LP762-L2 WEEK 1

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rced20

Communication Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rced20

An integrated model of graduate student and departmental efforts shaping impostor phenomenon and assimilation

Abdullah S. Salehuddin, Chloe E. Gonzales, Jade Salmon, Qing Huang & Karen K. Myers

To cite this article: Abdullah S. Salehuddin, Chloe E. Gonzales, Jade Salmon, Qing Huang & Karen K. Myers (2024) An integrated model of graduate student and departmental efforts shaping impostor phenomenon and assimilation, Communication Education, 73:2, 191-211, DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2024.2320757

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2024.2320757

Published online: 06 Mar 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 188

View related articles

View Crossmark data

An integrated model of graduate student and departmental efforts shaping impostor phenomenon and assimilation Abdullah S. Salehuddin , Chloe E. Gonzales, Jade Salmon, Qing Huang and Karen K. Myers

Department of Communication, 4005 SSMS, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT This qualitative study examines communicative processes associated with graduate students (N = 124) in their struggles with the impostor phenomenon (IP, commonly known as impostor syndrome) and their integration into and experience in graduate programs (aspects of organizational assimilation). We identified two mutually implicative relationships. First, participants described the interplay of their attempts to assimilate into the graduate program and management of IP (internal factors). Second, participants narrated departmental, communicative efforts by others (peers, faculty advisors) and the department culture that communicated expectations (external factor) as strongly interlinked to graduate students’ IP management and their organizational assimilation. We offer findings focused on the intersection of communication and instruction, and extend theorizing with an integrated model depicting narrated individual-departmental processes that may shape IP management and organizational assimilation. We conclude with a discussion about theoretical implications and practical applications for training faculty to improve their guidance and mentoring of graduate students to reduce IP.

KEYWORDS impostor phenomenon; graduate school; graduate students; organizational assimilation; onboarding reform

Graduate students face rigorous expectations to excel in academics, research, instruction, and service (Adler & Adler, 2005) while in a competitive environment with comparisons to high-achieving peers (Bothello & Roulet, 2019). Negative departmental climates, norms for overworking, and unsupportive peers and faculty may cause students to ques- tion whether they “fit in” and can succeed (Cohen & McConnell, 2019). Ultimately, one challenge of graduate school is the perception that they must perform perfectly—despite still learning the rules, norms, and expectations of academia—causing many graduate students to feel like an “impostor.”

Impostor phenomenon (IP, commonly known as impostor syndrome) refers to indi- viduals’ perceptions that they have fooled others into believing that they are more com- petent than they actually are, causing fear about being exposed as an “impostor” (Clance & Imes, 1978). Research identifies internal or individual traits as causes (e.g., excessive perfectionism; Tigranyan et al., 2021), suggesting pathological IP determinants. IP is

© 2024 National Communication Association

CONTACT Abdullah S. Salehuddin [email protected]

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 2024, VOL. 73, NO. 2, 191–211 https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2024.2320757

associated with reduced self-efficacy (Tao & Gloria, 2019), as well as increased self-doubt, anxiety, and depression (Bravata et al., 2020), which leads to lower self-confidence and poorer mental well-being (internal factors), posing barriers to success in graduate school (Ménard & Chittle, 2023). External or environmental factors, such as faculty advi- sors, culture, peers, and demanding requirements, are also implicated (Posselt, 2018). Despite calls to explore how environmental factors shape feelings of IP (e.g., Feenstra et al., 2020) and students’ abilities to thrive (Hoffmann-Longtin et al., 2021), few studies have attempted to examine external factors and their association with the gradu- ate school experience (e.g., Cohen & McConnell, 2019; Rabby et al., 2023). Graduate stu- dents’ feelings of adjustment and acceptance into departments link with their capability to develop productive relationships and confidence in their ability to succeed.

Success in graduate school depends on students’ ability to learn how to perform necessary tasks, which is directly affected by their feelings of IP. Past research demon- strates the importance of developing strong mentoring relationships with faculty, creat- ing supportive relationships with peers, and feeling accepted as a department member (Gailliard et al., 2010; Jablin, 2001). However, a demanding curriculum and competitive climate can create high pressure during graduate school (Adler & Adler, 2005), poten- tially affecting students’ ability to learn and adjust, as well as perceptions of whether they can succeed. Likewise, developing supportive relationships with departmental members can enhance their adjustment (Cohen & McConnell, 2019). Graduate students’ ongoing adjustment processes likely impact their willingness to get involved, abilities to negotiate challenging situations, and perceptions of task/job competency (Rabby et al., 2023) as students, instructors, researchers, and service members.

The present study investigates how IP and these communicative processes, which are often associated with organizational assimilation (Jablin, 2001), are mutually influential. We explore how (a) graduate departments (external factors) and (b) graduate students’ own behaviors (internal factors) shape their experience of IP and graduate school adjust- ment. Next, we review how IP has been investigated in student populations, followed by discussion on the processes associated with organizational assimilation, and how IP might be linked to these communicative processes. Thereafter, we report on our inves- tigation, which adds to scholarly discussions surrounding how internal and external factors shape graduate students’ communication and IP experience. We conclude with a discussion of our findings, including implications and recommendations for future research and intervention.

Impostor phenomenon

People who experience IP are often high-achieving individuals who fail to internalize their successes and, instead, have persistent self-doubt (Clance & Imes, 1978). Despite objective high achievements, people experiencing IP are likely to attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, attractiveness, or social connections (Vaughn et al., 2020). IP can be evoked by both internal elements (e.g., attribution patterns; Ibrahim et al., 2023) and external factors (e.g., lack of positive reinforcement from family members; Nori & Vanttaja, 2023). Outcomes of IP include diminished well-being, including emotional distress, anxiety, and depression (Bravata et al., 2020). IP is also linked to reduced productivity, manifesting as burnout and impaired job performance (Bravata et al., 2020).

192 A. S. SALEHUDDIN ET AL.

Although IP has been investigated in many populations, students remain impor- tant given the prevalence of IP in higher education. Research reveals negative associ- ations between IP and psychological health, self-esteem (Bravata et al., 2020), and self-efficacy (Tao & Gloria, 2019). For graduate students, aspects of many graduate programs (e.g., intense pressure to produce perfect class papers and publish before they enter the job market) can put students at risk of feeling like frauds (Pervez et al., 2021). IP effects may be worse for underrepresented populations, especially when fears of being an impostor can exacerbate perceptions of marginalization for first-generation students (Gardner & Holley, 2011). Graduate students’ experience of lower self-confidence and diminished well-being can affect research productivity, degree completion, and overall academic/professional trajectory (Hoffmann-Longtin et al., 2021; van Rooij et al., 2021). Graduate departments invested in addressing IP’s multiple manifestations can contribute to healthier students and thriving programs.

