Running head: SYNTHESIS PAPER
1
Synthesis Paper
Student A. Sample
Grand Canyon University: RES-811
SYNTHESIS WORKSHEET
2
Title
The title does not receive bold font, but the rest of the headings do. Provide an
introduction that includes a brief description of each article and its purpose. Identify the three
themes that emerged from your reading and how they will be discussed in the paper. Conclude
the introduction with your thesis statement.
Theme One
Support your identified theme with evidence from each article and provide analysis of
these findings to strengthen your narrative.
Theme Two
Support your identified theme with evidence from each article and provide analysis of
these findings to strengthen your narrative.
Theme Three
Support your identified theme with evidence from each article and provide analysis of
these findings to strengthen your narrative.
Conclusion
Provide a conclusions that can be drawn can be drawn when the articles are taken together
as a single entity. What is the overall message of the group of articles?
The reference list should appear at the end of a paper (see the next page). It provides the
information necessary for a reader to locate and retrieve any source you cite in the body of the
paper. Each source you cite in the paper must appear in your reference list; likewise, each entry
in the reference list must be cited in your text. A sample reference page is included below; this
page includes examples of how to format different reference types (e.g., books, journal articles,
SYNTHESIS WORKSHEET
information from a website). The examples on the following page include examples taken
directly from the APA manual. The word Reference does not receive bold font.
3
SYNTHESIS WORKSHEET
4
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Daresh, J. C. (2004). Beginning the assistant principalship: A practical guide for new school
administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Herbst-Damm, K. L., & Kulik, J. A. (2005). Volunteer support, marital status, and the survival
times of terminally ill patients. Health Psychology, 24, 225-229. doi:10.1037/02786133.24.2.225
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute. (2003). Managing asthma: A guide for schools (NIH
Publication No. 02-2650). Retrieved from http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/
health/prof/asthma/asth_sch.pdf
Running head: WORKSHEET
h1
Thank you for your submission. When naming your file, please name it Firstname
Lastname_Assignment, for example Stacey Bridges_Synthesis Worksheet.docx
this is helpful when I am downloading 20+ submissions.
Synthesis Worksheet: Doctoral Identity
Wilburn Smith
Grand Canyon University
August 22, 2018
WORKSHEET
Smith 2
Synthesis Worksheet
Introduction
Capture interest:
Context:
Statement of common
themes:
Thesis statement:
Education is the key to success. The rampant demand for education
globally has captured the interests of many. Some go to an extent of
orienting in doctorates programs which is considered as the highest
level in curriculum. For one to achieve it, they have to undergo various
processes and attain the expected grades for qualification.
Paper topic is doctoral identity. In the introduction be sure to tell your reader what
doctoral identity is, why it is important and three important aspects (themes) of
doctoral identity that you will discuss. Themes will include academic success,
relationships, and your third chosen theme Be sure that each theme aligns with your
thesis. In the paper you may present themes in any order that makes the most sense
with your thesis.
For one to be awarded a doctorate certificate, they have to do a research
which is different from other people. There are various stages that are
considered among the doctorate students experience especially in
transition from doctorate to identity networks. There exists a
socialization process to doctorate students especially on the
professional identity. Remember that the topic is doctoral identity, not
success.
Doctorate students have a challenge in professional identity.
In the paper be sure that you don’t simply list the three themes, but tell the reader why
these are three important aspects of doctoral identity
Don’t mention “the articles” in the paper, they are not the focus of the paper. Write
about the topic and use the articles to support your assertions.
Socialization process amongstudentsleads and shapes their professional
identity.
Consider a thesis that ties doctoral identity formation to the transition to
scholar.
Academic Success
Theme One:
CONSIDER: Academic success at the doctoral level is MUCH different than any
other degree program. For instance, you can earn a 4.0 in all your doctoral coursework
and STILL not successfully complete the degree if you cannot transition to an
independent researcher. Consider discussing how the concept of “success” has
changed at this level and how that helps to develop a doctoral identity. Make a
CLEAR connection between how academic success contributes to developing a
doctoral identity.
WORKSHEET
Smith 3
Doctorate education is the stepping stone towards professional identity
success. The educational experience nature academic success and thesis
seen through the languages they acquire, research they do and
theteaching skills used in shaping them.
Baker and Pifer (2011):
Gardner (2009):
Smith and Hatmaker
(2015):
There are various variables that determine academic success especially
to doctorate students. The variables include student characteristics and
measures such as grades and test scores.
Professional identity is a measure of academic success and is directly
connected to socialization. The way studentssocialize with each
otherand other scholars leads to a construction of patterns that is
achievable in terms of academic success.
Relationships
Theme Two:
Baker and Pifer (2011):
CONSIDER: When synthesizing for your paper, consider how you can organize
themes in subthemes by ideas. An example for relationships is that the articles discuss
personal relationships (family and friends), collaborative relationships (colleagues and
peers), and professional relationships (faculty), each type of relationship provides a
different type of support for doctoral learners and contributes something different to
academic success. Be sure to emphasize which of these relationships specifically
relate to the development of a doctoral identity. When preparing the synthesis paper I
would rather see you organize your discussion by ideas rather than by article. Keep
your focus on your topic and use the articles to support your discussion. Also, I do not
care in what order you present the themes in the paper. Change the order if you feel it
will help your paper flow better
After successfully going through stage 1 they start to depend on
themselves during research. The relationship they have is towards self
identity
WORKSHEET
Smith 4
Gardner (2009):
Degrees have a relationship with doctorate success. This is seen with
the impact of competitionwhere science students compete more than the
humanities students. Each discipline is attached to success and it
depends on the rate of performance and urge in understanding the
principals’ concepts.
Smith and Hatmaker
(2015):
Professional socialization is the keyconcept. This means that through it
students are able to acquire new culture and norms which shapesand
guides them towards professional identity.
Hard work
I think you are on the right track, but instead of “hard work” consider a
specific theme about the student role in this journey.
I think this is an important piece of developing a doctoral identity—
students must take an active role in this process. It is vital to making the
transition from a dependent learner to an independent scholar. Be
sure that in this theme you make a clear connection to how it improves
doctoral identity ☺
Through the stages, the students are able to work and pass candidacy
exams. On the third stage, they focus on completion of the dissentions
and this is throughproper working hard and becoming independent.
Baker and Pifer (2011): They strive to be referred to as professional academies.
Gardner (2009):
Students try as much as possible to achieve and pass variousprinciples
they are in. Each student is attached to success and thus they try as
much as possible to pass the principles.
WORKSHEET
Smith and Hatmaker
(2015):
Smith 5
Newcomers are the ones who are versatile and usuallyhavethe urge of
success. They do everything that they ate taught and begin to outshine
the past students. Through the norms and culture they acquire, they
strive hard to be a subject towards success.
Professional identification in doctorate students is attached to the
principles and the urge to self-realization this statement does not match
your thesis or the discussion provided. The stages that the doctorate
students passes makes them become independent. Academic success,
relationship and hard work are the major themes that are found and
discussed by the authors. The themes shows how the doctorate students
are attached and the factors that make them be referred to as academies.
Statement of
Conclusion
Students almost always struggle with introductions and conclusions. Go through your
paper and see if you can clearly see alignment from the beginning to the end of the
paper.
Are the points you discuss in the introduction followed up in your theme discussions?
Do your themes support your thesis? Does your conclusion reflect the thesis and the
key points from your themes?
The conclusion should reflect (but not restate) your thesis and be in alignment with
the discussion you have presented about the topic.
Check out the following site for tips on writing a conclusion:
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/conclusions/
http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/acadwrite/conclude.html
http://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/pages/ending-essay-conclusions
WORKSHEET
Smith 6
References:
Baker, V., & Pifer, M. (2011).The role of relationships in the transition from doctoral student to
independent scholar. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(1), 5-17.
Gardner, S. (2009). Conceptualizing success in doctoral education: Perspectives of faculty in
seven disciplines. The Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 383-406.
Smith, A., & Hatmaker, D. (2015). Knowing, doing, and becoming: professional identity
construction among public affairs doctoral students. Journal of Public Affairs
Education, 20(4), 545-564.
Baker, V. L., & Pifer, M. J. (2011). The role of relationships in the transition from doctor to
independent scholar. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(1), 517. doi:10.1080/0158037X.2010.515569
Gardner, S. K. (2009). Conceptualizing success in doctoral education: Perspectives of faculty in
seven disciplines. The Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 383406. doi:10.1353/rhe.0.0075
Smith, A. E., & Hatmaker, D. M. (2014). Knowing, doing, and becoming: Professional identity
construction among public affairs doctoral students. Journal of Public Affairs
Education, 20(4), 545-564. http://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-368720140000026031
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming:
Professional Identity Construction
Among Public Affairs
Doctoral Students
Amy E. Smith
University of Massachusetts Boston
Deneen M. Hatmaker
University of Connecticut
ABSTRACT
Public administration scholars have long examined how doctoral students in public affairs are trained
to become researchers. Our study adds to this body of knowledge by examining socialization and
professional identity construction processes among doctoral students conducting public affairs
research. We develop a multilevel model of the organizational, relational, and individual level
tactics through which they learn to become researchers. In particular, our study offers insight into
the interactions between students and faculty that contribute to their development, as well as into
students’ own proactivity. Our study uses interview data from doctoral students in multiple
disciplines who are conducting research in public affairs. We conclude with a discussion of our
model and recommendations for doctoral programs.
