View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Manuscript-Style Dissertation Format Guidelines in Counselor Education: A Content Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Manuscript-Style Dissertation Format Guidelines in Counselor Education: A Content Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Phillip L. Waalkes (ORCID 0000-0002-2956-5078), Daniel A. DeCino (ORCID 0000-0002-5514-3063), Jacqueline M. Swank (ORCID 0000-0003-2060-5835), Yuima Mizutani (ORCID 0000-0001-9183-7831), Monica Maria Phelps-Pineda (ORCID 0000-0001-8084-1122), Tiffany Somerville (ORCID 0000-0003-0400-7982)
Source: Counselor Education and Supervision. 2025 64(3):331-340.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Doctoral Dissertations, Literary Genres, Guidelines, Counselor Training, Content Analysis, Copyrights, Eligibility
DOI: 10.1002/ceas.12347
ISSN: 0011-0035
1556-6978
Abstract: Manuscript-style dissertation formats can help support students in completing and publishing their dissertations. Yet, manuscript-style dissertation guidelines often lack structure and clarity in ways that can cause student confusion and frustration. In this qualitative content analysis, we examined the dissertation structure, process, and support described in the counseling program manuscript-style guidelines (N = 18). Many guidelines lacked clarity and support structures and may benefit from revisions to discuss topics such as copyright and student eligibility.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483690
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEywM2wN0Wk5SD8IPIYEBJCAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEyTZ06bVAdjD4q4eQIBEICBm439L9yQH3CxQ4nnzGMlM5oUNB4cHtlvLm9h15pZpcPZDabTSiSIsr8otulE3TZvxDbzbhrZm95TcF8wCZf1cU5FgM33qlWSnkZXBvgEi_yy1zFCdQPpm1qcuoPa6R0jhmt118RbxQWTMGMK0uVBuZ7NHv3IAKVTPpeTgUGn90_bZA_k8scSx3TmVSTFUwlhGtYSIMPm_j4zVYRN
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187978652;cev01sep.25;2025Sep17.06:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187978652-1">Manuscript‐Style Dissertation Format Guidelines in Counselor Education: A Content Analysis </title> <p>Manuscript‐style dissertation formats can help support students in completing and publishing their dissertations. Yet, manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines often lack structure and clarity in ways that can cause student confusion and frustration. In this qualitative content analysis, we examined the dissertation structure, process, and support described in the counseling program manuscript‐style guidelines (N = 18). Many guidelines lacked clarity and support structures and may benefit from revisions to discuss topics such as copyright and student eligibility.</p> <p>Keywords: alternative dissertations; content analysis; counselor education; manuscript‐style dissertations; nontraditional dissertations</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-2">Introduction</hd> <p>A dissertation is generally a required component of a doctoral program that is designed for a student to demonstrate research competency and contribute original findings to the research literature (Paré [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]; Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]). The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) <emph>2024 Standards</emph> specify that counselor education doctoral programs must require students to complete a dissertation or capstone project (CACREP [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]). Traditionally, a dissertation contains four or five chapters that consist of expanded components of an empirical article, including the introduction, literature review, methodology, results, and discussion (De Jong et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]). However, some university programs use a manuscript‐style dissertation format, which can vary in structure, but includes one or more scholarly article manuscripts that are publication ready (Freeman Jr. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>]). Counseling scholars have provided limited information about the practice of using this manuscript‐style format and have emphasized a need for more research focused on the dissertation process (Borders et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]; Swank et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]). Thus, the purpose of this content analysis study was to explore the structure, process, and support surrounding manuscript‐style dissertation formats as described within CACREP‐accredited counselor education doctoral programs' dissertation guidelines.</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-3">Manuscript‐Style Dissertations</hd> <p>The manuscript‐style dissertation encompasses one or more article manuscripts formatted to meet the submission requirements of peer‐reviewed journals. It is an innovative way to view the dissertation process that may address some challenges associated with the traditional dissertation format (De Jong et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>]). Specifically, the traditional‐style dissertation does not prepare students for the type of writing they engage in following graduation if they work in faculty positions (Freeman Jr. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref9">11</reflink>]; Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]; Paré [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]). In contrast, the manuscript‐style dissertation prepares students for writing scholarly journal articles in tenure‐track faculty positions and promotes research that makes unique scholarly contributions to the field (Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>]; Paré [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>]). Students may view the manuscript‐style format as more focused and manageable as they are working on shorter texts with more clearly defined readership and criteria for success (De Jong et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref14">7</reflink>]; Paré [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]). This may lead more students to complete and publish their dissertation while establishing a record of publication that may help with faculty applications, interviews, and career success (De Jong et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref16">7</reflink>]; Freeman Jr. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]; Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>]). For example, Smaldone et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref19">20</reflink>]) found that of the 80 students who used a traditional dissertation format, 41% never published their results, while all of 33 students using a manuscript‐style format published at least one component of their research. Those using a manuscript‐style format also had more publications and a shorter time to first publication. The manuscript‐style dissertation stretches students' writing development over a longer period to facilitate more opportunities for mentorship and scaffolding (Paré [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref20">16</reflink>]). Additionally, the manuscript‐style dissertation benefits the program's reputation, which can enhance recruitment efforts, and strengthens the profession by generating and disseminating new knowledge in a timely manner (De Jong et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>]; Paré [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref22">16</reflink>]). Similarly, the manuscript‐style dissertation and resulting publications may help strengthen the scholarly reputation of counseling programs.</p> <p>The manuscript‐style dissertation format may present challenges for some faculty and students. Faculty may not support a manuscript‐style dissertation format due to a lack of understanding, a lack of desire to learn something new, or limited publication records to support students in this process (Freeman Jr. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref23">11</reflink>]; Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]). Similarly, faculty and administrators may not support manuscript‐style dissertations because they challenge well‐established structures and traditions. Additionally, some faculty perceived the manuscript‐style format as requiring more time for mentoring students (Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref25">12</reflink>]) or as lacking the depth or rigor present in the traditional dissertation format (Borders et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]; Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>]; Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref28">22</reflink>]). Furthermore, participants in one study on the manuscript‐style dissertation format reported a lack of clear expectations (i.e., how deeply students should understand multiple topics for multiple manuscripts) and guidelines regarding quality (i.e., poor examples of manuscripts that meet common publication standards; Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref29">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-4">Dissertation Supports, Structures, and Processes in Counselor Education</hd> <p>Doctoral students reported wanting enhanced support around barriers to successful completion of dissertations, including addressing struggles with motivation, time management, self‐regulation, and self‐efficacy (Burkard et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]; Pyhältö et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref31">17</reflink>]). These findings are consistent with those in counselor education where students report intense emotions in their research experience including excitement, exhaustion, frustration, distrust, confusion, disconnection, and pride (Lamar and Helm [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>]). Additionally, counselor education students have reported experiencing the dissertation process as ambiguous (Flynn et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]), which may further contribute to these challenges. Given their relatively new and evolving nature, counselor education doctoral students may find manuscript‐style dissertations even more confusing.