Synthesis Paper: Doctoral Identity

User Generated

qbzvab2012

Humanities

Description

In Topic 2, you were asked to read three articles on the topic of doctoral identity and to complete an annotated bibliography to demonstrate their understanding of the material. In Topic 3, you were asked to take this process a step further and identify themes found in the three articles and to complete a synthesis worksheet where the themes were supported by evidence from each article. In this assignment, you will build on your worksheet efforts and write a paper about the three themes. The narrative will not only present the evidence from the articles to support the identified themes, but also will provide an analysis for each theme by synthesizing the information collected.

General Requirements:

  • Locate the Synthesis Worksheet you completed in Topic 3.
  • Locate and download "Synthesis Paper Template" from the Course Materials for this topic.
  • Review the articles by Baker & Pifer (2011), Gardner (2009), and Smith & Hatmaker (2014) located in the Course Materials for this topic.
  • This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
  • Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. Review the GCU APA Style Guide for Writing located in the Student Success Center.
  • You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

Directions:

Using the Synthesis Worksheet you completed in Topic 3 and considering the themes you developed and the feedback provided by your instructor, write a paper (1,000-1,250 words) that synthesizes the three articles. Your paper should include the following:

  1. An introduction that introduces and provides context for the topic. This includes giving a brief description of each article and its purpose, identifying the three themes that emerged from your reading, describing how they will be discussed in the paper, and presenting a clear thesis statement.
  2. Support for your identified themes with evidence from each article. Provide analysis of these findings to strengthen your narrative.
  3. A discussion of the conclusions that can be drawn when the articles are taken together as a single entity. What is the overall message of the group of articles?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Answer posted please confirm.Kindly go through the work and let me know incase of anything unsatisfactory or if you need anything rectified.If the answer is okay,looking forward to work with you again.Thanks

Running head: SYNTHESIS PAPER

1

Synthesis Paper
Name
Institutional Affiliation

SYNTHESIS PAPER

2
Synthesis Paper

Introduction
Education is the key to success has to be one of the most common phrases quoted by
people globally. As human beings, we have invariably treated education sacredly with most
nations requiring people to at least get a basic education. This increased desire to pursue
education has led to significantly reduced illiterate levels in the world. Advancement in every
field is supported by education and not just education but the pursuance of higher education and
research. Doctoral education is coveted by many but achieved by only a few. Additionally, of the
students who manage to complete the program, only a few get to attain doctoral identity.
Doctoral identity is the attainment of independence such that the individual shifts from being
dependent research to being a critical thinker and an independent researcher.
Doctoral identity enables and empowers the person to have a voice in the research areas
they are and as such become a force of change both in the industry of interest and in the world.
With the increased need for innovation and solutions to existing problems, doctoral identity has
become more critical. Based on three primary articles and other sources, this paper will examine
the themes developed and research concerning doctoral identity. The three themes are diligence,
relationships, and academic success. These three themes are crucial aspects of doctoral identity
since they shape and mold the individual in various ways to the extent they gain a doctoral
identity. This doctoral id...


Anonymous
Just what I was looking for! Super helpful.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags