010). Leadership in doctoral nursing research programs. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(9), 504–510.
Moore, R. (2016). Should the word “survey” be avoided in email invitation messaging? (Issue Brief). ACT Research & Policy. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Issue-Brief-Should-the-Word-Survey-Be-Avoided.pdf
National Education Association (2023). Higher education faculty pay 2023. https://www.nea.org/resource-library/educator-pay-and-student-spending-how-does-your-state-rank/he-2023
Neale-McFall, C., & Ward, C. A. (2015). Factors contributing to counselor education doctoral students’ satisfaction with their dissertation chairperson. The Professional Counselor, 5(1), 185–194.
Neumann, R. (2005). Doctoral differences: Professional doctorates and PhDs compared. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 173–188.
Padilla, M. A., & Thompson, J. N. (2016). Burning out faculty at doctoral research universities. Stress and Health, 32(5), 551–558.
Petrovčič, A., Petrič, G., & Manfreda, K. L. (2016). The effect of email invitation elements on response rate in a web survey within an online community. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 320–329.
Pinchot, J., & Cellante, D. (2022). Doctoral advising: A case study of a three-year doctoral program's recipe for success. Issues in Information Systems, 23(4), 30–45.
Reidy, J., & Green, P. (2005). Collaborative knowledge management and the art of coaching: Reflections on the diverse roles of the successful supervisor. In P. Green (Eds.), Supervising postgraduate research: Contexts and processes, theories and practices (pp. 48-69). RMIT University Press.
Renzulli, L. A., Grant, L., & Kathuria, S. (2006). Race, gender, and the wage gap: Comparing faculty salaries in predominately White and historically Black colleges and universities. Gender & Society, 20(4), 491–510.
Revilla, M., & Ochoa, C. (2017). Ideal and maximum length for a web survey. International Journal of Market Research, 59(5), 557–565.
Roberts, L. R., & Bandlow, R. (2018). The goldilocks phenomenon: Are we helping doctoral students too much, too little, or just right. Journal of Higher Education Management, 32(2), 62–80.
Roberts, L. R., Tinari, C. M., & Bandlow, R. (2019). An effective doctoral student mentor wears many hats and asks many questions. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 133–159.
Roussille, N. (2021). The central role of the ask gap in gender pay inequality. University of California, Berkeley.
Sammut, R., Griscti, O., & Norman, I. J. (2021). Strategies to improve response rates to web surveys: A literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 123, 1–26.
Sharma, H. (2022). How short or long should be a questionnaire for any research? Researchers dilemma in deciding the appropriate questionnaire length. Saudi Journal of Anesthesia, 16(1), 65–68.
Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group (2017). The burden of invisible work in academia: Social inequalities and time use in five university departments. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 39, 228–245.
Southern Regional Education Board (2021). Percent distribution of full-time instructional faculty by rank at public four-year colleges and universities: Fact book table 80. https://www.sreb.org/post/percent-distribution-full-time-instructional-faculty-rank-public-four-year-colleges-and
Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 361–388.
Taylor, S., & Beasley, N. (2005). A handbook for doctoral supervisors. Abingdon: Routledge.
Toutkoushian, R. K., & Paulsen, M. B. (2016). Economics of higher education. Springer.
Trespalacios, J. H., & Perkins, R. A. (2016). Effects of personalization and invitation email length on web-based survey response rates. TechTrends, 60, 330–335.
Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2009). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. John Wiley & Sons.
Womble, C. C. (2018). Faculty salary (in) equity: A review of the literature. Trends in Diversity, 1(1), 1–29.
Wu, M. J., Zhao, K., & Fils-Aime, F. (2022). Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 1–11.
Yamane, T. (1973), Statistics: An introductory analysis. John Weather Hill, Inc.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kelly Long, Katherine Rose Adams
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.