</p> <p>Counselor educators reported desiring to increase the rigor of dissertations and achieve more consistent standards across dissertation chairs and committees to promote higher quality research (Borders et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]). Counselor education researchers have cited the importance of intentional support to help students overcome barriers (Flynn et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>]; Jorgensen and Wester [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]; Lamar and Helm [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref37">14</reflink>]) such as academic writing, lack of knowledge and experience with the publication process, time management, self‐efficacy, and motivation (Burkard et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>]; Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref39">12</reflink>]; Pyhältö et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref40">17</reflink>]; Waalkes et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>]). For manuscript‐style dissertations, chairs can serve a critical role in providing guidance and setting expectations for rigor (Swank et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref42">21</reflink>]). Yet, lack of faculty preparedness and workload capacity may interfere with students receiving the support they need in manuscript‐style dissertation processes (Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref43">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Dissertation success may depend upon clear structures in the dissertation process and clear expectations and roles of students and faculty (Jorgensen and Wester [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>]). Researchers in nursing and counselor education suggested providing detailed guidelines (i.e., a section in a larger doctoral program handbook or a separate document; Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref45">12</reflink>]; Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref46">22</reflink>]; Swank et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref47">21</reflink>]) for manuscript‐style dissertations. Such guidelines can serve as a source of support by clarifying the process and structure (Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>]) and promote research rigor (Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]). Setting clear expectations and processes may help demystify the dissertation process and hold faculty and students accountable to consistent standards of quality. In a Delphi study, Jorgensen and Wester ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>]) found dissertation success depends upon clear structures in the dissertation process and clear expectations and roles of students and faculty. Additionally, dissertation structures may be more effective when intentionally adapted to meet student needs (Waalkes et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref51">23</reflink>]). Thus, detailed dissertation guidelines that communicate policies addressing student needs and reducing barriers can enhance clarity and consistency while deepening support for students (Swank et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref52">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-5">Purpose of the Study</hd> <p>Although scholars have examined the benefits, challenges, and use of the manuscript‐style dissertation in related fields such as nursing (De Jong et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref53">7</reflink>]; Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref54">12</reflink>]), limited information is known about this format in counselor education. We found one empirical study (Borders et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>]) and one conceptual article (Swank et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref56">21</reflink>]) that discussed the manuscript‐style dissertation within a counselor education context. Understanding the structures, processes, and supports surrounding manuscript‐style dissertations in counselor education may guide the implementation of this innovative format in service of supporting students in overcoming barriers to dissertation completion (Burkard et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>]; Pyhältö et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref58">17</reflink>]). An illumination of gaps in structures and processes surrounding manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines can help programs provide clearer structures and expectations for students (Jorgensen and Wester [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref59">13</reflink>]) in ways that alleviate some of their negative emotions around the dissertation (Lamar and Helm [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref60">14</reflink>]). Additionally, little is known about how programs approach unique issues presented by the manuscript‐style dissertation format including copyright, student eligibility and choice in the process, and authorship of resulting publications. Examination of such areas may help programs develop more intentional guidance around the unique nuances of a manuscript‐style dissertation and help students develop skills and professional identities as scholars. Thus, the research question guiding our content analysis study was "How do counselor education programs describe the structure, process, and support surrounding the manuscript‐style dissertations in dissertation format guidelines?"</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-6">Method</hd> <p>We used Schreier's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref61">18</reflink>]) qualitative content analysis, anchored by a social constructivist perspective, to guide the coding and analysis of manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines from CACREP‐accredited counselor education doctoral programs. Using a social constructivist approach allowed us to analyze dissertation guidelines within the context of our experiences as counselor educators and doctoral students to create meaning and deeper understanding (Schreier [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref62">18</reflink>]). Content analysis enabled us to use deductive (e.g., <emph>a priori</emph> framework) analysis to standardize and understand key features, while inductive (e.g., derived meaning from certain passages) analysis helped us understand manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines with depth. Additionally, content analysis revealed a broad view of manuscript‐style dissertations through examination of guidelines across programs in a systematic way (Schreier [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref63">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-7">Data Sources</hd> <p>The primary data source we examined in this study was manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines. Only CACREP‐accredited doctoral programs and manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines were selected for this study to ensure materials aligned with CACREP standards (6.a.7; 2024) and promoted scholarship expectations consistent with counselor education and supervision. Guidelines could be standalone documents or part of larger documents (e.g., doctoral program handbooks). To be included in the study, guidelines needed to encompass information around the structure, process, or supports within the program's manuscript‐style dissertation format. They also needed to include a description of a manuscript‐style dissertation format. Finally, guidelines could only be documents specific to the counseling program and not documents used across programs at the institution such as graduate school dissertation handbooks. We chose to only include guidelines specific to counseling because we wanted to know how manuscript‐style dissertation formats were used and conceptualized within the context of the discipline, as different disciplines have a range of goals and purpose for the dissertation. Additionally, guidelines from external sources often focus more on American Psychological Association (APA) formatting ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>]) and institution‐wide procedures that were not the focus of our study. Our secondary data source included answers to four questions provided by program coordinators or contacts through email (e.g., how long the format has been in use, how many students have graduated using this format, whether students have a choice of dissertation formats, and if they were willing to share their guidelines with us). We included these as a data source to provide more context and depth to our analysis of the guidelines.</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-8">Data Collection</hd> <p>Before collecting data, we received confirmation from our institutional review boards that this study did not constitute human subjects research. Following Schreier's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref65">18</reflink>]) recommendations, we searched websites of all CACREP‐accredited doctoral programs (<emph>N</emph> = 89) for manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines during January and February of 2024. Next, we emailed doctoral program coordinators or program contacts for all 89 programs. For programs (<emph>n</emph> = 74) that did not include guidelines on their websites, we asked whether their program used a manuscript‐style dissertation format and, if so, for a copy of guidelines and answers to three questions about the format. For programs (<emph>n</emph> = 15) that included guidelines on their websites, we asked if there was an updated version of the guidelines and for answers to the same four questions. In all cases, we emailed each program contact twice. We heard back from 28 (31.46%) programs and obtained three additional dissertation guidelines through these emails, for a total of 18 guidelines eligible for analysis. Ten of the 18 programs (55.56%) provided answers to the four questions. Table 1 includes information about the context of the 18 programs.</p> <p>1 TABLE Context of programs utilizing a manuscript‐style dissertation.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Contextual factor</th><th>Number</th><th>Percent</th><th>Range</th><th>Mean</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Program type</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>In‐person format</td><td>16</td><td>88.9</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Online format</td><td>2</td><td>11.1</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Institution type</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Public</td><td>16</td><td>88.9</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Private</td><td>2</td><td>11.1</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Carnegie classification</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>R1</td><td>10</td><td>55.6</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>R2</td><td>5</td><td>27.8</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>M1</td><td>2</td><td>11.1</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>D/PU</td><td>1</td><td>5.6</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Years format in use</td><td /><td /><td>1–16</td><td>6.1</td></tr><tr><td>Students graduating using format</td><td /><td /><td>1–107</td><td>20.1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187978652-9">Coding Frame</hd> <p>We developed a coding frame utilizing inductive and deductive approaches (Schreier [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref66">18</reflink>]). We created a 54‐step logic question survey in Qualtrics to systematically funnel responses and organize results. The survey was generally organized into three areas: <emph>context</emph>, <emph>structure</emph>, and <emph>process</emph>. <emph>Structure</emph>‐oriented codes focused on program expectations and dissertation sections, such as the number of manuscripts required and whether manuscripts could be empirical or conceptual. <emph>Process</emph>‐based codes focused on procedures and students' decisions, including choosing dissertation formats, navigating chair or committee expectations, and allowing for collaboration with other doctoral students. Finally, questions based on program or institution <emph>support</emph> helped determine resources used during dissertations, such as whether manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines explained the benefits and drawbacks of traditional versus manuscript‐style dissertations, coursework regarding manuscript‐style dissertations, and guidance on topics such as time management, authorship order, and copyright.</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-10">Coding Process</hd> <p>To evaluate and refine our coding frame, we engaged in four pilot studies (Schreier [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref67">18</reflink>]). We coded one guideline and one contact email (if received for that institution) for each round. The percent agreement of our first pilot study was 88.3%, with Krippendorff's alpha = 0.487, indicating poor agreement (Neuendorf [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref68">15</reflink>]). The research team met to discuss and revise the coding frame, clarifying definitions of key terms (e.g., specifying and defining specific supports based on dissertation chairing literature in counselor education), and conducted a second pilot study. The second pilot study results were 75.8% agreement and Krippendorff's alpha = 0.499. Two more pilot studies were conducted with percent agreements of 72.1% and 82.7% with Krippendorff alphas of 0.512 (poor agreement) and 0.671 (moderate agreement; Neuendorf [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref69">15</reflink>]). After both rounds, we met as a team to continue to refine and clarify the coding frame (Schreier [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref70">18</reflink>]) before determining that the frame and interrater agreement were adequate to move forward to the main coding phase.</p> <p>Next, all researchers individually coded all dissertation guidelines and emails, including those coded in the pilot study, using the final coding frame (Schreier [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref71">18</reflink>]). Our final analysis percent agreement was 74.1% with Krippendorff alpha = 0.668, allowing researchers to reach tentative interpretations of analysis results (Neuendorf [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref72">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Using Schreier's recommendations ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref73">18</reflink>]), we reconciled remaining inconsistencies to arrive at consensus codes. Inconsistencies among researchers can occur along three dimensions: (a) coders make a genuine mistake that can be fixed after a quick review, (b) coders understand the coding unit but disagree on the appropriate category, or (c) inconsistent categories exist as part of the coding framework (Schreier [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref74">18</reflink>]). As a team, we discussed category definitions and coders' understanding of them in two phases. First, we revisited our coding frame to evaluate each question and ensure all definitions and categories were clearly and consistently understood by all team members. Then, we compiled the coding into a spreadsheet to facilitate the comparison of discrepancies. Across four meetings, we reviewed dissertation guidelines to alleviate inconsistencies one by one using Schreier's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref75">18</reflink>]) suggestions. We reviewed passages in the guidelines and discussed our interpretations until we reconciled our differences to arrive at a consensus version.</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-11">Researcher as Instrument</hd> <p>Our research team consisted of six members with over 30 combined years of professional counseling and research experience. Five research team members worked as counselor educators. Three faculty team members completed traditional five‐chapter dissertations, one completed a manuscript‐style dissertation, and one completed a six‐chapter dissertation (a traditional five‐chapter dissertation with a manuscript added as a sixth chapter). The remaining team member was a counselor education doctoral student in the process of completing a manuscript‐style dissertation. Five out of six authors have published content analysis studies in counseling peer‐reviewed journals. All authors were part of the coding process and contributed to the writing of the article.</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-12">Trustworthiness</hd> <p>We used three measures for trustworthiness in this study. First, we practiced reflexivity during our discussions, project design, data analysis, and manuscript writing. Finlay and Gough ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref76">9</reflink>]) asserted that ongoing and deliberative reflective practice during research projects allows researchers to account for their biases, assumptions, and positioning that can impact the research process. To practice reflexivity, we disclosed our assumptions and biases at the beginning of data collection. Once data collection and analysis began, our understanding and interpretations of how manuscript‐style dissertation formats were presented to doctoral students and represented by doctoral programs in counselor education evolved. Therefore, we discussed how intersubjective dynamics including differing interpretations of codes and alternative dissertation manuals during each pilot study meeting may impact our final analysis. Next, we used thick and rich descriptions to help present our findings in a robust and comprehensive way. According to Creswell and Poth ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref77">6</reflink>]), using rich and thick descriptions allows readers to fully understand the findings. Given that manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines were lacking consistency and standardization, we wanted to use thick and rich descriptions to help current and future doctoral students and counselor educators use or consider this approach. Finally, we corroborated evidence through triangulation of researchers (Creswell and Poth [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]) who had varying backgrounds and direct experience as either students or chairs of manuscript‐style dissertations; triangulation allowed us to provide detailed insights and perspectives on our topic and findings.