Synthesis Worksheet: Doctoral Identity

Introduction

Capture interest:

Langston Hughes’ classic poem, “Mother to Son,” reiterates that life is a challenging, arduous journey, when the speaker confides, “Life for me ain’t been no crystal stair. It’s had tacks in it, And splinters, And boards torn up, And places with no carpet on the floor—Bare. Similarly, this theme of resilience also characterizes the difficult transition from doctoral student to independent scholar, as suggested within the three research articles.

Context:

In essence, the process of becoming a successful independent scholar does not occur in an isolated, automatic, or simple manner.

Statement of common themes:

The three articles justify how the transition involves identity developmental awareness, forging relationships with peers and faculty, and learning to embrace each discipline’s unique culture and history.

Thesis statement:

As a result, this paper reiterates Baker and Pifer’s (2010) assertions of how relationships denote a major role in expediting the process, as well as research by to demonstrate how identity development is also an essential part of this exciting yet complex academic, personal, and professional transformation to independent scholar, thus helping doctoral candidates to ascend the stairway to academia!

Theme One:

Success.

Baker and Pifer (2011):

First, Baker and Pifer (2010) strongly emphasize the critical role of relationships in fostering independent scholarly success. They allege that relationships are integral to expedite and support the overall doctoral identity development process. They also employ a theoretical framework that blends “…sociocultural perspectives of learning and developmental networks to reveal a connection between relationships and learning. This study highlights the effects of relationships and interactions on particular strategies and experiences associated with Stage 2 of doctoral education, and therefore students’ identity development and transition to independence” (p. 1).

Gardner (2009):

Similarly, Gardner’s (2009) article also specifies how the doctoral educational experience is deeply rooted in disciplinary context and cultural influences that denote success in doctoral education. The findings from numerous interviews alleged how “disciplinary culture and context greatly influenced the faculty members' conceptualizations of success in doctoral education. There was a clear distinction among disciplinary constructions of success and among departments with the highest and lowest completion rates” (p. 7).

Smith and Hatmaker (2015):

Lastly, Smith and Hatmaker (2015) also examine how doctoral students develop their own research professional identities and also specify the critical role in student-faculty interactions to facilitate “visibility, obtain hands-on research experience, and bolster their research identity” (p. 1). They emphasize how professional socialization is an important part of doctoral identity development since “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” (p. 2).

Theme Two:

Relationships

Baker and Pifer (2011):

Their research is vital since it offers insights about Stage 2’s the critical transition from dependence to independence as this phase is marked as ”students move away from the structure provided by course schedules and enter into a self-directed, often isolating, period. Students begin to develop their own academic identities, professional voices, and independence as scholars, yet they often struggle with how to effectively manage this stage without the guidance and structure that characterized Stage 1” (p. 2). The value of these relationships is inherent in the fact that “students’ networks of relationships within and outside of the academic community are important to persistence and professional success. Additional research has confirmed their findings that a variety of relationships beyond the student-advisor dyad are important for persistence and success in doctoral education, such as relationships with family, friends, and former colleagues” (p. 4). The article’s study conveyed how the students who lacked support did not transition smoothly as evident from the fact that they “…struggled with the basic tasks of how to structure their daily schedules, and the larger goal of persisting through Stage 2” (p. 7) and also experienced higher levels of isolation. These results also validate how “Relationships within the academic community, primarily one’s academic program or department, serve as conduits to the academic community and help keep students informed of events and professional development opportunities. Professional relationships also have the potential to serve as sources of friendship and personal support as students engage in the sometimes challenging parallel process of forming their identities as students and scholars. Personal relationships, those outside of students’ professional lives were emphasized by participants as equally important sources of support during Stage 2” (p. 7).

Gardner (2009):

The article reveals how faculty relationships are necessary to help scholars to better understand their own discipline, as well as its “histories and trajectories, their own habits and practices" (p. 14) as well as unique “faculty perceptions of doctoral student success” (p. 14).

Smith and Hatmaker (2015):

Again, Smith and Hatmaker (2015) further implore that socialization and relationships are extremely significant in this transition because “For doctoral students, socialization into the profession includes the process of learning to become an independent researcher” (p. 3).

Theme Three:

Select a third common theme that emerged from the articles.

Baker and Pifer (2011):

According to Ibarra and Deshpande (2004), they emphasized that social identities in working environments are formed by the individuals found in the environment; and identities are formed through networking processes. Nevertheless, the roles and interactions within relationships should be well understood far beyond its definition because networking for professionals is not the only thing at play in doctoral socialization.

Gardner (2009):

Gardner, (2009) reiterated the fact that the characteristics that members of the doctoral faculty emphasized as major contributor to their students’ success involved ranking and reputation. They considered part of their students’ success to their ability of securing employment, which is part of the goals attained from presentations and publishing. Accordingly, as part of the interview conducted among faculty members, it was explained that successful doctoral students’ attempts to have their articles published at their very first seminar paper. Similarly, most of the students’ are found to be representatives on different panels and making presentations.

Smith and Hatmaker (2015):

Smith and Hatmaker (2015) indicated that a combination of different networks of developmental relationships may be used in offering different types of support, information, and resources in establishing professional identity. (Dobrow & Higgins, 2005). Practically all students interviewed maintained that the relationships they have developed, coupled with their interactions with faculty provided them with both instrumental and social support.

Statement of Conclusion

All in all, these articles clearly exemplify that there are a myriad of academic, social, behavioral, psychological, and cognitive forces that influences and mold one’s scholarly identity development. In other words, we cannot merely take an autonomous, isolated view of ourselves when transitioning from doctoral learners to independent scholars, but must instead clearly acknowledge and embrace the importance of interpersonal relationships in promoting students’ successes. All three articles depict how we must interpret and negotiate our identity development within an interdisciplinary framework or lens. Thus, this integrated approach will enable us to better understand the various sociocultural influences of identity development that link closely to ontological changes in self-understanding and then result in epistemological changes accordingly.