The limited research examining IP and graduate school has primarily taken a patho- logical perspective, assigning blame to internal factors. Researchers have associated IP with graduate student personality traits like perfectionistic tendencies (Tigranyan et al., 2021), self-effacing attributional bias (Ibrahim et al., 2023), anxious attachment, and entitlement (Gibson-Beverly & Schwartz, 2008). Similarly, Tao and Gloria (2019) found women’s perceived self-efficacy accounted for effects of IP on their attitudes about academic persistence in their STEM graduate departments. IP interventions have emphasized pathological solutions rooted in mindset-changing, such as engaging in positive self-talk, refocusing on facts about oneself, and refuting impostor feelings (Chang et al., 2022). Although internal IP causes and related effects have been documen- ted, more research is needed to understand the external or environmental factors in graduate school that shape IP (Ménard & Chittle, 2023). In this study, we investigate one essential external factor: the graduate program.

Recent calls for the reconceptualization of IP as an experience shaped by environ- mental factors (Feenstra et al., 2020) complement the interest of unpacking the influence of graduate programs on student well-being and IP (Sverdlik et al., 2020). Cohen and McConnell (2019) affirmed that IP is a social process wherein one’s interpersonal relationships shape how one perceives themselves, including their ability to succeed in demanding tasks. Ultimately, they examined the relation- ship between graduate school characteristics and impostorism, finding that higher impostor fears were associated with lower-quality mentorship, increased competition, and heightened isolation. In support, Barr-Walker et al. (2020) argued for addressing IP through changes in culture at an organizational (or departmental) level. Moreover, empirical evidence on graduate student well-being adds credence to the relevance of graduate departments in shaping graduate students’ IP experience. Scholars note the power of supportive peers, faculty, and advisors (Posselt, 2018; van Rooij et al., 2021). In fact, graduate students with social support from their supervisor and friends reported less feelings of IP (Pervez et al., 2021); overall, the authors cite that the type and source of social support available in the graduate program can help in buffering negative IP effects. Thus, IP should be examined in connection to commu- nicative processes members experience to establish and fulfill their roles, and thrive as departmental members.

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 193

Graduate school assimilation and impostor phenomenon

Gilmore and Harding (2022) described organizational entry as the period in which “one finds oneself a stranger in unfamiliar surrounds, not quite knowing what to do in terri- tory that can feel hostile and amongst people who may seem to resent the alien intruder” (p. 584). To ease this process, graduate programs provide orientations and training to help new graduate students learn how to assimilate or effectively function in their roles and adhere to departmental norms. Organizational assimilation1 is “the process in which individuals become integrated into the culture of an organization” (Jablin, 2001, p. 755), by developing skills and aligning behaviors. These communicative pro- cesses and behaviors are most significant in the entry stage of membership, but they also persist as individuals adjust to changes that affect their ability to learn and be suc- cessful in graduate school (Gailliard et al., 2010; Jablin, 2001).

The seven dimensions or communicative processes of organizational assimilation (Gailliard et al., 2010) can be examined relative to graduate student adjustment: develop- ing familiarity with supervisors or mentors (i.e., learning about and how to interact with them), developing familiarity with others (i.e., enhancing understanding about how to perform tasks and interact with others in the department), acculturating (i.e., under- standing values and behavioral norms), becoming involved (i.e., seeking ways to contrib- ute to the department), recognition (i.e., perceiving oneself as valuable and capable), role negotiation (i.e., compromising between one’s expectations and the department’s for being a graduate student), and developing job/task competency (i.e., knowing how to com- plete tasks well; Gailliard et al., 2010). These processes involve negotiation by the new- comer and existing departmental members (faculty, peers); therefore, both individuals and organizations are involved.

Research on organizational socialization and assimilation offers insights into how graduate programs play a significant role in the relationship between IP and welcom- ing/integrating graduate students (Cohen & McConnell, 2019). In some programs, a lack of sufficient training leaves graduate students feeling as though they are left to “sink or swim” (Ashforth et al., 2007, p. 450) and that they must learn needed skills on their own (Ferguson, 2021), making students especially prone to performance uncer- tainty (Nori & Vanttaja, 2023). A lack of mentor guidance can lead to role ambiguity (or lack of clarity about one’s role), linked to developing task competency, leaving graduate students to feel aimlessness in advancing toward their goals (Ashforth et al., 2007). When graduate students feel unable to perform in accordance with program norms, they may fear rejection by mentors and peers or not feeling recognized. This fear is common with individuals, who are not native to the national culture, who must simul- taneously learn about norms in the national culture, as well as policies and norms of the department, making their acculturation multilayered (Omanović & Langley, 2023). Without opportunities to develop familiarity with supervisors, mentors, and peers, stu- dents can feel that they have no sources for instrumental, social, and emotional support (Mansson & Myers, 2012; Posselt, 2018), making them more likely to quit (Tao & Gloria, 2019). Conversely, supportive relationships with faculty and peers create opportunities for departmental involvement and recognition, potentially shaping perceptions of job competency as well (Sollitto et al., 2013). Taken together, we propose the following research question:

194 A. S. SALEHUDDIN ET AL.

RQ: As they enter into and navigate their graduate program, how do graduate students who experience IP believe it to be shaped by (a) their department (i.e., training, program require- ments, faculty advisors, culture, peers, etc.) and (b) their own behaviors?

Methods

Participants and procedures

After obtaining university institutional review board approval, we conducted a qualitat- ive study to better understand graduate students’ experiences with IP as shaped by departmental and individual efforts. Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling to participate in an online survey with open- and closed-ended questions. Recruitment flyers were posted on social media and email listservs, promoting the study as an investigation of graduate students’ challenges. Participants must have been enrolled in a graduate program and aged 18 or older. We received 167 responses, but 43 were removed prior to analysis due to incomplete (i.e., participants did not answer open-ended questions) or inappropriate (i.e., participants identified as “Dolphin” for gender) responses.

In the final sample (N = 124), most participants identified as women (n = 84 or 67.7%), followed by men (n = 27 or 21.7%), nonbinary/genderqueer (n = 8 or 6.4%), and other (n = 5 or 4.0%). Over half the sample was White (n = 75 or 60.4%), followed by Asian (n = 15 or 12%), Latina/o/x (n = 12 or 9.6%), mixed-race (n = 9 or 7.2%), Black/African American (n = 5 or 4%), Arab (n = 1), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n = 1), and other (n = 2 or 1.6%). Most participants were enrolled in a Ph.D. program (n = 78 or 62.9%), followed by master’s program (n = 36 or 29%), dual M.A.–Ph.D. program (n = 4 or 3.2%), and other graduate degree (n = 2 or 1.6%). Most participants were pursuing graduate degrees in the social sciences (n = 64 or 51.6%), followed by natural sciences (n = 26 or 21%), humanities (n = 22 or 17.7%), other (n = 6 or 4.8%), and dual graduate degrees across disciplines (n = 2 or 1.6%). Participants were evenly split as first-generation (n = 60 or 48.3%) and nonfirst-generation (n = 60 or 48.3%) college students.