</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-13">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187978652-14">Manuscript‐Style Dissertation Structure</hd> <p>All 18 programs required students to include at least one manuscript chapter (i.e., a chapter written in a format like a journal article) in their dissertations. In terms of the minimum number of manuscripts required, 33.3% (<emph>n</emph> = 6) required one manuscript, 50% (<emph>n</emph> = 9) required two manuscripts, and 11.1% (<emph>n</emph> = 2) required three manuscripts; one program (5.6%) did not address the minimum number of manuscripts required. Although half of the programs (50%; <emph>n</emph> = 9) did not address this in their guidelines, some programs (22.2%; <emph>n</emph> = 4) offered students a choice in the number of manuscripts they could include in their dissertations and some (27.8%; <emph>n</emph> = 5) did not.</p> <p>For qualitative coding of the process of manuscript choice sections of guidelines, we developed the following themes: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>) qualifications for manuscript choice and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref80">2</reflink>) considerations in manuscript choice process. The qualifications for manuscript choice theme included information about how students' previous work or skills influenced the number of manuscripts they could include in their dissertation. For example, one program stated:</p> <p>Students who have a first‐author paper accepted in a reputable peer‐reviewed journal by the time they propose their dissertation may either propose a "single manuscript" dissertation or a "dual manuscript" dissertation. Students who do not have a first‐authored publication will propose a "dual manuscript" dissertation. This ensures that all our students will write at least two first‐author manuscripts by the time they graduate, an essential experience for developing research competence as a scientist‐practitioner.</p> <p>The considerations in the manuscript choice theme involved sections of guidelines describing considerations that might influence students in their choice of the number of manuscripts. For example, one guideline stated, "some studies may spread their findings too thin when dividing them up across three articles." One program contact noted that the lack of manuscript choice in the guidelines was an intentional decision to provide chairs freedom and room for interpretation.</p> <p>Only two guidelines (11.1%) defined the goals of the manuscript‐style dissertation format. Both goal statements focused on helping students develop research skills and publishing their research in counseling journals. Only three guidelines (16.7%) addressed the role the manuscript‐style dissertation format has in doctoral student development. Eight guidelines (44.4%) mentioned ways that the manuscript‐style dissertation format promoted rigor or quality in student research.</p> <p>Most guidelines (55.6%; <emph>n</emph> = 10) did not address whether students could write conceptual manuscripts as part of their dissertations, but some (38.9%, <emph>n</emph> = 7) provided that as an option to students. None of the guidelines addressed whether students could write grant proposals as part of their dissertations. Only one program (5.6%) allowed students to write partner reports for collaborating organizations or agencies as part of their dissertations.</p> <p>Program guidelines varied in their chapter requirements for manuscript‐style dissertations. Most programs (72.2%; <emph>n</emph> = 13) required students to include an introduction chapter in their dissertation, while three programs (16.7%) did not require this chapter, and two (11.1%) did not mention whether an introduction chapter was required. Half of the programs (<emph>n</emph> = 9) did not require students to include a literature review chapter in their manuscript‐style dissertations, while a third of programs (<emph>n</emph> = 6) did; three programs (16.7%) did not address this in their guidelines. Slightly over half of the programs (55.6%; <emph>n</emph> = 10) required students to include a conclusion chapter, while a third of programs did not (<emph>n</emph> = 6); two did not address this in their guidelines. Most programs (77.8%; <emph>n</emph> = 14) did not require additional chapters, while two programs (11.1%) did, and two programs (11.1%) did not address this in their guidelines.</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-15">Manuscript‐Style Dissertation Process</hd> <p>Most programs (72.2%; <emph>n</emph> = 13) offered students a choice between multiple dissertation formats, often between a traditional dissertation format and a manuscript‐style format. Some programs (27.8%; <emph>n</emph> = 5) only allowed students to complete manuscript‐style dissertations.</p> <p>For the inductive coding of the sections related to the process of format choice, we developed the following themes: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>) committee approval, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>) option of traditional or manuscript‐style dissertation, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>) graduate school approval. In the committee approval theme, programs mentioned how the dissertation chair or committee must approve the student utilizing the manuscript‐style dissertation. For example, one institution stated, "Most students engage in a traditional 5‐chapter dissertation. However, students may also be directed by their chair to prepare a manuscript‐based dissertation." One program contact mentioned how chairs had a strong impact on students' decision around dissertation format as only students working with two program faculty members had ever chosen the manuscript‐style format.</p> <p>The theme option of traditional or manuscript‐style dissertation involved programs providing students a choice between the two format options. One program stated:</p> <p>Doctoral students in the counseling program have the choice of completing their dissertation using a traditional 4‐ or 5‐chapter format with one study as the focus of their dissertation or using a multiple‐article dissertation format where students will write two or three manuscripts targeting specific academic journals or other publication outlets.</p> <p>Within this theme, we included relevant information about format choice provided through email communication with program contacts. For example, one contact described their perception of how several faculty did not like the manuscript‐style dissertation format and how this has influenced all of their students to choose the traditional dissertation format in the past few years.</p> <p>The theme of graduate school guidelines approval involved programs identifying how the manuscript‐style dissertation format was approved by their graduate school or inclusive of a manuscript format offered to all graduate programs at the institution. For example, one program stated, "The Graduate School has approved the use of this dissertation style ... for all departments."</p> <p>Out of the 11 programs that offered students a choice of dissertation formats, seven (63.6%) required that students have approval from their dissertation chair to complete the manuscript‐style dissertation format, while one program (9.1%) did not require dissertation chair approval, and three programs (27.3%) did not address this in their guidelines. Out of the 11 programs that offered students a choice of format, most (81.8%; <emph>n</emph> = 9) did not offer any kind of information about student eligibility requirements in their guidelines. One program (9.1%) did offer eligibility requirements, and one program (9.1%) stated that there were no eligibility requirements. Most programs (88.9%; <emph>n</emph> = 16) did not address whether students could collaborate with others on their dissertations, while one program (5.6%) did allow for collaboration and one program (5.6%) did not. Similarly, most programs (88.9%; <emph>n</emph> = 2) did not address whether students could co‐author their dissertations with others, but two programs (11.1%) specified that students could not collaborate on the writing of their dissertations. Two programs (11.1%) required students to submit at least one manuscript from their dissertation to a scholarly journal before graduating, four programs (22.2%) did not require submission, and 12 programs (66.7%) did not address this in their guidelines.