KEYWORDS
doctoral students, professional identity, socialization, mentoring
Expressing concern over the quality of public
administration research, researchers have long
studied how public affairs doctoral programs
prepare students to conduct research (e.g.,
Brewer, Facer, O’Toole, & Douglas, 1998;
Rethemeyer & Helbig, 2005; White, Adams,
& Forrester, 1996).1 Previous studies have
offered programmatic suggestions such as
structured research experiences (Brewer,
Douglas, Facer, & O’Toole, 1999), examined
the “importance” of the dissertation topic
(Cleary, 2000), promoted theory development
in dissertation research (White et al., 1996),
JPAE 20 (4), 545–564
and recommended coursework in mathematics
(Rethemeyer & Helbig, 2005). Scholars also
acknowledge the importance of mentoring,
socialization, and professional identity dev
elopment for doctoral students in public affairs
(Rethemeyer & Helbig, 2005; Schroeder,
O’Leary, Jones, & Poocharoen, 2004), and a
growing body of literature from other fields
examines doctoral students’ socialization ex
periences (e.g., Gardner, 2007, 2008, 2010;
Green 1991). Increased knowledge of public
affairs doctoral students’ professional identity
development is important because it can assist
Journal of Public Affairs Education
545
A. E. Smith & D. M. Hatmaker
faculty and programs in effectively preparing
students to be productive scholars. As such,
this study contributes toward understanding
how doctoral students interested in public
affairs develop their research professional
identity. It also offers insights and recom
mendations for public affairs doctoral programs and faculty as they socialize students
into the research profession.
Our study adds to the existing knowledge
about the training of public affairs doctoral
students in several ways. This paper develops
a multilevel model of research professional id
entity development; we consider socialization
efforts at the organizational, relational, and
individual levels that contribute to different
facets of a scholar’s identity. Consistent with
prior research, this study confirms the cen
trality of faculty relationships for PhD student
professional identity development and social
ization. This study also emphasizes that devel
oping a research professional identity requires
mentoring relationships with multiple faculty
rather than a one-to-one mentor-protégé
relationship. As called for by Green (1991,
p. 404), we offer insight into understanding
the actual behaviors that comprise the
mentoring relationships between faculty and
students. While existing research emphasizes
the importance of relationships and mentoring
in the doctoral student socialization process,
it does not actually reveal the nature of the
interactions between public affairs doctoral
students and faculty. This paper goes beyond
existing research by identifying student-faculty
interactions that help students increase their
visibility, obtain hands-on research experience,
and bolster their research identity.
We also contribute to the call from Saks,
Gruman, and Cooper-Thomas (2011, p. 45)
for consideration of how newcomers execute
proactive behaviors. This paper identifies spec
ific tactics such as positioning and emulation
of role models that doctoral students employ
to obtain faculty support and construct their
iden
tity. It extends existing socialization re
search by describing these proactive behaviors,
especially those in which students engage to
546
Journal of Public Affairs Education
connect to faculty. In some cases, it appears
that students may be expending a great deal of
energy in strategizing about how to develop
connections, and then in actually doing so.
Our study is based on data from interviews
with doctoral students from a variety of
disciplines who participated in a professional
development forum and who are interested in
or are conducting research in public affairs. In
the next sections, we discuss the theoretical
background that frames our study—sociali
zation and professional identity. We then
present our methods and data, followed by our
findings. We conclude with a discussion of our
model and recommendations for teaching and
mentoring public affairs doctoral students.
PROFESSIONAL SOCIALIZATION
Socialization involves developing the skills and
acquiring the knowledge associated with being
a member of an organization or profession, as
well as adopting the values, norms, and culture
of that profession or organization (Becker,
Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961; Van Maanen,
1977; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). When newcomers
undergo this adaptation within the context
of a particular organization, it is considered
organizational socialization, while professional
socialization transcends different organiza
tional contexts (Lankau & Scandura, 2007).
Professional socialization is “learning about the
broader set of expectations, skills, behaviors,
and performance demands associated with a
particular profession” (Lankau & Scandura,
2007, p. 97). It involves not only learning
about and developing one’s identity within the
profession, but doing so in the context of the
work that one needs to accomplish (Becker et
al., 1961; Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann,
2006). Tactics such as mentoring, orientation
sessions, training, and apprenticeships facilitate socialization; these methods are typically
formal efforts by the organization to socialize
newcomers (Jones, 1986; Louis, 1980; Miller
& Jablin, 1991; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
These tactics can be considered institution
alized tactics—socialization methods in which
the organization controls the mechanisms
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming: Professional Identity Construction
(Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007; Jones,
1986; Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
However, such tactics only represent part of the
socialization process. Newcomers also engage
their own agency to obtain information and
knowledge related to becoming a member of an
organization or profession. This proactivity
enables them to fill in gaps left by insti
tu
tionalized tactics (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Mor
rison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). For
example, newcomers may establish connections
to experienced members of an organization or
profession to obtain emotional support, tacit
information, and performance feedback they
may not otherwise have if they relied solely on
the organization’s tactics (Chao, 2007; Miller
& Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993; Ostroff &
Kozlowski, 1992; Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
These efforts can also help them to fit
in and understand behavioral and cultural
norms and expectations (Chao, 2007; Kim,
Cable, & Kim, 2005; Morrison, 1993).
PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY
Professional identity can be defined as “the
relatively stable and enduring constellation of
attributes, beliefs, values, motives, and exper
iences in terms of which people define them
selves in a professional role” (Ibarra, 1999,
pp. 764–765; Schein, 1978). An individual’s
professional identity signals to others that he
or she possesses unique, skilled, or scarce
abilities (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). As
Pratt et al. note, “Organizational membership
is an indicator of where you work (i.e. an
organization). Professionals, by contrast, are
often defined by what they do” (2006, p. 236,
emphasis in original).
Socialization can contribute to professional
identity construction in several ways. Activities such as formal and on-the-job training
can offer the skills, knowledge, abilities, and
cre
dentials that define someone as being a
member of a profession. Such tactics provide
newcomers with the tools they require to do
the work that defines a professional.
Socialization can also offer role models,
mentors, and opportunities for interaction
with experienced members of the profession.
These individuals can guide newcomers as
they make sense of what it means to be a
professional in a particular field.
Mentoring offers two primary types of func
tions, career and psychosocial support, and
one of its core purposes is to develop professional identity (Dobrow & Higgins, 2005;
Hall & Burns, 2009; Kram, 1985). Although
traditional mentoring is seen as a one-to-one
mentor-protégé relationship, more recent con
ceptuali
zations focus on multiple developmental re
lationships (Dobrow & Higgins,
2005; Ragins & Kram, 2007). Formal
developmental relationships are those in which
the organization facilitates the connection
between the individual and mentor. Informal
developmental relationships are those in which
the participants initiate the connection, and
they often develop between newcomers and the
experienced members who can help them to
adjust (Chao, 2007; Lankau & Scandura,
2007). Diverse networks of developmental
relationships can offer a variety of support,
information, and resources for professional
identity construction (Dobrow & Higgins,
2005). Mentors can also act as role models who
offer possible selves that professionals can “try
out” to see how well a particular identity fits
(Ibarra, 1999).
DOCTORAL STUDENT SOCIALIZATION AND
IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION
For doctoral students, socialization into the
profession includes the process of learning to
become an independent researcher (Gardner,
2007, 2008). The process of constructing this
identity involves the transition from being a
consumer of knowledge to a producer of
knowledge through original research, a process
that can be frustrating for students (Gardner,
2008). The socialization of doctoral students
has received attention within the higher
education, sociology, and organizations lit
erature (e.g., Gardner, 2007, 2008, 2010;
Green, 1991; Rosen & Bates, 1967; Weidman
& Stein, 2003; Weidman et al., 2001).
Journal of Public Affairs Education
547
A. E. Smith & D. M. Hatmaker
Some of this work examines socialization stages
that doctoral students progress through as they
become researchers (e.g., Gardner, 2008; Green,
1991; Weidman & Stein, 2003; Weidman et al.,
2001). For example, Gardner (2008) found
that the history and chemistry doctoral students
in her study were socialized through program
matic processes such as coursework; candidacy
examinations and the dissertation; relationships
with peers, faculty, and other academic profes
sionals; and personal learning. She noted that
they transition through phases of development
marked by the first year of coursework, the
time spent in coursework up to candidacy, and
then the dissertation process.
Relationships with advisers and mentors can be
important for professional socialization and
identity development (Green, 1991; Hall &
Burns, 2009; Gardner, 2007, 2008; Schroeder
et al., 2004; Sweitzer, 2009). For example,
Green (1991) found that when advisors were
highly supportive of doctoral students, students
were more likely to be more committed to and
productive in their research. Gardner (2008)
found that in the early stages of their social
ization, the history and chemistry doctoral
students in her study developed relationships
with faculty and peers on whom they relied
for guidance; but in the later stage of their
programs, the dissertation stage, the students
became less attached to peers and closer to
faculty. She also found that the students began
their transition to a more professional identity
from a student identity during the mid and
late socialization phases focused on approach
ing candidacy and the dissertation (Gardner,
2008). In her study of business doctoral
students, Sweitzer (2009) found that the
influence of faculty-student developmental
relationships on professional identity varied
based on whether the faculty reinforced
institutional goals or focused more on
individual development.
workshop in two consecutive years, and
participants were recruited from both cohorts,
which comprised a total of 59 students. The
workshop was geared toward students interested
in pursuing an academic career and included
sessions on the academic job market, ethics in
publishing, and an interactive session between
faculty and students to provide input and
feedback on the students’ research. Study
participants were enrolled in doctoral programs
at 25 different universities in 6 countries
located in North America, South America, and
Europe; most participants were from North
America. Seventeen students were attending
programs in public administration, public
man
agement, policy, philanthropy and non
profit management, or political science. Ten
students were enrolled in management and/or
organizations (e.g., organizational behavior)
doctoral programs but were conducting re
search in public affairs. Eighteen of the study
participants were women.