Survey questions

Participants were first asked, “Have you ever seriously doubted your abilities and felt like a ‘fraud’ while in your current graduate program?” Then, participants responded to six open-ended questions focused on: familiarity with graduate peers (i.e., “How have your graduate peers or other friends helped you manage this feeling of being a fraud?”); familiarity with faculty advisors (i.e., “In what ways do you feel that your depart- ment faculty and advisor(s) have effectively and/or insufficiently supported you while in your program?”); positive impact (i.e., “Please explain how IP has motivated or positively impacted you”); negative impact (i.e., “How has this [IP] feeling negatively affected your graduate school experience?”); family (i.e., “How have your family members (immediate, extended, or fictive) helped you manage negative [IP] feelings and relevant challenges since the start of your graduate program?”); identity (i.e., “How have any specific aspects of your identity and/or upbringing (e.g., racial/ethnic minority, first-generation

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 195

college student, grew up in a low socioeconomic household, gender identity) contributed to your “fraud” feeling and negative belief in your abilities in graduate school?”).

Data analysis

We used three phases of coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Initially, the first two authors separately read through the data and took general notes about processes and experiences participants reported while sensitized to literature concerning communicative processes involved in departmental assimilation and IP. For instance, some participants reported frustration with developing writing skills (i.e., task/job competency). Others reported positive feelings they gained following mutual IP disclosures with their faculty advisors (i.e., familiarity with faculty advisors). As we identified responses related to departmental assimilation, we noted experiences that participants associated with assimilation processes.

Next, the coders discussed the data and their notes, assessing their convergence and divergence on identified communication and behaviors associated with departmental assimilation and IP themes. They talked through differences, consulting literature on communicative processes involved in departmental assimilation and IP, until consensus was reached. For example, the authors disagreed about what constituted support: one author viewed support as either positive or negative, whereas the other author success- fully argued that negative support could be viewed in a more nuanced way with rejection being theoretically distinct than invalidation.

Finally, they merged individual codes to capture larger departmental assimilation and IP categories. The codes labeled as rejection and being neglected by faculty, for example, were then collapsed under (un)familiarity with supervisors, which described negative experiences linked to IP management and departmental assimilation adjustment. The constant comparative process was employed throughout data analyses (Corbin & Strauss, 1990), going back and forth between data and coding to ensure the accuracy of identified themes.

Results

We sought to understand how graduate students who experience IP believe it to be shaped by (a) their department (e.g., program requirements, faculty advisors, culture, peers, etc.) and (b) their own behaviors. Below, we provide narrated accounts of graduate students’ lived experiences of IP management as they are linked to each dimension of departmental assimilation. We unpack these narrations within the larger sociocommunicative context of graduate departments as this external factor shapes both IP and assimilation outcomes. We found that individuals’ communi- cation to manage their IP and assimilation are not isolated endeavors, but rather interdependent with their department’s efforts to assimilate them and reduce their students’ IP. To capture the narrated interplay between individual and departmental efforts, the following sections start with a discussion about students’ efforts and com- munication followed by how departmental efforts shape students’ outcomes associ- ated with IP and assimilation.

196 A. S. SALEHUDDIN ET AL.

Becoming familiar with faculty

Many participants pointed to themselves and their own actions/efforts in developing relationships with faculty as instrumental in helping/hindering their communicative adjustment and IP management. Some participants admitted that they have refrained from getting to know faculty in their departments, especially in discussing their IP. Daisy (Ph.D., social sciences) divulged, “I don’t know that I’ve really turned to my faculty or advisors for [IP] at all. I would [ask] clarifying questions, but not express my feelings of concern about this issue. That’s on me, not them.” Similarly, Shaye (Ph.D., social sciences) mentioned her lack of disclosure, acknowledging how it might negatively affect her:

I feel so alone sometimes in this program… I tend to withdraw from my colleagues. It… makes me less likely to mention the difficulties I experience to my faculty supporters, meaning they don’t have all the information that could factor into good support. Ultimately, when I mask the challenges I face, I don’t get help [or] heal.

These participants seem to recognize that their decisions to not share their experiences or seek help from faculty had the potential to worsen their IP.

Other participants shared that they were willing to ask for help from faculty, which they felt was rewarding. “Discussing [limitations of my knowledge] with my advisor and dismantling the thought has made me feel more positively about my capability to succeed despite any actual or perceived lack of knowledge,” said Glen (Ph.D., social sciences). Some participants felt that reaching out boded well, such as Roberto (Ph.D., humanities) who said, “I found [my faculty] receptive and understanding whenever I reached out to them with my problems. They made sure to keep in touch with me even when I ‘fell off the grid.’” Seemingly, these narrations suggest that participants choosing to (or not to) develop relationships with faculty had implications for how they managed their IP.

Considering the larger sociocommunicative context, many participants described how they felt that their departments constrained students’ efforts to gain familiarity with their faculty. Some participants reported that faculty were generally unaware of student con- cerns, leaving them to feel undervalued by faculty’s lack of interest. For instance, Malina (Ph.D., social sciences) felt neglected because her “relationship with [her] advisor is entirely professional,” and despite attempting “to bring up some personal things in the past, [her advisor] they skirted around it.” Narrating feelings of unsupportiveness from others, Asher (Ph.D., social sciences) felt uncomfortable sharing his “troubles and challenges” because his faculty advisor “doesn’t truly validate the struggles inherent in this process.” Faculty advisors perceived as not being attuned to student challenges, as well as being impersonal or even apathetic, were described as creating a departmental climate that felt unsupportive of students’ adjustment to graduate school.

Comparatively, many participants shared that faculty’s efforts improved their assim- ilation and reduced their IP because they complemented their students’ attempts to also reach out. Some students reported more supportive relationships with advisors, who shared their own IP experiences to help students better understand that feelings of frau- dulence are common and may be tamed. Jesiah (Ph.D., social sciences) said, “My advisor was…willing to provide experiences where we broke down our [IP] together and used our stories to connect with each other.” Julie (Ph.D., social sciences) talked about having

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 197

supportive conversations with their advisor that helped them manage their own personal issues: “My advisor… is supportive, makes me laugh, reminds me of my strengths, encourages me to go beyond my comfort zone, and constantly teaches me new things …Having a strong, female lead has definitely helped me effectively manage my [IP].” Many other graduate students shared similar sentiments about advisors who fostered meaningful relationships beyond academics and even shared their own IP experiences. They felt these conversations were comforting, and their IP was reframed as something that they could overcome. Taken together, the narrated interplay between students’ attempts, or lack thereof, to build relationships with their faculty in conjunction with their departmental faculty attempting to do the same (or not) helps us understand the extent to which such efforts are associated with IP and assimilation outcomes.

Becoming familiar with peers

Many participants narrated engaging in actions with peers they felt hindered bond-building, showing how IP may be associated with familiarity with graduate peers. Steven (Ph.D., social sciences) stated, “Since I didn’t openmyself up to colleagues, I [felt] alone, stupid, and worth- less… and it closed me off from completing goals.” Jessica (M.A., humanities) disclosed, “[IP] often leads to feelings of embarrassment, [making] me detach from peers… I [then] will isolate and often end up even further behind.” Likewise, Rani (Ph.D., natural sciences) said, “I feel less enthusiastic about… getting to know my peers closely, and I have isolated [myself] from the ones I already had a friendship with.”