</p> <p>One third of programs (<emph>n</emph> = 6) included information about dissertation chairing relationship structures, roles, or expectations, while two thirds of programs (<emph>n</emph> = 12) did not. Themes in the qualitative coding of these sections of guidelines included (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>) guidance and support, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref85">2</reflink>) managing committee and process, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref86">3</reflink>) structure and boundaries. Most of these sections in the guidelines provide bulleted or numbered lists of the responsibilities or expectations of the student and/or the dissertation chair. In the theme of guidance and support, programs often mentioned general statements about how the dissertation chair is expected to offer students help and preparation for tasks related to the dissertation. For example, one program stated that chairs should "provide guidance and support to the students through the dissertation process." In the managing committee and process theme, guidelines described the process of helping students in selecting a dissertation committee, scheduling the dissertation proposal and defense, and choosing a dissertation format. For example, one program discussed the chair's responsibility to complete an annual evaluation, stating "The chairperson conducts an annual evaluation of the student's progress, soliciting information from the student and the student's doctoral supervisory committee members as necessary, and sends a letter of evaluation to the student." Finally, the structure and boundaries theme involved statements around tasks or supports that fall outside of the purview of a dissertation chair relationship. These included statements about the chair providing minimal grammatical and APA style formatting suggestions and about the chair being under no obligation to begin advising a student on their dissertation until after completion of written comprehensive exams. For example, one program outlined the responsibilities of the student to actively lead the research and achieve acceptable quality in collaboration with the chair:</p> <p>While the dissertation is developed in collaboration with a faculty committee, the purpose of this project is for the students to lead a research endeavor. It is the students' responsibility to undertake a study of sufficient quality to make an important contribution to the field of counseling.</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-16">Manuscript‐Style Dissertation Format Support</hd> <p>Overall, most manuscript‐style dissertation format guidelines presented limited support to help students in the process of writing their manuscript‐style dissertations. Of the 11 programs that offered students a choice in dissertation format, most (90.9%; <emph>n</emph> = 10) did not provide a comparison of the benefits and drawbacks of the different dissertation formats. No programs addressed evidence of coursework related to the manuscript‐style dissertation format in their guidelines. Similarly, no programs offered written guidance about motivation, time management, self‐efficacy, or self‐regulation during the process of writing their dissertations. Most programs (83.3%; <emph>n</emph> = 15) included links to other documents (most often graduate school dissertation guidelines or other program‐related documents) in their guidelines, but three programs (16.7%) did not. In terms of seeking publication of manuscripts from the dissertation, five programs (27.8%) provided guidance around copyright issues unique to writing manuscript‐style dissertations, while 13 programs (72.2%) did not.</p> <p>Themes from qualitative coding of the five programs that provided copyright guidance were (a) guidance on overlapping content, (b) self‐plagiarism, and (c) permission from journals to use copyrighted content. The guidance on overlapping content theme involved descriptions of the acceptable extent of overlap in content between the dissertation and the resulting manuscript. For example, one program discussed how the dissertation guidelines had built in structures to help reduce this overlap:</p> <p>The formatting guidelines help assure there are meaningful differences between the articles in the dissertation and the format of the manuscripts submitted to journals and publications, including only one references section for the dissertation and extra information in each article.</p> <p>The self‐plagiarism theme included content about how students could avoid self‐plagiarism by not reproducing content from their dissertation in their article without proper citation. For example, one program stated:</p> <p>When an overlap in content does occur students must self‐cite in order to avoid self‐plagiarism. Self‐plagiarism ‐ reusing one's own previously written work or data in a 'new' written product without letting the reader know that this material has appeared elsewhere ‐ is not permissible.</p> <p>In the permission from journals to use copyrighted content theme, programs discussed seeking approval from journal editors to publish an article with similar content from their dissertations. For example, one program stated:</p> <p>Because our university dissertations are open access, if students want to submit it to a journal (especially when it is verbatim), they must be clear with the journal that this is a dissertation manuscript that is currently available via open access per university requirement.</p> <p>Over half of the programs (55.6%; <emph>n</emph> = 10) provided students with guidance about authorship of manuscripts resulting from their dissertations, while eight programs (44.4%) did not. None of the guidelines mentioned the American Counseling Association (ACA) <emph>Code of Ethics</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref87">1</reflink>]) standards regarding publication credit and student research in considering authorship. Themes from the qualitative coding of guidelines' sections on authorship included (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>) student as first author and committee members as co‐authors and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>) student expectations as first author. In the student as first author and committee members as co‐authors theme, programs described clearly how students are expected to be the first author on the dissertation and all resulting publications. Many guidelines also required that the dissertation chair and other committee members be included as co‐authors. For example, one guideline stated, "Authorship would always go to the student, major professor, and methodologist in that order." Other guidelines state that it is common practice for committee members to serve as authors on resulting publications, but imply students have a choice in the matter. For example, a guideline stated, "It is common practice for the dissertation chair/co‐chairs and methodologist to be co‐authors on a student's dissertation manuscripts." For the student expectations as first author theme, programs outlined the roles and tasks that students were expected to complete as the first author of their dissertation and any resulting publications. For example, one institution stated,</p> <p>Students must be first author on all manuscripts. As first author, students are responsible for: development and articulation of the research or conceptual article idea, development of a research design to pursue this idea, leading and conducting the research and data analysis, and all of the writing for each article before the successful dissertation defense.</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-17">Discussion</hd> <p>We used qualitative content analysis (Schreier [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref90">18</reflink>]) to examine how manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines in counselor education described the structure, process, and support surrounding the format. Many doctoral students in counselor education experience the dissertation process as challenging and confusing (Flynn et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref91">10</reflink>]; Lamar and Helm [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref92">14</reflink>]). Dissertation guidelines can help alleviate these issues by providing clear, supportive, and consistent information (Swank et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref93">21</reflink>]). Our findings reveal several opportunities for programs to develop more intentionality in processes, structures, and supports surrounding the manuscript‐style dissertation format.