At the time of the interviews, seven students
had recently graduated. Most of the remaining
students had entered candidacy and/or were
working on their proposal or dissertation.
Nearly all participants were collaborating with
faculty on research projects in addition to
working on their own dissertation research.
Twenty-two participants had coauthored a
conference paper or journal article with a
faculty member. All students had attended at
least one academic conference, and nearly all
had presented at a conference.
DATA AND METHODS
The authors and one graduate assistant
collected data through semi-structured phone
interviews; the geographic dispersion of study
participants and resource constraints prohibit
ed in-person data collection. Interviews lasted
about one hour and were audio-recorded.
The interviews were professionally transcribed.
The quality of the recording for one interview
prohibited transcription, and we relied on notes
taken during the interview.
This paper is based on interviews with 27
students who participated in a professional
development workshop for public affairs
doctoral students. The authors co-chaired this
Our interview questions focused on how par
ticipants were learning to become academic
professionals. Although our interviews covered
548
Journal of Public Affairs Education
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming: Professional Identity Construction
each of the three dimensions that comprise a
faculty or academic career—research, teaching,
and service—this paper focuses specifically on
their process of becoming a researcher. Similar
to Pratt et al. (2006) in their study of
professional identity construction among
medical residents, we asked participants what
being a researcher means to them. We also
asked them about how they are learning to do
research, covering topics such as working with
faculty, their coursework, and conference
presentations. We conducted interviews until
we had reached theoretical saturation, in which
no new or relevant data was emerging for our
categories (Strauss & Corbin, 2008), resulting
in a total of 27 interviews.
each other revealed how students linked, for
example, formal research training, facultystudent interactions (such as the support
offered through mentoring), and the conse
quences of the training and interactions (the
students’ perceptions of their development).
Subsequent closer coding of the categories
revealed additional nuances that led us to our
multilevel model of socialization tactics at the
organizational, relational, and individual level.
Our coding also focused on students’ definitions
of what it means to be a researcher. (See
Appendix I for the structure of our codes and
categories, with data examples.) We used NVivo
software to manage the data and electronically
link transcript text to codes and categories.
We employed a grounded theory approach
for our analysis in which we iteratively used
the literature and the data to inductively
and systematically generate our constructs
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). First, we read
through each transcript in its entirety. Then,
employing an open coding process (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998), we individually coded a
subset of the interviews by assigning labels to
sentences and paragraphs; this initial coding
focused on how participants defined being a
researcher and tactics and behaviors related to
learning to become a researcher. For inter-coder
reliability, we discussed our individual coding
and agreed on first-order codes. We used these
codes as a guideline for subsequent coding,
and added new codes as they emerged through
our analysis and discussion. We used the
literature to inform our analysis. For example,
Weidman and Stein (2003), Sweitzer (2009),
and the work by Gardner (2007, 2008) offered
insight into the importance of relationships
for doctoral stu
dents. The organizational
socialization literature (e.g., Morrison, 1993;
Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992; Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979) guided our coding of institution
alized socialization tactics and the students’
proactive efforts.
THE PROTOTYPICAL RESEARCHER
We then grouped codes into higher-level
categories and used axial coding to establish
connections between the categories (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998). Relating the categories to
Most students viewed theory building as a
central part of a researcher’s role. They discussed two types of theory building: the type
that adds incrementally to existing scholarship
In responding to our question about what it
means to be a researcher, nearly all participants
offered descriptions of what researchers do
(Pratt et al., 2006). Participants’ explanations
of what it means to be a researcher described
tasks and role expectations that typically are
associated with being a researcher—a proto
typical research identity (cf. Sluss, Ployhart,
Cobb, & Ashforth, 2012; Sweitzer, 2009). As
one participant stated, a researcher is one “who
looks into whatever is going on in the real
world and tries to make sense of it.”
Students discussed several dimensions of the
prototypical research identity, as shown in Box
1. They indicated activities in which research
ers engage and how they behave, covering
ethics, theory building, research dissemination
and publishing, and methodological rigor. A
few participants who discussed ethics did so in
terms of the nature of the research itself—as
one participant stated, “It’s advancing the field
ethically, honestly with academic rigor”—as
well as with respect to the treatment of research
participants. Many parti
cipants described
being a researcher as predicated upon using
rigorous research methods.
Journal of Public Affairs Education
549
A. E. Smith & D. M. Hatmaker
BOX 1.
Participant Descriptions of a Researcher
“What Does it Mean to be a Researcher?”
I think the researcher has to be someone who is actively investigating questions that are relevant and haven’t
really been answered before, you know, trying to get their work published and having to, you know, the
academic community to get, to start a dialog and to stand in front of others and to really kind of, you know,
answer some tough questions.
I think being a researcher means being able to pose a provocative, relevant question, and then go about
answering it. So to me, that’s what research is about.
One is sort of creation of knowledge in the areas that I’m interested in and then dissemination of that knowledge
and so, you know, doing research that’s going to build on, on the foundations we have right now in my area
and help to, you know, create better understanding of variety of phenomena.
I believe a researcher is somebody who saturates themselves in the knowledge of their field and then tries
to expand upon that knowledge.
and the type that ventures into previously
unexplor
ed areas. For example, one participant articulated the nuances between these two
types of contributions.
Another student articulated publishing’s cen
trality in building a reputation as a contributor
to a particular body of knowledge and in
gaining name recognition.
I see research as maybe one of two maybe
various components. I think one com
ponent and I, and I actually heard this
at a conference—that there are some
researchers who are really great with
coming up with new questions, new
ways of looking at a phenomenon, new
ways of analyzing something and then
there are other researchers who con
centrate on taking existing information
and, and maybe challenging it or testing
assumptions and things like that.
Being a researcher at a university, as far as
I’m concerned, means that you are able
to publish in top journals. So, being a
researcher means that you are a person
that devotes the whole time into trying
to publish in these top journals … kind
of building your own research line so it’s
not just publishing 1 or 2 good pieces in
good journals, but also trying to draw a
line, a research line, that people can
define that you are doing research in
this area. And when they think in some
area, they can think in your name, for
example, or they can think of some of
your work.
Several participants also recognized that the
dissemination of findings is a researcher’s role.
These students discussed publishing as the
primary vehicle through which research results
would be shared with the academic and
practitioner community. Even early in their
careers, these students were keenly aware of the
central role that publishing plays in the career
of a researcher. For example, one participant
stated, “I’ve really been trained in the publish
or perish mindset.”
550
Journal of Public Affairs Education
RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY
CONSTRUCTION
As they discussed how they are becoming a
researcher, our study participants described
multiple mechanisms. These components
represent a multilevel approach to becoming a
researcher; they represent activities at the
organizational, relational (interpersonal), and
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming: Professional Identity Construction
individual level. We have categorized the tactics into three main groups: institutionalized
socialization (organizational level), faculty men
toring (relational level), and student proactivity
(individual level).
Institutionalized socialization is comprised of
the formal activities initiated by the student’s
department or school and geared toward formal
socialization into the profession. Faculty men
toring consists of the activities that faculty
initiate to develop the students. Activities
falling into the category of student proactivity
are those in which the student initiates
relationships that facilitate his or her transition,
sometimes by strategically positioning them
selves in order to connect with the “right”
person. In addition, a few students stated that a
certain amount of luck contributed to their
development, particularly with respect to the
relationships constructed with faculty; we
have labeled this phenomenon serendipity. In
the next sections, we discuss each of these
mechanisms in more detail, along with the
associated outcomes noted by the students.
Institutionalized Socialization Tactics
As discussed by the participants, a researcher’s
identity is rooted in inquiry, rigor, and the
application of research methods to study social
phenomena. Part of this identity is developed
through institutionalized mechanisms that are
established by departments, colleges, or uni
versities to socialize students as researchers.
These institutionalized tactics were comprised
of three activities in which nearly every student
participated: research methods courses, formal
advising, and formal graduate assistantship
assignments. Nearly all students were required
to take at least two methods courses, and
most participants completed on average two
addi
tional methods courses. All participants
completed at least one quantitative methods
course, and nearly all had a course covering
qualitative methods.
Departments also assigned students to faculty
for formal advising and for graduate assistant
ships. Twenty-four participants had assistant
ships during graduate school; of that number,
16 held research assistantships. Nearly all
part
icipants with an assistantship described
the relationship as one that grew in responsi
bility over time. In the next section on
faculty men
toring and on-the-job training,
we discuss in more detail the relationships
between faculty and students in the context of
these assignments.
Several participants described their methods
courses and research assistantships as strongly
complementary. Research assistantships pro
vided a venue where the students could apply
the techniques and skills learned in the meth
ods courses, as one participant articulated.