Others, by contrast, reported behaviors that seemed to promote bond-building among graduate students. Fabian (Ph.D., social sciences) shared:

Whenever I talk to my cohort… it always helps reframe my feelings of incapability…When I… describe the… intricacies of [my] work, I start to recognize all the effort I put in and the thoughtfulness I bring to my research. Simply organizing my thoughts and sharing them with a trusted peer makes me feel validated.

Feeling similarly, Olivia (Ph.D., social sciences) disclosed: “We [other cohort members] have sometimes explicitly discussed our similar [IP] feelings. One peer…was particu- larly helpful because… our friendship served to help me see…when I was amplifying my feelings due to anxieties, fears, etc.” Seemingly, participants felt that isolating oneself was harmful, but taking initiative to build relationships by reaching out to cohort members was helpful to managing IP feelings.

Participants talked about developing familiarity with peers as integral to organiz- ational assimilation and IP management. Emphasizing the broader sociocommunicative graduate school context, some participants described a lack of peer support, such as not being checked in on, as well as outright disdain and overly competitive tendencies among graduate students, as isolating and hindering their ability to integrate. “They check up on one another… but not with me… so, it’s up to me to reach out to them… and build those relationships,” said Lucy (Ph.D., social sciences). Latoya (Ph.D., social sciences) found her “colleagues… disappointing at best” because they “pontificate and typically fail to acknowledge… anyone but themselves and their own interests… [and] don’t vali- date [her] as a scholar.” Feeling left out made some participants feel they did not fit into graduate school, seemingly causing them to further isolate themselves.

198 A. S. SALEHUDDIN ET AL.

Others recounted very different graduate program cultures. They described peers as communally oriented, collaborative, and helpful to one another. Helena (Ph.D., social sciences) shared a view offered by many: “We learned so much together, we commiser- ated together, we celebrated together—trauma bonding!” Rosalinda (Ph.D., social sciences) offered a similar view: “My close friends are always telling me that I am an expert in my area of study… They are also often supportive and want to collaborate with me. My peers come to me with questions, especially when they know that I will be able to help them.” Like Rosalinda, many narrated being immersed in departments with graduate students who praise and ask each other questions, fostering collegiality and support that helped them develop their capabilities.

Acculturation

Acculturation captures accepting the inherent values and norms of the department. Some participants narrated rejecting departmental efforts to acculturate students into the graduate program. For example, Sky (M.A., natural sciences) said, “[There is] absolutely zero support from instructors, faculty, advisors, or the school. No one cares enough to talk to us about [IP]. They are busy running the program and taking care of administra- tive business and I hate that [the] most about my school.” Here, the term “hate” may suggest that the participant rejected departmental norms of not talking about IP because people generally do not accept values they report to hate. Rex (M.A., social sciences) similarly opined that his departmental culture lacks collaboration and unity because “[Faculty are] full of drama” and shared “I hate my program, I can’t wait to graduate and not look back into this department.”

Once participants felt they knew the department culture, they narrated being better pre- pared to connect with others and integrate into the program. Anthony (M.A., social sciences) noted, “The department overall gives off this feeling of safety, support, and welcome that makes it easy to relax and grow as a student…without feeling like I need to be meeting some unspoken standard of performance.” Rhoda (Ph.D., social sciences) similarly expressed, “My advisor has been really helpful in letting me know when he feels I’m on track with where I should be, and also reminding me about the goals of a graduate program centered around learning and skill-developing.” These responses seem to highlight how participants’ rejection or acceptance of the culture—or communicative processes associated with departmental assimilation—may help/hinder their IP management.

Our data recounted ways departments communicate norms and expectations to help students acculturate. When the department communicated unhealthy or inequitable values, such as being dismissive about IP prevalence and effects, participants felt that this impeded their IP management. Many participants perceived that their departments communicated intolerance for making mistakes, even when students were still learning. Ashanti’s (Ph.D., social sciences) comment was representative: “I also don’t feel like our department does a good job of creating a safe space to be incompetent.” In other depart- ments, participants narrated that the cultures were not diverse or inclusive and, instead, endorsed a standard that seemed suffocating and isolating. Haruto (Ph.D., humanities) detailed his experience: “The impact of [IP] is constant, especially when there are no faculty members who look like me, can understand where I come from, nor can speak my language even when I am expected to learn theirs/academic language.”

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 199

Others described the nurturing environment created by their department and how that helped them manage their IP. Anthony (from earlier) disclosed, “The department overall gives off this feeling of safety, support, and welcome that makes it easy to relax and grow as a student…without feeling like I need to be meeting some unspoken stan- dard of performance.” Departments described as reaffirming hegemonic standards apparently challenged students to confront their IP alone, but departments narrated as communicating a culture where mistakes are perceived as opportunities to improve see- mingly fostered an environment of growth.

Recognition

Recognition, at the individual level, marks the acceptance/rejection of praise received from others. In terms of narrated harmful effects, Alissa (M.A., social sciences) represen- tatively shared, “Feedback is very positive on my coursework, but I still have a tendency to doubt if it is a legitimate reflection of my abilities.” For Alissa and others, the feelings of IP seemingly hindered their ability to internalize the valid praise of their academic sup- porters, thus demonstrating how rejecting recognition may be harmful to departmental assimilation.

Conversely, narrations in which students accepted praise seemed to have more favor- able effects. Tatiana (M.A., social sciences) disclosed, “[My] research method professor … told me I had a knack for research and invited me to be a research assistant! That was that academic validation all graduate students chase after.” Feeling similarly, Zuri (Ph.D., humanities) revealed, “Having a mentor who pushes me to do certain things and verbally affirms my work has helped. I don’t often see the quality of my work until someone tells me that it is good.” Here, these narrations suggest that doubting praise received from faculty may be detrimental, while accepting recognition and allowing such acknowledg- ments to fuel future endeavors could be helpful.

Taking the environment into consideration, recognition includes departmental acknowledgment (or lack thereof) of students’ performance and/or their identity. Rather than being favorably recognized, some reported that they felt tokenized, dis- missed, or outright berated by their advisor or others. Ximena (Ph.D., social sciences) recalled, “One time I told [my advisor] I was struggling with the constant desire to do my work perfectly… She told me, ‘That’s a separate problem you will need to figure out how to deal with.’” Mateo (Ph.D., social sciences) disclosed, “The biggest factor in me feeling fraudulent and defeated [is] faculty and advisors who do not celebrate you, but rather continuously beat you with criticism.”

Many participants felt that more encouraging messages, however, were integral to IP management. Yilin (Ph.D., humanities) remarked, “Recognition from my advisor also helped quell this [IP]. Her encouragement is truly a gift because she looks forward to my writing and it’s hard to feel like an imposter when someone so prolific in the field is excited to read what you have to say.” Nora (M.A., humanities) happily reported that her graduate program advisor is “the #1 reason everyone in my cohort holds it together” and “reminds us that we are already scholars [and the IP] we feel is normal,” which seemed to help her feel like she is already a member of, and contributor to, academia. This type of narrated recognition from faculty was seemingly instrumental in IP management for many participants.