</p> <p>Programs that articulated the goals of the manuscript‐style dissertation format aligned with the literature in terms of helping students learn to write and submit scholarly journal articles but did not address the broader goals of making unique scholarly contributions to the discipline (Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref94">12</reflink>]; Paré [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref95">16</reflink>]). Yet, most guidelines (88.9%) lacked explicit attention to the goals of the manuscript‐style format. Similarly, most guidelines did not include general parameters of the manuscript‐style dissertation format, which aligns with the findings of Thomas and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref96">22</reflink>]). These gaps in content in many important areas of manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines (e.g., benefits and drawbacks of formats, copyright guidance, student eligibility requirements, how the dissertation format enhances student development of research skills; Swank et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref97">21</reflink>]) may help explain why doctoral students in counselor education can experience the dissertation process as ambiguous and confusing (Flynn et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref98">10</reflink>]; Lamar and Helm [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref99">14</reflink>]). This ambiguity and confusion, if left unaddressed by dissertation chair or committees, may lead to lacking or inconsistent rigor in student dissertations (Borders et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref100">3</reflink>]). Additionally, poorly defined goals may lead to ambiguity in eligibility criteria and inadequate guidance to help students complete manuscript‐style dissertations.</p> <p>Outlining clear expectations about the complex interpersonal dynamics of dissertation chairing relationships can support student success in the dissertation process (Jorgensen and Wester [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref101">13</reflink>]; Waalkes et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref102">23</reflink>]); strengthen the working alliance; and decrease ambiguity, role confusion, and misunderstandings (Pyhältö et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref103">17</reflink>]). Yet, two thirds of manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines did not include information about chairing roles and expectations. As indicated in the email exchange with one program contact, perhaps this choice was intentional to provide the dissertation chair with flexibility and autonomy in approaching dissertation chairing relationships (De Jong et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref104">7</reflink>]). Yet, as alluded to by program email contacts, chair factors, such as buy‐in and perceptions of the manuscript‐style dissertation format, research experience and skill levels, and capacity (Freeman Jr. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref105">11</reflink>]; Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref106">12</reflink>]), may influence students' decision‐making, perceived support, and overall success.</p> <p>Nearly half of the program guidelines (44.4%) did not provide guidance around navigating authorship order when publishing articles resulting from manuscript‐style dissertations. Guidance around authorship order was often presented in simplistic ways that did not demonstrate awareness of complex dynamics involved in dissertation chairing relationships (e.g., power differentials; Waalkes et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref107">23</reflink>]) or an integration of ACA ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>]) <emph>Code of Ethics</emph> (G.5.e. & G.5.f.) and APA ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref109">2</reflink>]) guidance around publication credit and agreement of contributors. Providing more nuanced and detailed recommendations around authorship in manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines may help promote ethical practices and demystify the publication process for doctoral students by illuminating or reinforcing these professional standards. For example, clarifying that the ACA ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref110">1</reflink>]) <emph>Code of Ethics</emph> requires students to be the first author on dissertation manuscripts may reduce student anxiety or confusion. Some programs may choose not to include information about authorship in multiple‐article dissertation guidelines as it is addressed in other parts of the doctoral program (e.g., in research or professional orientation courses).</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-18">Limitations</hd> <p>First, we limited the data to the analysis of the guidelines and information provided by program contacts by email. Information in the guidelines may have been outdated or not representative of all information about the manuscript‐style dissertation format that programs shared with students (e.g., additional documents, training sessions, class discussions). Second, we did not analyze any external documents such as graduate school handbooks and other documents linked in the majority (83.3%) of dissertation guidelines. We chose not to code this information because many of these documents were not specific to a counselor education context. Some programs included limited dissertation formatting and policy guidance in their guidelines because those details were linked in these external documents, which may limit our understanding around the level of clarity of policies and procedures. Third, due to the nature of the study as a content analysis, we had a limited understanding of the context surrounding manuscript‐style dissertations as we did not collect data from students or faculty members regarding their impressions and experiences with this format. For example, most institutions (63.6%) required the chair's approval to use the manuscript‐style dissertation option. However, the guidelines did not provide in‐depth information about the approval process or requirements needed for approval, which may be shared in places other than the guidelines (e.g., advising meetings, coursework).</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-19">Implications and Directions for Future Research</hd> <p>Given student reports of ambiguity and confusion in the dissertation process (Flynn et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref111">10</reflink>]; Lamar and Helm [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref112">14</reflink>]), programs should consider developing clearer expectations, while maintaining chair autonomy, to promote consistent levels of student support and increase rigor across dissertation chairs (Borders et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref113">3</reflink>]; Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref114">22</reflink>]). Clear guidance and support can help students' professional development and dissertation completion (Flynn et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref115">10</reflink>]; Jorgensen and Wester [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref116">13</reflink>]; Lamar and Helm [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref117">14</reflink>]). Additionally, clear and specific manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines promote accountability for program faculty to follow the guidelines to create consistency in student experiences across chairs and help set expectations for new program faculty (Freeman Jr. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref118">11</reflink>]; Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref119">12</reflink>]). Specificity and clarity in guidelines ensure all students receive the same information (Waalkes et al [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref120">23</reflink>]), so they do not experience dissertation structures and choices as unhelpfully ambiguous (Flynn et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref121">10</reflink>]). For example, some guidelines in this study lacked clarity on what sections were required, how choices between dissertation formats were made, and eligibility criteria for choosing the manuscript‐style dissertation. To support goals of clarity and consistency, counselor education programs may seek out examples of manuscript‐style dissertation format guidelines from other programs to help them identify important areas to cover. Similarly, professional organizations such as the Association of Counselor Education and Supervision could offer examples of manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines from a variety of institutions.</p> <p>Counselor education programs may consider developing policies regarding eligibility to ensure students are prepared for a manuscript‐style dissertation. Similarly, programs may consider outlining who is involved in deciding which dissertation format a student should use. Because many programs introduce manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines to students early during doctoral programs, information included in guidelines should be accessible regardless of students' familiarity with counselor education. For example, if students are presented with a choice in format, guidelines should outline the benefits and drawbacks of each format and the implications for career development (Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref122">22</reflink>]). Counseling programs can discuss the desired student learning outcomes and goals of the manuscript‐style dissertation and articulate those in their guidelines (Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref123">22</reflink>]). Programs can integrate student learning outcomes or other methods of assessing the rigor of research quality into their guidelines and processes and communicate those to students to help students understand the goals of the manuscript‐style dissertation format.