So in those courses, we looked at every
thing from textbooks on how to do
research and the practice both on the
quantitative and qualitative way of doing
it with social science to cases and
examples where research has been … but
I really think it was strongly, strongly
augmented by my experience with my
advisor, as I’ve worked two research
projects with her, so the two research
design classes are great starting points
but it all exists in this hypothetical
situation and that’s not the way the
world operates and you learn so much
through the process of doing it.
Participants built foundational knowledge
through classroom training, but the on-the-job
experiences working with faculty members
enabled the students to apply the knowledge
gained in the classroom to actual research pro
jects. In the next section, we discuss the on-thejob training related to honing research skills as
well as other dimensions of faculty mentoring.
Faculty Mentoring
It’s something … I think that if a top
professor can devote some time with a
PhD student, I think that’s, in my opin
ion, that’s probably the key of a successful
PhD, is having someone with experience
Journal of Public Affairs Education
551
A. E. Smith & D. M. Hatmaker
and with success and that this person
devotes time to you. In this case, if I send
him a paper, doesn’t matter the week,
doesn’t matter the time, he will read it
and comment on it and we will have a
meeting and he will go point by point.
And really for me, that makes a differ
ence, more than the courses and more
than everything.
The above quote from one of our students
speaks to the centrality of faculty’s role in
shaping the students’ professional identity as a
researcher. In particular, this student recognized
that faculty availability and willingness to
provide detailed feedback is a cornerstone of a
doctoral student’s success. All of the students
in our study described how their relationships
and interactions with faculty offered either
instrumental or social support or both. Many
of the students discussed the underlying trust
in these relationships, and nearly all talked
about supportive ties to faculty other than the
formally assigned advisor. These informal re
lationships offer advice and guidance beyond
the “bureaucratic” processes of being a doctoral
student, and can emerge “organically” or as a
result of a “natural” affinity in a particular topic
area, as two students described.
I mean mentoring and advising I see as
very differently. Advising is much more
physical, filling out the paperwork that
needs to be done through the university
bureaucracy, which is important to get
that all done. Otherwise, you can’t pro
gress. But I think of mentoring as much
more informal and almost something
that has to happen organically; at least it
has been in my experience.
I mean, yeah, I have an advisor, one
that’s obviously a little bit more formal
but the other ones I think like any, pro
bably in any setting, it’s … there’s people
that you connect with more naturally
than others and so I would definitely say
that there’s three other professors that it’s
552
Journal of Public Affairs Education
more of the informal relationship. You
know, I trust them and if I know I have
questions, I’ll make sure that I’m shoot
ing them an e-mail.
Such mentoring by faculty contributes toward
developing the students’ sense of themselves as
researchers, offering them confidence as well
as the skills needed to be a researcher. Most
students referred to the faculty with whom they
work closely as mentors even if the faculty were
not assigned as formal mentors or advisors.
This mentoring consists of on-the-job training,
emotional labor, and visibility enhancement.
On-the-job training. Nearly all of the students
discussed learning how to conduct research
through on-the-job training while working
with faculty. For some participants, colla
borating with faculty began with being given
responsibility for a relatively small portion of
a research project, with the parts growing
incrementally over time along with increased
responsibility. The following two participants
describe their increasing responsibilities as they
learned more about how to conduct research
through their work with faculty.
I have one project that I would say is
probably like a classic PhD student
project whereby my supervisor and his
colleague developed the research study
initially and then I became involved as a
research assistant right at the stage where
they were designing the questionnaire
and so I had some input there, did a
bunch of the data collection, and now
have been on the, I am the third author
on a manuscript that’s under review …
yeah, it’s sort of classic, you know,
learning the ropes and helping to do bits
and pieces, so that’s one project.
Well, it changed over the course of, as I
grew. Initially, it was mostly involved in
writing the methods part of course, as I
was the main one doing the data analysis.
So writing the methods, but also
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming: Professional Identity Construction
brainstorming with the ideas. And then
also just kind of in reviewing and adding
to the manuscript that my advisor was
taking the lead on. But over time too, I
came to play more of a role in the theory
development. And though I was never
the one doing the lead writing, I was
contributing as much as my advisor on
the theory development and writing.
Some students likened their initial experiences
to being “thrown into the fire” and conducting
research with a faculty member immediately
upon entering graduate school.
And so I actually dove sort of head first
into this project, you know, the first day
of starting grad school . . . And it ended
up being a multimethod study. We did a
series of focus groups and then I designed
and implemented a survey. So it was a,
you know, a pretty hands on, thrown in
the fire introduction to, to research.
Bolstering identity. Several students discussed
how faculty interactions served to bolster their
professional identity. For example, several
students in our study noted that interactions
with faculty helped them to gain self-confidence
and enhance their own sense of efficacy as a
researcher. Several students indicated that one
outcome of responsibility growing increment
ally is increased confidence. One participant
reflected that as faculty-student collaboration
progressed, confidence increased, and she
became more of a peer to the faculty researcher
rather than just a student.
I don’t think … I think it’s just something
that kind of happened naturally because
as my foundation grew, I had a lot more
to offer. And so I just … And whereas, in
my first couple of years, I was very
hesitant, lacked the confidence to kind
of push my ideas out there, that changed
the more I learned, the more that I
gained confidence, and it became more
of a peer relationship rather than kind
of advisor/student.
Although on-the-job training assists the stud
ents in developing their research skills, faculty
do not just focus on the technical aspects of
training in the mentoring relationships. The
research profession can be challenging on sev
eral fronts, and faculty mentors also offer the
psychosocial support that is a part of mentoring
and that can assist students in overcoming
emotional hurdles. A few students explained
how this psychosocial support helped them
weather the emotional peaks and valleys asso
ciated with the successes and failures of learning
to do (and actually doing) research, and helped
them to overcome stumbling blocks they may
have faced.
For example, in the next quotation, one student
described the self-doubt that accompanies
many students as they begin their professional
development, and how the faculty support is
both reassuring and a reaffirmation of their
identity as a researcher. At the same time, the
student noted that the faculty recommended
that she learn to develop the tough skin often
required to persevere in this profession.
… she was very supportive and reassuring
and, you know, but also not afraid to say
you need to be able to do this so you
might not enjoy it but toughen up, you’ll
get through it, I have total faith in
you … we come into this with enough
self-doubt, I think, that having that, that
moral support, saying that you can do
this is, helps keep us in it, helps keep, get
us through it.
Another student used the analogy of learning
to ride a bike to articulate how his advisor en
abled him to gain independence while still being
there “to pick him up” from research “spills.”
And I just feel it’s a huge advantage to
have had that opportunity to, to see it in
theory, to see it in practice, and I tend to
use an analogy with several of the stages
as we’ve moved through different parts of
a research project to my research assist
antship of kind of having training wheels
Journal of Public Affairs Education
553
A. E. Smith & D. M. Hatmaker
on a bike and then moving to my advisor,
sort of walking along or running along
behind the bike, making sure that I’m
not going to take a big spill to getting me
ready to do it on my own, which I think
is the ideal; and if you just throw them
out there without that experience, it’s
really easy to take a tumble and not be
sure you want to get back up on the bike.
Increasing visibility. For researchers, profes
sional identity is also rooted in their reputation
and connections to other researchers. One
component of the developmental relationships that emerged from our analysis was
that faculty offered opportunities for students
to become more visible to other academics
within the profession. Many study participants explained how faculty connected them to
researchers from other institutions and invited
them to join panels at professional conferences. One participant described how being
asked to participate in a panel led to writing a
book chapter.
One of the things that [my advisor] did,
for example, that is a lovely thing for a
mentor to do, is she would ask to be part
of the panel for the next [management]
conference and she asked me if I wanted
to be part of that panel and then that put
me in touch with the, the person who is
leading the panel or co-leading the panel
who, after I submitted my paper for that
purpose, asked me if I wanted to write a
chapter in a book she was editing.2
Balancing. A few students in our study ex
plained how faculty offered guidance that went
beyond the framework of the profession; they
identified support from faculty that focused
on the challenges of balancing life outside of
work with work demands (work-life balance).
Although life as an academic researcher can
offer many benefits in terms of autonomy and
lifestyle, particularly through the dissertation
and tenure years, it can also be quite a
demanding profession.
554
Journal of Public Affairs Education
For example, students and newly minted PhDs
can find it difficult to determine how much
time to spend on different activities that are
expected of academic professionals. Similarly,
Gardner (2007, 2008) found that balancing
duties and issues of time were challenges for
the history and chemistry students in her
study. In the next quote, one participant
described both the nature of the advisor
relationship in terms of emotional closeness
and formality, as well as the advisor’s advice on
balancing the competing priorities faced by
academic researchers.
I have a very close relationship with my
advisor. And because of our close rela
tionship that’s developed kind of beyond
just work life and personal as well, there’s
a relationship there, he’s helped me in
kind of all aspects and how to balance it.
And I feel that he’s looked after me and
offered advice on how not to get too
overwhelmed, how to kind of limit how
much time I spend on different projects
or teaching different things that I’m
required to do. …So, and in some ways,
it’s been very formal, and in some ways,
it’s been more personal and informal.
Student Proactivity
Learning to become a researcher also involves
individual agency on the student’s part. All
participants explained how they took initiative
to connect with and learn from faculty. They
emulated faculty advisors and mentors and
positioned themselves in ways that enabled
them to establish relationships with particular
faculty that they deemed instrumental for their
own advancement and research.
Participants used phrases like “personal initi
ative” and “I was the driver” to convey their
proactivity. One participant remarked, “It’s there
for the taking, but you have to be able to take
the initiative.” These participant com
ments
suggest that the connections with faculty
through assistantships and advisor assignments
are necessary, but not sufficient, for the learning
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming: Professional Identity Construction
process. Rather, formal assignments allocated
by the department are first steps. It is then up
to students to be proactive in recognizing their
needs and strategically developing and initiating
relationships to fulfill those academic and
emotional support needs.
Emulating faculty. Many students viewed
faculty as role models, and they discussed
emulating faculty. For students, advisors are
their first examples of what it means to be a
researcher and how research is actually done.
Because faculty advisors are role models, they
are heavily influential in the process of learning
to become a researcher. One participant said of
her advisor, “I kind of want to be her when I
grow up.” As described in the quotes from two
participants, doctoral students imitate faculty
that they perceive as successful researchers.
I’m very grateful for her and I think
that’s, that’s probably one of the things,
one of the most tactical ways that I’ve
learned how to be a researcher and how
to be an academic and I really see her as
someone that I can follow, follow in
those footsteps.
…that would be the metaphor, you know,
the master has developed his craft to, you
know, to a degree that he is respected
among the community within that trade
and, you know, you enter as a mentee,
you know, to, to understand how to dev
elop the craft, how to become an expert
yourself but first by mimick
ing, not
necessarily mimicking but just by, yeah,
mimicking, you know, the same routines
and approaches that your mentor takes.
Positioning. Nearly all students engaged in
activities to position themselves to be noticed
by faculty and to initiate working relationships
with them. We identified three specific posi
tioning strategies in our coding: (a) reaching
out, (b) initiating research projects and then
engaging faculty in them, and (c) reputation
building. In reaching out to faculty, students
strategically identified faculty and developed
and executed a plan for initiating a connection
to that person. For example, one participant
described positioning himself to initiate con
tacts with several faculty members, each of
whom offered expertise in differing areas of
interest or need.
I just knocked on her door. I explained
a little what was my background and
what I wanted to do and we started
working quite soon together. …I wanted
to work with someone that was actually
an expert on quantitative methods
because I think it’s important. So, I got
in touch with this other professor from
the quantitative department…then the
first year, I attended also the [withheld]
conference. I wanted to interact with a
public [administration] faculty member
and the first one on my list was [name
withheld]. So, I just bumped into him at
the conference and I explained what was
my thesis about and where I was from,
these kinds of things and we started
work, little by little, together and as we
were working more, the relationship was
a bit closer.
In another example, a student sought out a
faculty member by directly asking her to be the
student’s advisor.
So I was attending a course with her, and
this was a brilliant course. It really open
ed up my mind to lots of research ques
tions and ideas, and I realized I really
wanted to be with her. … And then I re
quested her if she’d be willing to be my
supervisor because I was looking for a
change in supervisor, and she said yes
right away.
In another case, a student described how he
would reach out to those faculty whose work he
admired, with whom he might have a natural
connection or whose work is compelling.
Journal of Public Affairs Education
555
A. E. Smith & D. M. Hatmaker
Well, there are some other researchers
and professors that I have more affinity
and more dialogue possibilities, so those
ones I would choose for advice, or people that I have a special admiration on
their work. So I know they have a work
that is particular interesting or they have
developed a way that was really nice,
so I would go for them. I would look
for them.
Another way that participants positioned
themselves to connect with faculty was by
initiating their own research projects and
asking faculty to participate. These projects
included research outside of assignments
from faculty supervisors, as one participant described.
So I identified a, a gap in the literature
and what I thought was kind of inter
esting for an experiment in this case, a
controlled experiment, and so I designed
that and then brought in another student
and, well, the fellow who was running
the course that I, where I identified this
as a, as a project, so the faculty member
and that faculty member has, is like is the
third author on this work and so he
operated it as a, well, much as you would
expect a third author, author to operate.
He gave input to drafts and gave input to
questionnaires and study design but it
was mostly run by me.
Several students also focused on reputation
building as a means to position themselves such
that they could be noticed by or initiate a
connection to faculty. Students indicated that
projection of their skills, abilities, and know
ledge assisted them in building a reputation
within their department or area of expertise
and then initiating a relationship with faculty.
Students built their reputation in various ways:
by doing well in their coursework, presenting at
conferences, collaboration, and voicing interest
in particular areas of research.
556
Journal of Public Affairs Education
In one example, a student described a confer
ence presentation and her reputation among
other faculty as key factors in her ability to
secure a postdoctoral fellowship and collabor
ative research projects with a faculty member
at another institution.
I think the reason I earned [my fellowship]
was they, that he saw me present, my new
advisor at [my new school], saw me pre
sent at [a conference] and was impressed
with the quality of the research I was
doing and then he also knew colleagues
of mine at [my former job] and learned
further about some of the data collection
methodology and knew my persistence
was, how should I say, he said it was im
pressive so he and I have a lot of research
projects already planned.
In sum, these comments by participants sug
gest that student proactivity is an important
element in the process of learning to become
a researcher. In particular, formal tactics init
iated by the organization, such as classroom
training and the assignment of advisors and
assistantships, begin the process of learning
to become a researcher, but they alone are not
sufficient. Developmental relationships with
faculty are a primary element in the socializa
tion and identity development process, and
students played an active role in developing
these relationships.
Serendipity
In the course of coding the interviews, we
noticed that a few students mentioned one
other element that does not fit neatly into our
multilevel categories: luck. In particular, they
discussed the role that luck or good fortune
played in making their connections to faculty.
In this sense, the students seemed to indicate
that although they recognized that they can
steer their development, for example by
establishing connections and doing well in
coursework, to some extent the socialization
process was eased or facilitated when the
department or program happened to assign
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming: Professional Identity Construction
them to a faculty who turned out to be a good
fit. By starting off with the “right person,”
they believed they were able to focus more on
activities that contributed directly toward their
own development rather than expending
energy on searching for the “right” advisor or
mentor. For example, some students talked
about how they were lucky to be assigned
to their advisor, or to a particular project, as
these two participants articulated.
But in terms of actually getting the ex
perience and translating that to like class
room learning, I think, I think I have it
because luckily I was assigned to a great
project and a great advisor.
I, I, like I said, I know I just kind of won
the lottery with this one with who I was
placed in that she’s tenured, that she’s
recently enough into this that she’s still
very aware of how do you the job market,
how do you balance it all.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
We found a great deal of consensus among our
participants regarding what it means to be a
researcher, the advantages they gain from fac
ulty mentoring and relationships, and the effort
they put into developing their identity. From
our findings, we have constructed a model of
the relationship between the multilevel com
ponents and the doctoral students’ notion of
and construction of a research professional
identity. This model is shown in Figure 1.
The model includes the categories of activities
at each level—organizational, relational, and
individual—as well as the professional identity
dimensions related to these activities and the
definition of what it means to be an academic researcher as noted by the students in
our study. As shown by our findings, the stu
dents’ departments and programs engaged in
institutionalized socialization tactics through
coursework and by assigning students to advi
sors and research assistantships. These tactics
helped students to develop research skills and
expertise in research methods as well as know
ledge about a particular area of research. By
exposing students to different faculty members,
these tactics also facilitated students’ connec
tions to and relationships with faculty mentors,
as shown by the dotted line in the model from
the organizational level activities to the rela
tional level activities.
Two other factors also influenced students’ abil
ities to establish developmental relationships
with faculty: student proactivity and serendi
pity. Students’ proactive behaviors helped them
to connect with key faculty for mentoring
beyond their assistantships and formal advisors,
as represented by the dotted line in our model
from the individual level to relational level acti
vities. In addition, several students had noted
that they felt lucky to be assigned to the advisor
they had. We included serendipity in our model
with dotted lines to both the institutionalized
socialization and the faculty mentoring because
it seems to be a moderating factor for both, at
least from the students’ perspective.
The relational level of socialization may be the
most central to the students’ professional
identity development. At this level, the activities
and tactics were focused on the interactions
between students and faculty, and were often
distinguished by students’ descriptions of trust
in the faculty and consideration of the faculty
as a mentor. These activities comprised both
the instrumental and psychosocial support
thatboth formal and informal mentoring can
provide, and students often referred to faculty
as their mentors. Not all faculty viewed as
mentors by the students were assigned as formal
advisors. Some were informal mentors with
whom the students established relationships on
their own, or who may have taken an interest in
a particular student and initiated an informal
mentoring relationship.
Insights for Faculty and Doctoral
Program Administrators
In this section, we offer insights and suggestions
to faculty and doctoral programs that are
Journal of Public Affairs Education
557
A. E. Smith & D. M. Hatmaker
FIGURE 1.
Research Professional Identity Construction
Organizational Level:
Institutionalized
Socialization
Serendipity
Classroom training
Advisors
Research assistantships
Relational Level:
Faculty Mentoring
On-the-job training
Bolstering identity
Increasing visibility
Balancing
Components of
a Research
Professional Identity
Research skills
Method expertise
Area expertise/knowledge
Visibility
Reputation
Independence
Self-confidence
Ethics
Individual Level:
Student Proactivity
Emulating faculty
Positioning
training public affairs researchers. Before dis
cussing our recommendations, we present a few
caveats and limitations.3 First, the students in
this study self-selected to participate in a
professional development workshop. As such,
this group may have higher levels of proactivity
and motivation for professional development
than do public affairs doctoral students as a
whole. Although we leave it to future research
to explore identity development among stu
558
Journal of Public Affairs Education
dents while measuring proactivity levels, here
we take into account this possibility by offering insights for engaging students who may not
be as proactive or have as much motivation
to develop.
