Enhanced Synthesis Paper: Doctoral Identity

Introduction

Doctoral education is the first step towards a faculty career and the development of a

professional scholarly identity (Austin and McDaniels 2006; Austin and Wulff 2004).

Throughout this educational experience, students learn about the nature of the

academic career, as well as the language, research, and teaching skills associated within

a particular domain or discipline. In the United States, doctoral education is

conceptualized as a series of three stages. Stage 1 occurs from admission through the

first year of coursework. In Stage 2, the student typically completes coursework, passes

candidacy exams, and begins the dissertation proposal process. In Stage 3, the student

focuses on completing the dissertation (Tinto 1993). It is important to understand the

distinct experiences of each stage fully to provide insights useful to students, faculty,

and practitioners interested in successful preparation for academic practice. As

McAlpine and colleagues (2009) noted, ‘We need to understand better the experiences

of and related challenges faced by doctoral students in the process of coming to

understand academic practice and establishing themselves as academics’ (97).

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] $Now at: Education and Human Services, Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, USA

Studies in Continuing Education

Vol. 33, No. 1, March 2011, 5�17

ISSN 0158-037X print/ISSN 1470-126X online

# 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/0158037X.2010.515569

http://www.informaworld.com

http://www.informaworld.com
While prior research has examined Stage 1 (Golde 1998; Baker Sweitzer 2007,

2008, 2009) and Stage 3 (Sternberg 1981), little research and practice has focused

specifically on Stage 2, the critical transition from ‘dependence to independence’ as

described by Lovitts (2005). During Stage 2, 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. As they apply

the knowledge and insight gained through coursework, students can become lost in

their efforts to become independent scholars.

Although researchers consistently suggest that identity development is a crucial

dimension of the doctoral student experience, few studies have empirically examined

this process. Furthermore, few studies have explored the influence of students’

relationships with others, beyond the academic advisor, on learning and identity

development during graduate study (exceptions include Baker and Lattuca forth-

coming; Baker Sweitzer 2009; McAlpine, Jazvac-Martek, and Hopwood 2009).

Relying on data from our qualitative study of Stage 2 (Baker, Pifer, and Flemion

2009), we examine the role of students’ relationships in the identity development

process during this distinct stage of the transition to independent scholar.

Developmental networks and sociocultural perspectives of learning

The notion of identity development in the professions is not novel. For years,

researchers have explored the changes that occur as a result of graduate training,

particularly in medicine and K�12 education (e.g., Becker and Carper 1956). Very few studies, however, have empirically investigated identity development in the

context of doctoral education. For example, Hall (1968) examined the professional

identity development of doctoral students during the qualifying or candidacy exam

(a necessary step towards achieving candidacy that typically requires students to

demonstrate a certain level of content mastery) and found that graduate students

were better able to envision themselves as future faculty members after completing

the qualifying exam, regardless of whether they passed the exam. Little research has

advanced the findings presented in Hall’s work, however, and more research is

needed to understand the stages and processes of identity development in doctoral

education.

The transition to any new professional role, including that of doctoral student,

requires the acquisition of new skills and competencies, and the development of new

relationships while altering existing ones. Wortham (2006) points out that individuals

have identities before entering a new domain or community and that these identities

may interfere with learning as it is defined in the new domain. People adapt to new

professional roles, Ibarra (1999) suggests, by experimenting with new identities or

‘provisional selves’. The nature of a person’s network of relationships can affect the

creation, selection, and retention of these provisional identities. Ashforth (2001) and

Goffman’s (1961) assertions that social identities are ascribed to people, rather than

created by them, link sociocultural theories of learning with theories of develop-

mental networks. Podolny and Baron (1997) argue that social networks socialize

aspiring members, regulate inclusion, and convey expectations about roles. Similarly,

6 V.L. Baker and M.J. Pifer

Ibarra and Deshpande (2004) contend that social identities in work settings are co-

created by those in the local setting; identities emerge through network processes.

The breadth and interconnectedness of social influences on learning and identity

development acknowledged in sociocultural and network theories illuminate a limitation of prior research on doctoral education, which generally accounts for the

importance of interpersonal relationships in doctoral student success exclusively by

examining the student-advisor dyad (Nettles and Millet 2006; Paglis, Green, and

Bauer 2006). Recently, Austin and McDaniels (2006) argued for the development of

broader professional networks in socialization to the professoriate. Yet, we must

expand our understanding of the role of relationships and interactions even farther

beyond this definition, as professional networks are not the only ones at play in

doctoral socialization. Tinto (1993) and Weidman, Twale, and Stein (2001) provide evidence 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 (Baker

Sweitzer 2007, 2009; Hopwood and Sutherland 2009).

To explore the connections among developmental relationships, learning, and

identity development, we relied on the interdisciplinary framework developed by Baker and Lattuca (forthcoming) that brings together developmental network theory

and sociocultural perspectives of learning. Our reliance on this interdisciplinary

framework allowed us to explore whether and how students’ relationships within and

outside of the academic community influence the development of their professional

identities. In using this framework, we acknowledge and call attention to the social

nature of identity development in doctoral education. The application of an

integrated approach to the sociocultural influences of identity development during

doctoral study allows us to link ontological changes in self-understanding to epistemological changes (alterations in domain knowledge, skills, and views of

knowledge). We argue that consideration of interactions and relationships, and the

learning that occurs through them, is critical to understanding the identity

development process that occurs as students prepare for academic practice.