The study, conducted by Kimberly Jamison of the University of North Carolina Wilmington, examined how experienced dissertation chairs understand and carry out their role in supporting doctoral persistence. Jamison interviewed 20 faculty members drawn from 12 research-intensive, predominantly White institutions across the United States, including Columbia, Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Michigan. All participants had at least five years of chairing experience, with an average of 14.5 years, and all worked in the social sciences or humanities. The interviews, lasting 60 to 90 minutes, probed how chairs monitored progress, responded to crises, navigated institutional systems, and prepared candidates for careers beyond the degree.

The timing of the investigation is significant. Doctoral persistence has been studied extensively, but most research examines either the student’s experience or the quality of the supervisory relationship. Jamison’s approach is different: she treats persistence as an organizational problem, asking where the capacity to support it actually resides within universities. Her answer is striking. During candidacy, the period after coursework ends and independent dissertation research begins, the formal scaffolding of doctoral education largely dissolves. Scheduled classes, cohort structures, and defined milestones give way to individualized research trajectories. What remains is the chair.

Jamison conceptualizes this arrangement as a shadow retention system. The term does not imply anything illegitimate or hidden from view. Rather, it captures the fact that institutions classify the persistence work chairs perform under ordinary labels such as advising, mentoring, or committee service, while the actual functions being performed are far more consequential. Chairs recognize threats to a candidate’s progress, differentiate support, mobilize funding, interpret administrative procedures, negotiate committee conflicts, and advocate across organizational boundaries. None of this appears in formal retention infrastructure, yet without it, many candidates would not finish.

The empirical core of the study reveals three interconnected findings. First, chairs operationalize persistence through individualized, adaptive support rather than standardized supervision. They continuously assess what might impede a candidate’s progress and adjust the amount and type of involvement accordingly. One participant, Jemma, described becoming less hands-on once candidates understood expectations but intervening when milestones slipped. Another, Candice, varied meeting frequency from monthly to weekly depending on need. Chairs described maintaining accessibility through text messages, evening calls, and weekend communication, not as a lifestyle choice but as a strategy for catching problems before they derailed a dissertation.

Second, the study documents how organizational conditions shape what chairs can actually do. Access to funding, assistantships, healthcare, and conference support varied dramatically across institutions. When resources were scarce, some chairs supplemented them through their own labor. Michael, a participant at a public university, described staying grant-active specifically so he could financially support students, even though his department did not require it. Samantha used externally funded projects to create graduate research assistant positions when program funding fell short. These are not minor accommodations. They represent faculty personally absorbing institutional gaps that formal systems should address.

The study also exposes hard limits to individual intervention. Pilar described repeated delays in doctoral stipends that disproportionately harmed first-generation and lower-income candidates, for whom even brief interruptions could affect rent, bills, and credit. She recognized that her department chair could not resolve the problem because it originated in the university’s financial system. Grace described a first-generation candidate working two jobs who was exhausted constantly. Chairs could recognize these conditions but often lacked the organizational authority to fix them. This is what Jamison calls the institutionalization gap: institutions entrust faculty with consequential persistence functions without consistently providing the infrastructure needed to sustain them.

Third, the study finds that chairs sustain persistence through professional formation. They cultivated candidates’ scholarly identities, explained the hidden curriculum of academic life, introduced students to professional networks, and prepared them for careers beyond graduation. Jennifer challenged conventional advice that students from historically marginalized communities should postpone studying issues affecting their own communities until after tenure, instead encouraging them to take up space within their disciplines. Jemma made cold-call introductions to established scholars so candidates could experience professional conversations with confidence. These activities were not peripheral to persistence; they were mechanisms for sustaining it, by helping candidates envision themselves as future scholars with a reason to finish.

Jamison’s analytical framework, the Intersectional Path-Goal Mentoring Framework, integrates leadership theory with intersectional mentoring scholarship to explain how chairs adapt their actions to candidates’ goals, barriers, identities, and institutional circumstances. The framework identifies four interconnected forms of faculty leadership: clarifying pathways, reducing barriers through power-conscious mentoring, and cultivating scholarly development and professional opportunities. Applied to the interview data, it shows that persistence depends less on any single supervisory behavior than on faculty capacity to integrate multiple forms of support in response to changing academic, organizational, and personal conditions.

The implications are significant for how universities structure doctoral education. Jamison argues that institutions should build shared professional infrastructure for chairing, including systematic preparation, mentoring for new chairs, communities of practice, and sustained professional learning around persistence-supporting leadership. She also recommends that graduate schools examine where doctoral persistence functions currently reside and which have become concentrated within individual faculty relationships. Strengthening coordination among chairs, writing centers, financial services, and career development offices could reduce unnecessary variation in candidate experiences while preserving the adaptive judgment that makes chairing effective. The study’s limitations are clear: the sample was drawn from research-intensive, predominantly White institutions and focused on experienced chairs, so findings may not generalize to other contexts. But the central insight stands. Doctoral persistence is not simply a matter of student grit or supervisory warmth. It is an organizational achievement, and right now it rests on a shadow system that universities have never formally acknowledged, resourced, or designed.

Subject of Research: How dissertation chairs operationalize doctoral persistence during candidacy

Article Title: Operationalizing doctoral persistence: dissertation chairing as a shadow retention system

Article References: Jamison, K. (2026). Operationalizing doctoral persistence: dissertation chairing as a shadow retention system. Frontiers in Education, 11, Article 1955855. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1955855

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1955855

Keywords: doctoral persistence, dissertation chairing, doctoral candidacy, faculty mentoring, shadow retention system, higher education, qualitative research, supervision, institutional capacity, professional formation, retention, graduate education