Second, our study focuses on the professional
identity development and socialization that
begins when the student enters a doctoral pro
gram and does not consider prior professional
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming: Professional Identity Construction
experience or individual characteristics. We do
not have the data to consider these additional
factors. Although our study follows the social
ization literature in viewing sociali
zation as
beginning once a newcomer crosses the thresh
old of an organization or profession (e.g., Louis,
1980), these factors certainly can influence the
process; we recognize this as a limitation that
should be addressed in future research.
A final caveat, as noted in our data and methods
section: Our study is based on data from
students who indicated an interest in pursuing
an academic career. Therefore, the following
insights focus primarily on this training.
Programs should consider offering a requir
ed professional development seminar for
doctoral students. Students discussed both
the value of connecting with varied faculty for
a range of support and the strategies they used
to develop these connections. One way that
doctoral programs may alleviate some of this
effort is to offer and require a seminar on
doctoral research and professional development;
for some programs, this requirement may be an
addition to the curriculum.
For example, the doctoral program in Public
Administration and Policy at the University at
Albany, State University of New York requires a
one-credit professional development seminar
through the first two years of the doctoral
program.4 The seminar meets every other week
and covers core topics such as the academic job
market, publishing in academic journals, teach
ing at the college level, developing collaborative
working relationships with faculty members,
selecting an area of specialization, organizing a
dissertation committee, and participating in
conferences. Multiple faculty members teach
and present during the seminar, and students
are required to make one conference-style pre
sentation while registered for this course series.
Such a seminar could also educate students
about the culture of the academic research pro
fession, beginning to socialize them to research
norms. And although our study focused on aca
demic research preparation, the seminar could
also cover nonacademic professional paths.
A professional development seminar offers a
venue for both skill development and consist
ent messaging to the students. Students have
the opportunity to showcase themselves and
develop writing and presentation skills. They
can present their own work to faculty and peers
and receive feedback. A professional develop
ment seminar offers a good venue for doctoral
students to practice conference presentations
and/or academic job talks. It also can assist
students with their writing skills by providing
feedback on drafts of manuscripts.
Because not all students may realize at the
beginning stages of their career that success can
depend on the diversity of connections they
develop, this seminar could also emphasize the
importance of developing relationships with
multiple faculty from within and outside the
students’ department or university. Not all stu
dents may recognize the value of assistantship
work, and the seminar could also reinforce why
this work is important. Highlighting how work
ing with faculty builds a reputation, results in
publications, and improves research skills may
motivate students to take assistantships serious
ly. Overall, a seminar should offer a consistent
message to all doctoral students regard
ing
professional development and can provide
them with materials they can refer to later.
Such a seminar serves multiple purposes from
the perspective of relational socialization and
identity development. It enables students to
connect to faculty outside of the classroom or a
course in more informal ways and exposes them
to a broader range of faculty than they might
otherwise encounter. They can also simply
learn more about what different faculty
members do. These factors can reduce the
reliance on serendipity that some students
discussed. These seminars also offer another
reputation-building opportunity for students,
and they may present different aspects of
themselves and their interests to faculty. A
Journal of Public Affairs Education
559
A. E. Smith & D. M. Hatmaker
required professional development seminar
serves to ensure that those students who may
not be getting a great deal of advice or support
in some areas, or know how to seek advice or
support, receive at least some general guidance
and advice in proscribed areas.
Faculty mentors can emphasize and facil
itate multiple developmental relation
ships
for doctoral students. The importance of de
vel
oping ties to multiple faculty should be
communicated in the formal seminar, but the
fac
ulty mentor also needs to reinforce and
augment the message. Although the seminar
can aptly convey general activities for profes
sional development, the reality for doc
toral
students is that learning to become a productive
researcher is a very individualized process.
These specialized needs—such as expertise in a
substantive area or analytic method, or advice
on balancing professional demands with raising
a family—may not always be ful
filled by a
student’s primary advisor or mentor.
All of our participants discussed various ways
that they initiated ties to faculty that provided
them with access to different mentors and role
models who served different purposes. But, as
we acknowledge earlier, not all students may
be as comfortable with this proactive approach,
or even recognize the professional and personal
need for or advantages in developing connec
tions to multiple faculty. Faculty mentors should
emphasize the value of multiple developmental
relationships and assist students in both ident
ifying and connecting to faculty who might be
instrumental. They can encourage students to
engage in activities that can increase visibility
and enhance network and professional identity
development. Such activities might include
attending professional development seminars
offered by professional associations, chairing
conference paper sessions, or acting as a
discussant for a conference panel session. This
facilitation can reduce students’ need to expend
energy strategizing on how to meet or “cold
call” key people.
560
Journal of Public Affairs Education
Programs can offer incentives and opportunities for professional development acti
vities beyond program requirements and
milestones. Programs can require students to
complete an annual progress report that goes
beyond reporting completion of program
requirements (e.g., credits, required courses,
comprehensive exams, etc.). Such a report can
also ask for information on participation in
conference presentations, professional develop
ment seminars connected to the student’s
subfield, and joint research projects with faculty
and other students. To further encourage stu
dent participation in such activities programs
can provide financial support for conference
presentations, offer paper contests, and reward
coauthorship.5 An annual progress report and
additional incentives signal to students what
activities are important in the research pro
fession and allow a program or advisor to ident
ify areas where students need more development
or guidance.
Programs should formally recognize and
value mentoring, especially informal devel
opmental relationships. Whether or not
departments or programs formally recognize
and reward faculty who offer developmental
support, especially outside of formal advisoradvisee relationships, may influence the quality
of such support and whether it is given at all.
We recognize that many faculty, without
prompting, offer both instrumental and
psychosocial support to doctoral students on
both a formal and informal basis. But our data
suggest that this support is not always
consistent, so some students feel lucky when
they are paired with or are able to connect to a
faculty member who offers it. With many
competing priorities across research, teaching,
and service expectations, faculty, especially those
in the tenure track, may be less willing to offer
support through informal developmental rela
tionships if they believe it is not appreciated by
the department or formally recognized. Yet our
data supports the need for such ties between
faculty and students. Offering recognition for
in
formal mentoring, particularly for new
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming: Professional Identity Construction
faculty, may help ensure that students receive
consistent, continued, and widespread support
(cf. Saks et al., 2011; Hatmaker & Park, 2013).
2 To protect the confidentiality of our participants,
we have replaced any names of individuals, organi
zations, or institutions with a generic term in
brackets in quotations.
Overall, our suggestions for programs and
faculty mentors are complementary. The
implementation of each of them in concert
with each other likely provides a greater benefit
for students’ professional identity development
than just one dimension on its own. Enacting
the suggestions described here may provide a
more efficient relationship-building process for
students and offer them a diversity of highquality developmental relationships. Future re
search could also examine how peer relation
ships contribute to professional identity develop
ment, gender differences in socialization,
and identity development as well as take into
consideration students’ prior professional ex
perience and other characteristics to lend addi
tional insights for faculty and public affairs
doctoral programs.
3 We thank our anonymous reviewers for noting these
limitations and drawing them to our attention.
4 We thank Dr. Karl Rethemeyer for the information
about the seminar for public administration and
policy doctoral students offered by the University at
Albany, State University of New York.
5 We thank one of our anonymous reviewers for
making these suggestions.
REFERENCES
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H.
(2007). Socialization in organizational contexts.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 22, 1–69.
Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A.
L. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in medical
school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Linda Hodge for her en
thusiasm for our project and her invaluable
contribution to our data collection.
Brewer, G. A., Douglas, J. W., Facer, R. L., & O’Toole,
L. J. (1999). Determinants of graduate research
pro
ductivity in doctoral programs in public
administration. Public Administration Review,
59 (5), 373–382.
Brewer, G. A., Facer, R. L., O’Toole, L.J., & Douglas,
J. W. (1998). The state of doctoral education in
public administration: Developments in the field’s
research preparation. Journal of Public Affairs Edu
cation, 4(2), 123–135.
NOTES
Chao, G. T. (2007). Mentoring and organizational
socialization: Networks for work adjustment. In
B. R. Ragins and K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook
of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice
(pp. 179–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
1 Following Rethemeyer and Helbig (2005), we use
the term public affairs to encompass public affairs,
public administration, public management, public
policy, and nonprofit management.
Cleary, R. E. (2000). The public administration
doctoral dissertation reexamined: An evaluation
of the dissertations of 1998. Public Administration
Review, 60(5), 446–455.
Journal of Public Affairs Education
561
A. E. Smith & D. M. Hatmaker
Dobrow, S. R., & Higgins, M. C. (2005). Develop
mental networks and professional identity: A
longitudinal study. Career Dynamics International,
10(6/7), 567–583.
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2007). Mentoring
as a forum for personal learning in organizations. In
B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook
of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice
(pp. 95–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gardner, S. K. (2007). “I heard it through the grape
vine”: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry
and history. Higher Education, 54(5), 723–740.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making:
What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
organizational settings. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 25(2), 226–251.
———. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too
little?” The process of becoming an independent
researcher in doctoral education. Journal of Higher
Education, 79(3), 326–350.
———. (2010). Contrasting the socialization
experiences of doctoral students in high- and lowcompleting departments: A qualitative analysis of
disciplinary contexts at one institution. Journal of
Higher Education, 81(1), 61–81.
Green, S. G. (1991). Professional entry and the advi
ser relationship: Socialization, commitment, and
productivity. Group & Organization Studies, 16(4),
387–407.
Hall, L. A., & Burns, L. D. (2009). Identity
development and mentoring in doctoral education.
Harvard Education Review, 79 (1), 49–70.
Hatmaker, D. M., & Park, H. H. (2013). Who are all
these people? Longitudinal changes in new employee
social networks within a state agency. American
Review of Public Administration. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/0275074013481843
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information
seeking during organizational entry: Influences,
tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of
Management Review, 16(1), 92–120.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer informationseeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and
outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3),
557–589.
Ostroff, C., & Koslowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organiza
tional socialization as a learning process: The role
of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology,
45(4), 849–874.
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B.
(2006). Constructing professional identity: The
role of work and identity learning cycles in the
customization of identity among medical residents.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 235–262.
Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (2007). The roots and
meaning of mentoring. In B. R. Ragins and K. E.
Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work:
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–15). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting
with image and identity in professional adaptation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791.
Rethemeyer, R. K., & Helbig, N. C. (2005). By the
numbers: Assessing the nature of quantitative
preparation in public policy, public administration,
and public affairs doctoral education. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 179–191.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy,
and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262–279.
Rosen, B. C., & Bates, A. P. (1967). The structure of
socialization in graduate school. Sociological Inquiry,
37(1), 71–84.
Kim, T.-.Y, Cable, D. M., & Kim, S.-P. (2005).
Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and
person-organization fit. Journal of Applied Psych
ology, 90(2), 232–241.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Socialization
tactics and newcomer information acquisition.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
5(1), 48–61.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental
relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL:
Scott Foresman.
Saks, A. M., Gruman, J. A., & Cooper-Thomas, H.
(2011). The neglected role of proactive behavior
and outcomes in newcomer socialization. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79 (1), 36–46.
562
Journal of Public Affairs Education
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming: Professional Identity Construction
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching
individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Schroeder, L., O’Leary, R., Jones, D., & Poocharoen,
O. (2004). Routes to scholarly success in public
administration: Is there a right path? Public
Administration Review, 64(1), 92–105.
Sluss, D. M., Ployhart, R. E., Cobb, M. G., & Ashforth,
B. E. (2012). Generalizing newcomer’s relational
and organizational identifications: Processes and
prototypicality. Academy of Management Journal,
55(4), 949–975.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sweitzer, V. B. (2009). Towards a theory of doctoral
student professional identity development: A devel
op
mental networks approach. Journal of Higher
Education, 80(1), 1–33.
Van Maanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organizations:
Notes on the meaning of careers and socialization.
In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Organizational Careers: Some
New Perspectives (pp. 15–45). New York: Wiley.
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational
communities: Culture and control in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 287–365.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Amy E. Smith is an assistant professor in the
McCormack Graduate School of Policy and
Global Studies at the University of Massachu
setts Boston. She received her PhD in Public
Administration and Policy from the University
at Albany, State University of New York. Her
current research interests in public management
include women in leadership in public organ
izations, social relations in government, and
teaching and mentoring in graduate education
in public affairs. Dr. Smith is also a member of
the editorial board at the journal, Public Per
formance & Management Review.
is an associate professor
in the Department of Public Policy at the Uni
versity of Connecticut. She holds a PhD in
Public Administration and Policy from the Uni
versity at Albany, State University of New York.
Her research interests include social networks,
gender dynamics in work and organizations,
identity construction, and relational leadership.
Dr. Hatmaker is also a member of the Board of
Editors at the Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory.
Deneen M. Hatmaker
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward
a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M.
Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior
(Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). New York: Wiley.
Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization
of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in
Higher Education, 44(6), 641–656.
Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001).
Socialization of graduate and professional students in
higher education: A perilous passage? (ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report, Vol. 28, No. 3). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series.
White, J. D., Adams, G. B., & Forrester, J. P. (1996).
Knowledge and theory development in public
administration: The role of doctoral education
and research. Public Administration Review, 56(5),
441–452.
Journal of Public Affairs Education
563
A. E. Smith & D. M. Hatmaker
APPENDIX I
Coding for Identity Development with Additional Data Examples
Level
Category
Activity
Data Examples
Organizational
Organizational
Socialization
Tactics
(Institutionalized Tactics)
Classroom
training
I mean I just feel like I had 100 methods classes, and I understand it. I think there’s multiple
techniques for data analysis, qualitatively and
quantitatively. I have no question that I’m
comfortable doing it.
Formal assignments
So, I think it is important to have someone right
away when you’re a PhD student like a deer
in the headlights, that you can have someone
you know that formally is there to advise you.
On-the-job
training
I also really enjoy the collaborative element
with faculty, just because in any situation that
I’ve been, even collaborating on a conference
paper to a journal article or book chapter with
a faculty member, I end up learning so much
and so those are probably the two things that
I really love about Grad school.
Increasing
visibility
One of the things that I appreciate the most
is being looked out for in various situations
like conferences and stuff because they’re
really intimidating, at least to me.…So, you
know, [my two advisors] have both made
points of introducing me.
Bolstering
identity
The first person I usually go to with that is actually my advisor, who is very open to questions,
doesn’t act like it’s a stupid question, doesn’t
say, oh, well you should know that, very receptive to kind of pointing me into the right place
to go. …
Balancing
And I think the other key is having conversations about, moving conversations to not just
what are you working on but the larger picture issues for both career-wise and just sort
of work-life-balance-wise.
Emulation
I share with her my fears about data analysis and
she’s even said “I didn’t really get good at it until
I did my thesis,” which was enlightening to me
because I see what she does now and I’m like,
you know, it’s something to look up to and admire. So that gives me hope.
Positioning
So right now, I’m kind of going through this
process of feeling people out for who might
make good committee members for me. And
so I’ve been setting up a lot of meetings with
different faculty to try to get that sense.
Relational
Individual
564
Faculty
Mentoring
Student
Proactivity
Journal of Public Affairs Education
Gardner / Conceptualizing Success in Doctoral Education
383
The Review of Higher Education
Spring 2009, Volume 32, No. 3, pp. 383–406
Copyright © 2009 Association for the Study of Higher Education
All Rights Reserved (ISSN 0162-5748)
Conceptualizing Success in
Doctoral Education:
Perspectives of Faculty
in Seven Disciplines
Susan K. Gardner
The term “success” in higher education has been used widely to describe
multiple outcomes including models to better understand how students
can succeed (e.g., Girves & Wemmerus, 1988; Padilla, Trevino, Gonzalez, &
Trevino, 1997), the practices best suited for success (e.g., Frost, 1991; Williams, 2002), the influence of particular variables upon success over time
(e.g., Burton & Wang, 2005; Decker, 1973; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986), and
even the relationship between specific variables and success (e.g., Hirschberg
& Itkin, 1978; Nettles, 1990; Wilson & Hardgrave, 1995). Indeed, a search
of the 2006 conference program of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education identified more than 20 different papers and sessions that utilized
the term “success.”
In doctoral education, the study of success is also prevalent. To be sure,
understanding doctoral student success is particularly important as only
50% of those students who enter doctoral education actually complete the
degree (e.g., Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Nettles & Millett, 2006).
SUSAN K. GARDNER is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of
Maine. She gratefully acknowledges the support of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for
funding this study. Address queries to her at 5749 Merrill Hall, University of Maine, Orono,
ME 04469‑5749; telephone (207) 581-3122; fax: (207) 581-3120; email: susan.k.gardner@
maine.edu.
384
The Review of Higher Education Spring 2009
To this end, scholars have sought to understand how factors such as advising (e.g., Baird, 1972; Schroeder & Mynatt, 1993), student characteristics
(e.g., Cook & Swanson, 1978; Nettles, 1990), and particular measures such
as grades and test scores (e.g., Burton & Wang, 2005; Girves & Wemmerus,
1988; Lannholm & Schrader, 1951) influence the concept of success in doctoral education. In each of these cases, “success” can mean anything from
year-to-year persistence and high grade point averages to degree completion.
Therefore, although multiple scholars have studied the concept of success
from nearly every imaginable angle, its definition remains elusive. What is
success? How does one differentiate a successful student from one who is
unsuccessful? Does the definition of success vary by disciplinary culture?
Without a coherent view of what it means to be successful in doctoral
education, the measurements and outcomes expected of students remain
ambiguous. This study sought to understand the concept of success as defined by 38 faculty members in seven disciplines at one research-extensive
institution through in-depth interviews about their experiences in doctoral education. The paper begins with a brief overview of relevant extant
literature and the conceptual framework guiding the study. I then provide
a description of the methods used, summarize the findings, and provide
implications for future policy, practice, and research.
Success in Doctoral Education
To better understand conceptualizations of success in doctoral education,
a comprehensive understanding of the dimensions of the term is needed. In
the study of doctoral education, the concept of success has been used widely
to explain several outcomes including retention, academic achievement,
completion or graduation, and professional socialization. I briefly discuss
each of these topics below in relation to success in doctoral education.