200 A. S. SALEHUDDIN ET AL.

Involvement

When participants talked about their involvement, they often couched such efforts in terms of volunteer work beyond baseline expectations. Unfortunately, some participants felt they got overinvolved, like Gary (Ph.D., social sciences) who stated, “I find myself overcommitting to help or serve on a committee and do not have enough time to do my own research.” Others were underinvolved, such as Idris (Ph.D., social sciences), who disclosed, “Because of…my perceived inadequacy compared to my peers, I don’t volunteer for experiences… out of fears that I will sound stupid or that others will judge me for my less capable abilities.”

Although participants obviously desired to find the right balance for involvement, many described how it was a long, uneven process to find the right amount of partici- pation within their program. Jimmy (Ph.D., social sciences) revealed, “Sometimes I don’t feel that I’m capable enough to be in my program because I lack experience and many requisite skills. [However] I have been taking steps to remedy this through my coursework, and I have created research opportunities with my research advisor to gain these capabilities through tangible projects.” Haoyu (Ph.D., natural sciences) simi- larly said, “[My peer and I] often work on homework together and this helps me not feel like a fraud because we both are able to make meaningful contributions to our work.” Participants who stated that they under- or overinvolved themselves narrated experien- cing harmful effects (i.e., burnout) to their adjustment in graduate school and IP manage- ment. However, participants who felt they were able to develop a level of involvement that was both right for them and adaptable to future challenges often narrated healthier management of IP.

The ways in which a department fosters, or does not foster, involvement for their students by creating opportunities for them to be incorporated into the department and discipline seemingly had implications for IP. Joanna (M.A., social sciences) talked about the lack of these opportunities: “I feel unsupported [because] the faculty [do] not have a lot of built in time to explain the process of conferences and grants, and the standards for those applying, accepting, and attending.” Liam (Ph.D., social sciences) also expressed, “My advisor limits what projects I can take on and when I can move forward… I feel little flexibility to pursue new lines of thought.” These comments are representative of several students who narrated that some advisors, who limit students’ research and other involvement, contribute to a department culture that makes students feel disconnected to others and unsup- ported regarding their IP.

Nonetheless, other students perceived their departments to encourage involvement. Riley (Ph.D., social sciences) shared, “[My advisor] has multiple ‘backup plans’ to help me get prepared for my study,” and for Dylan (Ph.D., social sciences), his department “constantly tells [him and his peers] about what support and services are provided and work hard to prepare [them] for academia’s challenges.” Serenity (Ph.D., natural sciences) narrated that her department holds a seminar for life coaching, where graduate students can “talk about [their] concerns and have them validated by other grad students and undertake creative exercises that help [them] discover and design [their] work and life values.” These departments and their faculty seemingly promote/model being highly invested in their students’ academic and personal success.

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 201

Job/task competency

Job/task competency describes participants’ feelings that they can adequately complete graduate school duties. Krystal (Ph.D., natural sciences) admitted, “I refrain from parti- cipating in class and I’m hesitant to ask for help because I don’t want to be ‘found out.’” Ashley (Ph.D., social sciences) likewise said, “[IP] can be debilitating. I feel like I can’t perform a task or get started on something because I do not know how to (even though I have the knowledge and skills to be able to do the task). [IP] is often the reason why I have a hard time starting projects, especially collaborative ones with other professors.” These comments seem to suggest that IP poorly shapes perceptions of job competency.

In contrast, other participants narrated how certain self-behaviors helped with mana- ging IP and enhancing their assimilation in the department. Mei (Ph.D., humanities) said, “Positively, [IP] has led me to ask others about their knowledge and ask to be tutored by my peers on not just theory but questions about how to be a grad student overall.” Priti (M.A., social sciences) shared:

When I first entered my program… I felt like my 100% effort gained the same result as my other peers’ 30% [effort]. But I still felt like I needed to [always] work at my fullest ability… so I wouldn’t be behind. Through my feverish work I read, and read, and read my first year and it really set me up for my thesis and just overarchingly having a good grasp on the fun- damentals of our discipline.

Seemingly, refraining from class participation or procrastinating in starting projects appar- ently had harmful effects on students’ job competency, but beneficial effects seemingly accrued when students asked questions and increased knowledge through extra work.

Distinctly tied to how much participants felt like an impostor was their narrated per- ception of task/job competency as cultivated by the department. Participants felt their ability to complete graduate school tasks and how well graduate programs prepared stu- dents for these tasks varied. When some participants reported that they were poorly guided in developing competencies (especially with writing), they narrated feeling more like frauds. As Lola (from earlier) shared:

While everyone… acknowledges that… [IP] is normal, what is hard is that no one ever talks about things like learning to write better… Instead, we… are expected to “feel” this way and acknowledge that it exists… better mentoring and support about the expectations of where we SHOULD be would help a lot.

Although participants described feeling ill-prepared by their departments, others reported that efforts by their faculty and peers to improve/validate their task competen- cies were instrumental in helping them feel less like frauds. Margot (Ph.D., natural sciences) said, “My fellow graduate peers in my lab helped me tremendously by setting deadlines and constantly providing feedback.” Mei’s (from earlier) peers were narrated as willing to tutor others “not just [on] theory, but questions about how to be a grad student overall.” Peyton (M.A., humanities) similarly reported that he has peers who “affirm [his] skills” and whom he “can go to for paper advice/editing when [he’s] stuck.”Departmental efforts to facilitate task/job competency for their students were see- mingly tied to the ways in which they felt like they did not belong, despite evidence to the contrary.

202 A. S. SALEHUDDIN ET AL.

Role negotiation

Participants’ narrations suggest role negotiation similarly had beneficial/harmful effects. Sandy (Ph.D., social sciences) commented, “I have a hard time saying no to things pri- marily because I don’t want it to come across like I can’t do something or am unwilling to. I’m afraid of missing out on opportunities.” Stephanie (Ph.D., humanities) reported, “[My colleague] was trained through one way of coding and I was trained in a different way. When I told him my way, he said ‘That’s wrong. We need to do it in a systematic way like this’ and rather than stand my ground, I caved.” Monique (Ph.D., natural sciences) similarly disclosed, “I don’t stand up to my PI when I think he is wrong.”

Alternatively, participants felt that their willingness to alter the existing responsibil- ities associated with a given role had positive implications. Lindsay (Ph.D., social sciences) reflected, “[IP] caused me to upend my entire research program. I changed advisor, wound up on a grant, got two top papers for my research, and just got an R1 job offer. Feeling… like I was a fraud… really made me reevaluate what I wanted out of a grad program and my own research.” Victoria (Ph.D., humanities) likewise com- mented, “I used to compare myself to all the other students with awesome funding packages and… felt undervalued. However, I have since switched advisors and stood up for my financial needs. I defend the applicability of my area of expertise…whenever I feel alienated, I form partnerships with students and faculty in other departments.” Feeling similarly, Tracey (Ph.D., social sciences) said, “When I won a top paper award, [my advisor] made it about himself. I think at times, it’s despite him that I still have a pretty strong self-esteem.” (Un)willingness to alter departmental roles and responsibil- ities by speaking up for oneself and others was narrated to impact how students dealt with IP and assimilated in the program.

Finally, participants’ narrated willingness to negotiate with their departments throughout their membership concerning their roles as a student, teacher, researcher, etc. was seemingly tied to the department’s accommodation. Narrations suggest that departments set the context that can be (in)flexible in addressing student needs. Participants shared that some departments demonstrated flexibility, as evident in Neeha’s (Ph.D., natural sciences) narra- tive: “They cared and tried to develop a plan that worked best for me to continue or quit the program.” Jessica (M.A., social sciences) similarly exclaimed, “My advisor is the best… If the department is treatingme poorly, she will tell me, ‘They are treating you poorly, here is some- thing we can do about that.’” Unfortunately, others were seemingly not as lucky. Bruce’s (M.A., natural sciences) comment was representative: “Every time I try to discuss issues related to the way I get treated [unfairly], they do not care. It’s frustrating not [being] good enough to be heard, never good enough to have respect.” Overall, these narrated reac- tions seem to be greatly tied to students’ overall feelings of acceptance in their program and, subsequently, their IP.

Discussion

Our study examined how graduate departments and graduate students’ own behaviors shape the experience and management of IP and adjustment in graduate school through communicative processes. Graduate students’ excerpts based on their experi- ences illustrated a complex relationship between IP and communicative processes

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 203

involved in departmental assimilation, such that certain efforts by both graduate depart- ments and students were narrated as functioning in beneficial and harmful ways. Below, we discuss theoretical implications, advance an integrated model from our results, unpack practical implications, identify limitations, and offer future directions for research linked to IP and communication related to departmental assimilation.

Theoretical implications

Although previous studies established IP as a personal, often trait-related characteristic (Ibrahim et al., 2023; Tigranyan et al., 2021), our study addresses how essential external —factors, such as efforts from graduate departments/programs—shape IP. Participants described how supportive departmental climate and prosocial demeanor of faculty advi- sors/graduate peers helped those experiencing feelings of fraudulence to manage their IP more constructively and feel more assimilated, which is consistent with existing research (Pervez et al., 2021). However, our investigation also showed how unsupportive depart- mental climates—marked by competition and unclear expectations, as well as unresponsive faculty advisors/graduate peers—hindered graduate students’ ability to manage IP and assimilate into their programs. Our findings align with existing research suggesting that lower-quality mentorship, increased competition, and heightened isolation are associated with more impostor fears (Cohen & McConnell, 2019; Sverdlik et al., 2020), which can attenuate departmental adjustment in graduate school. By underscoring the imperative role departmental factors (i.e., program requirements, faculty advisors, culture, graduate peers, etc.) play in shaping graduate students’ IP experience and departmental assimilation, our study directly responds to calls to address how graduate school and related experiences interact with IP management (Cohen & McConnell, 2019; Rabby et al., 2023).

In addition, our study highlights the role graduate students’ own behaviors may play in shaping their assimilation and management of IP. Although most research has examined the effects of personal characteristics on IP, such as self-effacing attributional bias and attachment styles (Gibson-Beverly & Schwartz, 2008; Ibrahim et al., 2023), few have explored the impact of how graduate students’ narrativized communicative efforts to assimilate into programs mitigate the effects of IP (Rabby et al., 2023). We show how par- ticipants perceived that their own communication and behaviors, such as seeking support from faculty advisors, building bonds with colleagues, or joining departmental workshops to reduce knowledge- or skill deficiencies, could influence their feelings of IP, potentially enhancing feelings of departmental assimilation. Simultaneously, we show how they felt that withholding, or exerting less effort to assimilate, such as disengaging from peers, hiding their IP struggles, or over- or underworking to overcompensate for a perceived lack of skill, was perceived as harmful (Grady et al., 2014). The present study extends exist- ing literature by capturing the importance of graduate students’ own efforts in managing experiences of fraud via departmental engagement.

Integrated model of individual and departmental efforts shaping IP and assimilation

Using our results, we generated an integrated model (see Figure 1) that explains the nar- rated interplay between graduate student behaviors and departmental efforts shaping IP

204 A. S. SALEHUDDIN ET AL.

and assimilation outcomes. Based solely on graduate student perceptions/narratives, the integrated model explains how complementary efforts by students and their departments may (1) exacerbate IP and compromise departmental assimilation or (2) ameliorate IP and enhance departmental adjustment; however, when such efforts are noncomplemen- tary, (3) the directionality of IP and assimilation outcomes may be unclear. Below we describe the (non)complementary nature of our integrated model.

When the narrated individual and departmental efforts are complementary, the out- comes seem to generally yield positive or negative outcomes related to IP and assimila- tion. For example, graduate students interested in “volunteering” (i.e., involvement at the individual level; see Figure 1) narrated faring much better by feeling more assimilated and less like an impostor if their departments were “providing opportunities” (i.e., invol- vement at the departmental level; see Figure 1) for their students to get more involved. The opposite was narrated to be true such that graduate students who choose to “disen- gage” (i.e., familiarity with faculty at the individual level; see Figure 1) from their advisors will likely experience stagnation or increases in IP and decreases in departmental adjust- ment if faculty members do “not check-in” (i.e., familiarity with faculty at the department level; see Figure 1) with them. When the narrated efforts of the individual complement those made by the department (and vice versa), the outcome for IP and departmental assimilation seem to be more definitive (either harmful or beneficial). Based on such nar- rated accounts, our integrated model predicts IP directionality when departmental actions align with those of graduate students and vice versa.

However, when both narrated efforts are noncomplementary (e.g., individuals reach out while faculty members neglect), outcome directionality may not be as clear. When narrated departmental and individual efforts do not align, the relationship between IP and departmental assimilation is likely contingent on variation in contextual factors (i.e., racial diversity in department, discipline-specific expectations, departmental

Figure 1. Integrated model of individual and departmental efforts shaping impostor phenomenon and assimilation.

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 205

climate/culture, etc.) and personal characteristics (i.e., resilience, self-esteem, hope/goal- orientation, etc.). We found cases where participants narrated rejecting departmental values that were perceived as lacking diversity, making the direction of IP and depart- mental adjustment unclear. For example, in response to departmental cultures that were perceived as lacking diversity, Daniel (Ph.D., social sciences) contended,

I am a first-gen graduate student… and the perspective I bring to doing my research definitely has contributed to my fraudulent feelings, especially given that my advisor and committee are [explicative lexicon] bent on making me like them, and I refuse to contribute to the white masculine practices they engage in.

Here, the choice to uphold one’s personal values and reject departmental values per- ceived as lacking diversity can likely make students feel less assimilated, potentially increasing their IP because they feel even less like they belong. In similar situations, none- theless, other students may experience a decrease in their IP and feel less like frauds because they intentionally chose to be unaffiliated with departmental aspects perceived as nondiverse. Therefore, individual factors, such as drawing on one’s agency, should be considered when assessing outcome directionality.

The nondefinitive model directionality (caused by divergence in departmental and individual efforts) could also be evident when a department attempts to cultivate an environment that encourages discussions of mistakes, but students struggle with reach- ing out. For instance, Alma (Ph.D., social sciences) shared, “I tend not to reach out to [my faculty] or try to seek out their help because I’m worried about them discovering my impostorness.” Here, the implication for IP and departmental adjustment is similarly unclear. Students who do not reach out to faculty advisors likely experience decreases in their assimilation, but the effort their behaviors have on IP could be complicated due to the nature of IP. By isolating themselves, students’ IP may be exacerbated because they are not seeking to improve their situation, but in doing so, their feelings of fraudulence might also stagnate or improve because people cannot discover their per- ceived self-impostorism. These examples, from participants’ narrated accounts, demon- strate how outcomes related to IP and departmental adjustment, based on the principles of non-complementarity, may not be as clear when the efforts of the individual and department are divergent, where other contextual and personal factors must be considered.

Practical implications

As suggested by our integrated model (see Figure 1), individual and departmental efforts are narrated to be interdependent in shaping IP experiences and feelings of assimilation in graduate school; these results offer practical solutions for graduate programs and stu- dents. Indeed, there is ongoing discussion concerning graduate education reform by way of reconceptualizing graduate students’ socialization and identification (Anderson & Hosek, 2022). Riforgiate (2022) advocated for departmental efforts geared toward better preparing students for career options beyond the professoriate. Additionally, Frisby (2022) argued that active training on mentoring would benefit relationships between faculty and students, even to the extent of preparing graduate students to one day become proactive faculty advisors themselves. Our findings also suggest that

206 A. S. SALEHUDDIN ET AL.

department-level efforts are needed to address graduate students’ feelings of IP. Similar to other scholarly suggestions (Posselt, 2018; Sverdlik et al., 2020), we recommend that graduate departments—faculty advisors and graduate peers—validate doubts and fears associated with IP. Validation can include (1) generating safe environments to discuss IP feelings and experiences, (2) listening (actively) when perceived impostors disclose perceptions/experiences of fraudulence, and (3) developing training programs to increase departmental assimilation behaviors and management of IP. Moreover, we rec- ommend that faculty disclose their own experiences with IP and, if relevant, discuss how their own assimilation into departments/the profession eased IP. This will likely create mutual understanding and generate avenues for students to comfortably seek support.

At the individual level, we encourage graduate students to consider communicative processes involved in departmental assimilation toward reducing their own IP (i.e., pur- posefully building relationships with graduate peers and faculty members, getting involved, negotiating various roles and responsibilities, etc.). These efforts might help graduate students to feel more accepted in the program, which, over time, should help them to feel less fraudulent. We also encourage graduate students to engage in positive reframing (i.e., viewing their IP experience as normal and manageable). Morgenstern and Beck Dallaghan (2021) suggest that educators assist students to reframe IP experiences by helping them realize that impostorism is an appropriate response when surrounded by highly achieving individuals immersed in immensely competitive environments, like graduate school. Positively reframing IP may “mitigate potential psychological and behavioral consequences and improve emotional health” (Morgenstern & Beck Dalla- ghan, 2021, p. 445). Finally, graduate students experiencing IP should be cautious about underworking, as well as taking on more academic responsibilities than manage- able (i.e., overworking) because doing so may exacerbate IP (Grady et al., 2014). There- fore, graduate students should negotiate their various roles to improve their departmental adjustment while helping faculty advisors to better understand their IP concerns. These suggestions align with ongoing discourse pushing for graduate students’ proactivity in their own graduate experience (Charoensap-Kelly & Punyanunt-Carter, 2022).

Limitations and future directions

Our findings must be set within a few limitations. First, the study collected qualitative data through open-ended questions, which limited our abilities to ask follow-up ques- tions to gain richer insights into why and how IP interacts with graduate students’ departmental adjustment and assimilation. Second, our study involved graduate students from many departments, which limited our ability to understand and compare graduate program-specific contexts, and how such department-specific processes relate to gradu- ate school adjustment and shape students’ IP experiences. Lastly, our sample may not be as representative to capture the IP experiences associated with more marginalized iden- tity markers: students of color, first-generation college students, etc.

Future research could include quantitative studies that might enable researchers to identify more clearly how IP impacts departmental assimilation across temporal bounds. First, studies should develop a scale of organizational assimilation appropriate for the graduate context to quantitatively measure assimilation dimensions as graduate

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 207

students manage IP. Second, our results suggest that IP impacts graduate students not only at entry, but throughout their graduate programs (i.e., amid qualification exams, preparation for job market, etc.). Studies should investigate how IP affects the depart- mental assimilation process at different stages (Jablin, 2001) of graduate school, disentan- gling how the two intersect to improve the graduate school experience, as well as examine how marginalized identity markers (i.e., first-generation status, non-White ethnicity, etc.) shape IP and graduate school assimilation.

Conclusion

During graduate school, students experience varying degrees of IP, which impacts their ability to assimilate into their departments and programs. We highlight individual student efforts that reduce IP and enhance their graduate school adjustment and assim- ilation, such as disclosing impostor feelings, building relationships, and acquiring knowl- edge and skills. By contrast, other efforts, such as disengaging and under- or overworking, may have the opposite effect. Closely linked are departmental efforts (from graduate peers and faculty advisors) that can likewise shape how graduate students with perceived fraudulence respond to IP and assimilate into their departments. By gen- erating more awareness about IP and its connection to communicative processes associ- ated with departmental assimilation, we can better support graduate students immersed in highly competitive environments ripe for feeling like a fraud.

Note

1. Like many organizational communication scholars (e.g., Gailliard & Davis, 2017; Rabby et al., 2023; Waldeck et al., 2004), we follow the traditions of Jablin (2001) and Kramer and Miller (1999), who view organizational assimilation as an outcome of organizational socialization.

Financial disclosure

No internal or external funding was attained for this investigation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability

Data available upon request.

ORCID

Abdullah S. Salehuddin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9094-327X Karen K. Myers http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4798-9875

208 A. S. SALEHUDDIN ET AL.

References

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2005). The identity career of the graduate student: Professional socializa- tion to academic sociology. The American Sociologist, 36(2), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12108-005-1002-4

Anderson, L. B., & Hosek, A. M. (2022). Rethinking graduate student socialization and identifi- cation: A forum response. Communication Education, 71(1), 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03634523.2021.1995771

Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.02.001

Barr-Walker, J., Werner, D. A., Kellermeyer, L., & Bass, M. B. (2020). Coping with impostor feel- ings: Evidence based recommendations from a mixed methods study. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 15(2), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29706

Bothello, J., & Roulet, T. J. (2019). The imposter syndrome, or the mis-representation of self in academic life. Journal of Management Studies, 56(4), 854–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms. 12344

Bravata, D. M., Watts, S. A., Keefer, A. L., Madhusudhan, D. K., Taylor, K. T., Clark, D. M., Nelson, R. S., Cokley, K. O., & Hagg, H. K. (2020). Prevalence, predictors, and treatment of impostor syndrome: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(4), 1252–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05364-1

Chang, S., Lee, H. Y., Anderson, C., Lewis, K., Chakraverty, D., & Yates, M. (2022). Intervening on impostor phenomenon: Prospective evaluation of a workshop for health science students using a mixed-method design. BMC Medical Education, 22, Article 802. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12909-022-03824-7

Charoensap-Kelly, P., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2022). Changing the graduate student sociali- zation process for the future. Communication Education, 71(1), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03634523.2021.1995767

Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006

Cohen, E. D., & McConnell, W. R. (2019). Fear of fraudulence: Graduate school program environ- ments and the impostor phenomenon. The Sociological Quarterly, 60(3), 457–478. https://doi. org/10.1080/00380253.2019.1580552

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative cri- teria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593

Feenstra, S., Begeny, C. T., Ryan, M. K., Rink, F. A., Stoker, J. I., & Jordan, J. (2020). Contextualizing the impostor “syndrome” Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 575024. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575024

Ferguson, S. N. (2021). Effects of faculty and staff connectedness on student self-efficacy. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 21(2), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i2. 28597

Frisby, B. N. (2022). The role of communication education scholarship in preparing advisors for the professoriate. Communication Education, 71(1), 75–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523. 2021.1995766

Gailliard, B. M., & Davis, C. W. (2017). To be known, accepted, and involved: Investigating organ- izational assimilation in Christian Churches. Southern Communication Journal, 82(3), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2017.1315451

Gailliard, B. M., Myers, K. K., & Seibold, D. R. (2010). Organizational assimilation: A multidimen- sional reconceptualization and measure. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 552– 578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318910374933

Gardner, S. K., & Holley, K. A. (2011). “Those invisible barriers are real”: The progression of first- generation students through doctoral education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2011.529791

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 209

Gibson-Beverly, G., & Schwartz, J. P. (2008). Attachment, entitlement, and the impostor phenom- enon in female graduate students. Journal of College Counseling, 11(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2008.tb00029.x

Gilmore, S., & Harding, N. (2022). Organizational socialization as kin-work: A psychoanalytic model of settling into a new job. Human Relations, 75(3), 583–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726720964255

Grady, R. K., La Touche, R., Oslawski-Lopez, J., Powers, A., & Simacek, K. (2014). Betwixt and between: The social position and stress experiences of graduate students. Teaching Sociology, 42(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X13502182

Hoffmann-Longtin, K., Brann, M., Ridley-Merriweather, K. E., & Wackernagel Bach, B. (2021). Rethinking graduate student socialization and identification: How the communication disci- pline can help. Communication Education, 70(1), 120–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523. 2020.1811361

Ibrahim, F., Göddertz, D., & Herzberg, P.Y. (2023). An experimental study of the non-self-serving attributional bias within the impostor phenomenon and its relation to the fixed mindset. Current Psychology, 42, 26440–26449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03486-0

Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M. Jablin, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 732–818). SAGE.

Kramer, M. W., & Miller, V. D. (1999). A response to criticisms of organizational socialization research: In support of contemporary conceptualizations of organizational assimilation. Communication Monographs, 66(4), 358-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376485

Mansson, D. H., & Myers, S. A. (2012). Using mentoring enactment theory to explore the doctoral student–advisor mentoring relationship. Communication Education, 61(4), 309–334. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.708424

Ménard, A. D., & Chittle, L. (2023). The impostor phenomenon in post-secondary students: A review of the literature. Review of Education, 11(2), Article e3399. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3399

Miller, M. J., & Manata, B. (2023). The effects of workplace inclusion on employee assimilation outcomes. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(3), 777–801. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2329488420976805

Morgenstern, B. Z., & Beck Dallaghan, G. (2021). Should medical educators help learners reframe imposterism? Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 33(4), 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10401334.2020.1856112

Nori, H., & Vanttaja, M. (2023). Too stupid for Ph.D.? Doctoral impostor syndrome among Finnish Ph.D. students. Higher Education, 86(3), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734- 022-00921-w

Omanović, V., & Langley, A. (2023). Assimilation, integration or inclusion? A dialectical perspec- tive on the organizational socialization of migrants. Journal of Management Inquiry, 32(1), 76– 97. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926211063777

Pervez, A., Brady, L. L., Mullane, K., Lo, K. D., Bennett, A. A., & Nelson, T. A. (2021). An empirical investigation of mental illness, impostor syndrome, and social support in management doctoral programs. Journal of Management Education, 45(1), 126–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1052562920953195

Posselt, J. (2018). Normalizing struggle: Dimensions of faculty support for doctoral students and implications for persistence and well-being. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(6), 988–1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1449080

Rabby, M. M. F., Platt, C. A., & Zeng, C. (2023). Assimilation, organizational support, and impos- tor syndrome as predictors of GTAs’ communicatively restricted organizational stress (CROS). Communication Reports, 36(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2022.2083203

Riforgiate, S. E. (2022). Graduate student socialization: Getting somewhere. Communication Education, 71(1), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2021.1995765

Sollitto, M., Johnson, Z. D., & Myers, S. A. (2013). Students’ perceptions of college classroom con- nectedness, assimilation, and peer relationships. Communication Education, 62(3), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.788726

210 A. S. SALEHUDDIN ET AL.

Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., & McAlpine, L. (2020). Phd imposter syndrome: Exploring antecedents, consequences, and implications for doctoral well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 15, 737–758. https://doi.org/10.28945/4670

Tao, K. W., & Gloria, A. M. (2019). Should I stay or should I go? The role of impostorism in STEM persistence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0361684318802333

Tigranyan, S., Byington, D. R., Liupakorn, D., Hicks, A., Lombardi, S., Mathis, M., & Rodolfa, E. (2021). Factors related to the impostor phenomenon in psychology doctoral students. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 15(4), 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000321

van Rooij, E., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., & Jansen, E. (2021). Factors that influence Ph.D. candidates’ success: The importance of Ph.D. project characteristics. Studies in Continuing Education, 43(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1652158

Vaughn, A. R., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Johnson, M. L. (2020). Impostor phenomenon and motiv- ation: Women in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45(4), 780–795. https://doi. org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1568976

Waldeck, J. H., Seibold, D. R., & Flanagin, A. J. (2004). Organizational assimilation and communi- cation technology use. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0363775042331302497

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION 211

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles false /AutoRotatePages /PageByPage /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile () /CalRGBProfile (Adobe RGB \0501998\051) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.5 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 524288 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments false /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo false /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings false /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Remove /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.90 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.90 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 300 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects true /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /Description << /ENU () >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [600 600] /PageSize [595.245 841.846] >> setpagedevice