</p> <p>Based on the lack of content around supporting students through barriers (e.g., self‐efficacy, motivation), counseling programs may need to provide more explicit guidance to help mentor students in the manuscript‐style dissertation format (Burkard et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref124">4</reflink>]; Pyhältö et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref125">17</reflink>]; Swank et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref126">21</reflink>]; Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref127">22</reflink>]). Manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines could take a more student‐centered and scaffolded approach that anticipates common issues students might encounter during their dissertation process (Burkard et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref128">4</reflink>]; Pyhältö et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref129">17</reflink>]) and provides specific guidance and support structures to help students overcome these issues. Similarly, although guidelines may not have described all supports around manuscript‐style dissertations, programs may consider developing structures that scaffold the manuscript writing process by providing developmental and relational support. For example, no guidelines included offering coursework specifically designed to help students learn to write manuscripts to prepare for the manuscript‐style dissertation.</p> <p>Programs may consider creating structures where chairs and students collaborate on creating a list of roles and expectations unique to their individual needs and styles and the manuscript‐style dissertation format. Alternatively, each chair in the program may consider sharing their own personalized chairing statement that includes information about their experiences, philosophies, and expectations surrounding manuscript‐style dissertations (Pyhältö et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref130">17</reflink>]). Additionally, programs should provide guidance about copyright issues when publishing manuscripts from dissertations in their manuscript‐style dissertation guidelines, including nuances unique to their version of the dissertation format. With the prevalence of manuscript‐style dissertations, journal editors might consider offering guidance about this as well. Similarly, programs should consider aligning statements about self‐plagiarism in dissertation guidelines with APA guidelines ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref131">2</reflink>], 256–257), especially nuanced guidance around duplication of previously used words and self‐citation.</p> <p>Lastly, programs should consider including guidance regarding the authorship order of manuscripts resulting from the dissertation. Many students have limited experience with conducting and publishing research, and explanations of authorship decision‐making could help demystify this process. For example, programs may integrate guidance around how students can navigate conversations around authorship order with chairs and other collaborators into these handbooks. At a minimum, guidelines should include a note that the ACA <emph>Code of Ethics</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref132">1</reflink>]) encompasses a focus on the importance of students having autonomy regarding dissemination of their research and that agreements about publication credit should be established in advance (G.5.d; G.5.e.; G.5.f.; Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref133">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>The lack of research on manuscript‐style dissertations, especially in counselor education programs (Borders et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref134">3</reflink>]; Swank et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref135">21</reflink>]), leaves many opportunities for further study. The intent of this study was to gain a broad understanding of manuscript‐style dissertations. Future studies could utilize additional qualitative methodologies to gain deeper insight from faculty and students. For example, researchers could conduct case studies of specific programs, which could include in‐depth analyses of internal dissertation‐related documents and interviews with students and faculty about their perspectives of the manuscript‐style dissertation approach. Such a study might highlight the benefits and barriers when implementing or selecting a manuscript‐style approach. Similarly, researchers could examine how offering a manuscript‐style dissertation option might inform a student's decision to attend a particular counselor education program. Offering innovative dissertation options and transparently describing dissertation chair roles may support program recruitment of students who intend to pursue tenure‐track faculty roles (Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref136">12</reflink>]). Interviewing doctoral counselor educators who have utilized the format as dissertation chairs may illuminate the strategies they use to support students specific to the format and the context factors surrounding the format, such as program faculty buy‐in, student perceptions of the format, and the influence of the unit or graduate school on the format.</p> <p>This study has brought attention to the general lack of clarity in dissertation guidelines, and researchers could explore how unclear guidelines may impact the development of researcher confidence and skills (Jorgensen and Wester [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref137">13</reflink>]). Although researchers have examined the publication rate of journal articles based on psychology dissertations (Evans et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref138">8</reflink>]), no one has examined similar publication rates in counselor education. Furthermore, no researchers have investigated the differences in publication rates for traditional and manuscript‐style dissertations in counselor education. A quantitative study of differences in post‐dissertation publication rates could reveal whether manuscript‐style dissertations result in more publications (Smaldone et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref139">20</reflink>]). Similarly, researchers may examine if the choice of dissertation format impacts dissertation completion rates in counselor education. Researchers could investigate whether students' confidence, skills, and interest in publishing research are associated with the type of dissertation completed (Burkard et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref140">4</reflink>]; Pyhältö et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref141">17</reflink>]). Additionally, longitudinal research could focus on examining whether students who completed manuscript‐style dissertations are successful in obtaining more research‐intensive roles that require a high number of publications.</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-20">Conclusion</hd> <p>A dissertation represents a major milestone in the development of counselor educators that requires significant time and effort. Manuscript‐style dissertations may support dissertation completion and jumpstart publication track records for early career counselor educators (De Jong et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref142">7</reflink>]; Freeman Jr. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref143">11</reflink>]; Graves et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref144">12</reflink>]). Offering consistent information in guidelines with an awareness of the barriers and experiences during the dissertation process may help counselor education doctoral students overcome barriers, supporting the completion and dissemination of dissertation research that influences counseling practice.</p> <hd id="AN0187978652-21">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0187978652-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref79" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Counseling Association (ACA). 2014. " ACA Code of Ethics." https://<ulink href="http://www.counseling.org/resources/aca‐code‐of‐ethics.pdf">www.counseling.org/resources/aca‐code‐of‐ethics.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref64" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association (APA). 2020. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 7th ed. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165‐000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Borders, L. D., K. L. Wester, M. J. Fickling, and N. A. Adamson. 2015. " Dissertations in CACREP‐Accredited Counseling Doctoral Programs: An Initial Investigation." The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision 7, no. 3 : 2. https://doi.org/10.7729/73.1102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref30" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Burkard, A. W., S. K. Know, T. DeWalt, S. Fuller, C. Hill, and L. Z. Schlosser. 2014. " Dissertation Experiences of Doctoral Graduates From Professional Psychology Programs." Counselling Psychology Quarterly 27, no. 1 : 19 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2013.821596.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref3" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. 2023. " 2024 CACREP Standards." https://<ulink href="http://www.cacrep.org/for‐programs/2024‐cacrep‐standards/">www.cacrep.org/for‐programs/2024‐cacrep‐standards/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref77" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W., and C. N. Poth. 2025. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 5th ed. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> De Jong, M. J., D. K. Moser, and L. A. Hall. 2005. " The Manuscript Option Dissertation: Multiple Perspectives." Nurse Author & Editor 15, no. 3 : 3 – 9. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a433038.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref138" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Evans, S. C., C. M. Amaro, R. Herbert, J. B. Blossom, and M. C. Roberts. 2018. " "Are You Gonna Publish That?" Peer‐Reviewed Publication Outcomes of Doctoral Dissertations in Psychology." PLoS ONE 13, no. 2 : e0192219. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192219.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref76" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Finlay, L., and B. Gough. 2003. Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences. Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flynn, S. V., C. L. Chasek, I. F. Harper, K. M. Murphy, and M. F. Jorgensen. 2012. " A Qualitative Inquiry of the Counseling Dissertation Process." Counselor Education & Supervision 51, no. 4 : 242 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556‐6978.2012.00018.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman, S., Jr. 2018. " The Manuscript Dissertation: A Means of Increasing Competitive Edge for Tenure‐Track Faculty Positions." International Journal of Doctoral Studies 13 : 273 – 292. https://doi.org/10.28945/4093.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graves, J. M., J. Postma, J. R. Katz, L. Kehoe, E. Swalling, and C. Barbosa‐Leiker. 2018. " A National Survey Examining Manuscript Dissertation Formats Among Nursing PhD Programs in the United States." Journal of Nursing Scholarship 50, no. 3 : 314 – 323. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12374.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jorgensen, M. F., and K. L. Wester. 2020. " Aspects Contributing to Dissertation Chair Success: Consensus Among Counselor Educators." Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision 13, no. 3 : 117 – 144. https://doi.org/10.7729/42.1404.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamar, M. R., and H. M. Helm. 2017. " Understanding the Researcher Identity Development of Counselor Education and Supervision Doctoral Students." Counselor Education & Supervision 56, no. 1 : 2 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12056.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuendorf, K. A. 2017. The Content Analysis Guidebook. 2nd ed. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paré, A. 2017. " Re‐Thinking the Dissertation and Doctoral Supervision." Journal for the Study of Education and Development 40, no. 3 : 407 – 428. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1341102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pyhältö, K., A. Toom, J. Stubb, and K. Lonka. 2012. " Challenges of Becoming a Scholar: A Study of Doctoral Students' Problems and Well‐Being." International Scholarly Research Notices 2012 : 934941. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/934941.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sangganjanavanich, V. F., and S. Magnuson. 2009. " Averting Role Confusion Between Doctoral Students and Major Advisers: Adviser Disclosure Statements." Counselor Education & Supervision 48, no. 3 : 194 – 203. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556‐6978.2009.tb00074.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schreier, M. 2012. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smaldone, A., E. Heitkemper, K. Jackman, K. J. Woo, and J. Kelson. 2019. " Dissemination of PhD Dissertation Research by Dissertation Format: A Retrospective Cohort Study." Journal of Nursing Scholarship 51, no. 5 : 599 – 607. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swank, J. M., J. L. Weaver, and K. DePue. 2021. " Manuscript‐Style Dissertations: An Alternative to the Traditional Dissertation Style." Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision 14, no. 4 : 14. https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/jcps/vol14/iss4/14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, R. A., R. E. West, and P. Rich. 2016. " Benefits, Challenges, and Perceptions of the Multiple Article Dissertation Format in Instructional Technology." Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 32, no. 2 : 82 – 98. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2573.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waalkes, P. L., D. A. DeCino, M. F. Jorgensen, and T. Somerville. 2022. " Counselor Educators' Experiences of Dissertation Chairing Relationship Dynamics." The Professional Counselor 12, no. 2 : 123 – 127. https://doi.org/10.15241/plw.12.2.123.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Phillip L. Waalkes; Daniel A. DeCino; Jacqueline M. Swank; Yuima Mizutani; Monica Maria Phelps‐Pineda and Tiffany Somerville</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref68"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483690
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Manuscript-Style Dissertation Format Guidelines in Counselor Education: A Content Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Phillip+L%2E+Waalkes%22">Phillip L. Waalkes</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2956-5078">0000-0002-2956-5078</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daniel+A%2E+DeCino%22">Daniel A. DeCino</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5514-3063">0000-0002-5514-3063</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jacqueline+M%2E+Swank%22">Jacqueline M. Swank</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2060-5835">0000-0003-2060-5835</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yuima+Mizutani%22">Yuima Mizutani</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9183-7831">0000-0001-9183-7831</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Monica+Maria+Phelps-Pineda%22">Monica Maria Phelps-Pineda</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8084-1122">0000-0001-8084-1122</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tiffany+Somerville%22">Tiffany Somerville</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0400-7982">0000-0003-0400-7982</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Counselor+Education+and+Supervision%22"><i>Counselor Education and Supervision</i></searchLink>. 2025 64(3):331-340.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Dissertations%22">Doctoral Dissertations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literary+Genres%22">Literary Genres</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Guidelines%22">Guidelines</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Counselor+Training%22">Counselor Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Copyrights%22">Copyrights</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Eligibility%22">Eligibility</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/ceas.12347
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0011-0035<br />1556-6978
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Manuscript-style dissertation formats can help support students in completing and publishing their dissertations. Yet, manuscript-style dissertation guidelines often lack structure and clarity in ways that can cause student confusion and frustration. In this qualitative content analysis, we examined the dissertation structure, process, and support described in the counseling program manuscript-style guidelines (N = 18). Many guidelines lacked clarity and support structures and may benefit from revisions to discuss topics such as copyright and student eligibility.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1483690
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483690
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/ceas.12347
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 331
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Doctoral Dissertations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literary Genres
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Guidelines
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Counselor Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Copyrights
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Eligibility
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Manuscript-Style Dissertation Format Guidelines in Counselor Education: A Content Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Phillip L. Waalkes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Daniel A. DeCino
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jacqueline M. Swank
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yuima Mizutani
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Monica Maria Phelps-Pineda
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tiffany Somerville
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0011-0035
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1556-6978
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 64
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Counselor Education and Supervision
              Type: main
ResultId 1