Throughout the doctoral education experience, students are measured
according to several outcomes as indicators of their success. Beginning with
coursework, students are assessed in their academic achievement, resulting
in the standard measure of grade point average (GPA). GPA is a common
variable used to analyze student success in undergraduate education (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991/2005); however, for doctoral education, GPA is
generally not widely used in studies of success. Doctoral student achievement
in coursework is typically expected to remain high, therefore making it difficult to measure differences (Girves & Wemmerus, 1988; Nettles & Millett,
2006), although some differences have been measured among underrepresented populations (Nettles, 1990; Nettles & Millett, 2006). Furthermore,
coursework may last only for several semesters for many students, thereby
providing an inaccurate long-term measure of student success. Exceptions
are studies based upon predictor variables, such as the Graduate Record Ex-
Gardner / Conceptualizing Success in Doctoral Education
385
amination (GRE), and their relationship to grades in particular coursework
(Feeley, Williams, & Wise, 2005; House, 1999).
Retention is another widely used indicator of success in doctoral education. Also described as persistence (Lovitts, 2001), retention “refers to a
student’s continued enrollment” (Isaac, 1993, p. 15), a definition similar to
that used to measure undergraduate student success (Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991/2005). In this way, retention is related to doctoral student success,
accounting for the students who persist from year to year in the graduate
program. Previous studies have cited varying retention rates. Golde (1998)
and Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) have documented that, of all the students
who will leave their doctoral programs, about one third leave after the first
year, another third before candidacy, and a final third during the dissertation phase, a finding also confirmed by Nerad and Miller (1996). Reasons
for retention (or its lack) among doctoral students are generally related to
issues of integration into the program or department (Girves & Wemmerus,
1988; Lovitts, 2001; Tinto, 1993), feelings of psychological and cognitive
inadequacy (Golde, 1998; Katz & Hartnett, 1976), lack of financial support
(Abedi & Benkin, 1987; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Girves & Wemmerus,
1988), and dissatisfaction with the program or department (Girves & Wemmerus, 1988; Lovitts, 2001; Perrucci & Hu, 1995).
Degree completion is another obvious indicator of doctoral student
success. Completion rates in doctoral education, as previously stated, have
been cited as averaging 50% (Bair & Haworth, 2005; Bowen & Rudenstine,
1992; Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Nettles & Millett, 2006). Different
disciplines, however, have varying rates. Those in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) generally complete at higher
rates than those in the social sciences or humanities (Bair & Haworth, 2005;
Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Nettles &
Millett, 2006). Moreover, degree completion and its relation to such sociodemographic variables as gender and race vary (Bair & Haworth, 2005;
Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Nettles
& Millett, 2006). Similar to influences upon retention, it is apparent that
many different variables influence degree completion (Lovitts, 2001) and
time-to-degree rates certainly vary by both discipline (Bowen & Rudenstine,
1992) and by socio-demographic status (Bair & Haworth, 2005; Ferrer de
Valero, 2001).
Finally, competencies related to the professional realm are also mentioned
in the literature in regard to doctoral student success. The individual enrolled
in doctoral education is, of course, also a burgeoning professional (Golde,
1998), learning the skills, knowledge, habits of mind, values, and attitudes of
his or her chosen field (Soto Antony, 2002; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001).
Therefore, while quantifiable measures such as GPA, test scores, retention,
and graduation rates may indicate success, professional and attitudinal
386
The Review of Higher Education Spring 2009
competencies, such as a student’s disposition toward the subject matter or
professional development, are also desirable but are typically more qualitative measures of success (Hagedorn & Nora, 1996).
Undergirding all of these conceptualizations of success is the involvement
of faculty members in the doctoral program and with the doctoral student
(Austin, 2002; Clark & Corcoran, 1986; Lovitts, 2001; Weidman & Stein, 2003;
Wulff & Austin, 2004). They serve as teachers, advisors, committee members,
mentors, role models, and future colleagues. Despite their important role,
however, no known studies have sought to determine how faculty members
in doctoral education would define success. In other words, if faculty play
such an integral role in the multitude of success outcomes for doctoral students, how they conceptualize success is key to understanding how to best
structure programs, services, and experiences for this success.
Conceptual Framework
An important caveat must be made, however: The doctoral education
experience is not monolithic. Doctoral education is experienced differently
within and among different disciplines. Disciplines have their own particular
qualities, cultures, codes of conduct, values, and distinctive intellectual tasks
(Austin, 2002; Becher, 1981) that ultimately influence the experiences of the
faculty, staff, and, most especially, the students within their walls. Therefore,
while studies of the undergraduate experience as related to success often
occur at the institutional level (e.g., Tinto, 1993), the discipline and the department become the central focus of the doctoral experience, rather than
the larger institution (Berelson, 1960; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Golde,
2005; Nerad & Miller, 1996).
Much of the common understanding about disciplinary differences
and categorizations is based on Biglan’s (1973a) work, which identified
the cultural and social structures of academic disciplines, resulting in their
classifications as hard/soft, pure/applied, and life/nonlife systems. While
not the first research conducted on disciplinary differences (see Braxton
& Hargens, 1996 for a comprehensive discussion), Biglan’s work is a testament to the concept that studies of academic cultures and contexts cannot
be generalized across disciplines.
Work done by Becher (1981) expounded on the understanding of disciplinary differences. The disciplinary groupings developed by Becher and
Trowler (2001) included the (a) pure sciences, akin to Biglan’s hard-pure
grouping; (b) the humanities, similar to Biglan’s hard-applied disciplines;
(c) technologies, much like the hard-applied disciplines in Biglan’s model;
and (d) applied social sciences, like Biglan’s soft-applied areas. Becher also
contributed to the common understanding of “rural” and “urban” fields,
further explaining the social structures within disciplinary cultures. Whereas
Gardner / Conceptualizing Success in Doctoral Education
387
in rural fields, many researchers will focus upon relatively few research problems, urban researchers are generally fewer in number with more problems
to be investigated.
These disciplinary groupings and organizational systems allow for a better understanding of the contrasting identities and characteristics of particular fields of study. Becher (1981) commented, “Disciplines are cultural
phenomena: they are embodied in collections of like-minded people, each
with their own codes of conduct, sets of values, and distinctive intellectual
tasks” (p. 109). These cultures within disciplines, therefore, greatly influence
the faculty and, consequently, the doctoral students within the departments
(Golde, 2005).
For example, Biglan (1973b) described differences among disciplines
resulting in discernible paradigmatic assumptions, concern with practical application, and concern with life systems. In addition, he studied the
variation of social connectedness within disciplines, or the measure of “the
informal relations among colleagues” (p. 204). He found, in particular, that
social connectedness was important among the sciences since much of the
research is conducted in team-based lab settings. Another measure of disciplinary culture for Biglan was that of commitment to teaching, research,
administration, and service. Biglan remarked, “What evidence exists indicates that the emphasis on, and significance of, teaching differs in physical
and social science fields. Scholars in social sciences emphasize educating the
whole student and evidence a more personal commitment to students than
do those in physical sciences” (p. 205).
Finally, Biglan measured scholarly output as a characteristic of disciplinary differences, including the quantity and quality of publications produced.
Biglan demonstrated that faculty in hard areas, such as those in the sciences,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, are generally rated higher in
social connectedness for both their research and teaching activities, while
those in the soft areas (e.g., humanities and social sciences) generally work
more in isolation but indicate a higher commitment to teaching. Biglan’s
explanation for these differences was based on the paradigmatic assumptions
particular to the disciplines, in which the single paradigm of the hard sciences
allows for more collaboration while the multiple paradigms of the soft social
sciences may impede common understandings and frameworks.
Further differentiation from Biglan (1973b) and Becher and Trowler
(2001) included the distinction of pure versus applied disciplinary cultures.
Pure fields are those in which results are focused on discovery, explanation,
understanding, and interpretation—for example, physics in the hard sciences
and history in the soft sciences. Applied fields, on the other hand, are those
in which research results in products, techniques, protocols, or procedures,
such as engineering in the hard sciences and education in the soft sciences.
This pure/applied distinction allows for a better understanding of the type
388
The Review of Higher Education Spring 2009
of training graduate students receive in these disciplines, particularly in regard to social connectedness, as well as the methods and modes of research
conducted within the discipline (Biglan, 1973b). Moreover, a higher commitment to application is indicative of more social connectedness in service
activities and more applicable publications such as research reports.
Finally, Biglan (1973b) distinguished between life and nonlife disciplines.
Disciplinary areas focused on life systems, such as the study of botany and
agriculture in the hard sciences and psychology and education in the soft
sciences, are those which are also more socially connected. These faculty
members are generally more interested in collaborative teaching activities
and graduate training in these areas is characterized by a more team-oriented
approach to advising. Nonlife disciplines, including computer science and
engineering in the hard sciences and communications and economics in
the soft sciences, generally have faculty members who spend more time on
teaching activities but who more independently work and advise graduate
students (Biglan, 1973b).
While both Biglan’s (1973a, 1973b) and Becher’s (1981) models are widely
used, neither has been widely tested beyond their initial conceptualization;
and many would argue that not all of the components of the Biglan model
can be validated (Braxton & Hargens, 1996). My study therefore uses a
conceptualization encapsulating the four general areas of disciplinary classification that are shared by both Biglan’s and Becher’s mod...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment