process challenges and learning-based interactions in stage 2 of doctoral education: implications...

Process Challenges and Learning-Based Interactions in Stage2 of Doctoral Education: Implications from Two Applied SocialScience Fields

Vicki L. Baker, Meghan J. Pifer, Blair Flemion

The Journal of Higher Education, Volume 84, Number 4, July/August2013, pp. 449-476 (Article)

Published by The Ohio State University PressDOI: 10.1353/jhe.2013.0024

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Marshall University (30 Aug 2013 01:40 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jhe/summary/v084/84.4.baker.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jhe/summary/v084/84.4.baker.html

This article reports on an exploratory study that examined the transition to independence in Stage 2 of the doctoral student experience in two applied social science fields. We rely on an interdisciplinary framework that integrates developmental networks and sociocul-tural perspectives of learning to better understand the connection between the challenges in Stage 2 of the doctoral education process and students’ learning-based behavioral re-sponses to such challenges during this critical transition. Results indicate the presence of three types of process challenges in Stage 2: structural, interpersonal, and individual. Results also point to a range of behavioral responses to such challenges and their rela-tive effectiveness in advancing doctoral student learning towards becoming independent scholars. We conclude with directions for future research and practice.

Over the past fifteen years, researchers have examined doctoral educa-tion closely (e.g., austin, 2002; Golde, 2004). Early efforts in this area focused on establishing patterns, trends, and areas for improvement in doctoral education and the doctoral student experience, such as hart-nett and katz’s (1977) research and subsequent call for more humanity and supportive relationships in graduate education. another part of that influential body of scholarship is Golde and Dore’s (2001) study of doc-toral education across 11 disciplines and 27 universities. The findings of their research suggested that students do not understand the process of doctoral education or how to be effective in that process. Golde and dore’s emphasis on process called attention to the complex tasks and

Process Challenges and Learning-Based Interactions in Stage 2 of Doctoral Education: Implications from Two Applied Social Science Fields

Vicki L. Baker is an Associate Professor of Economics & Management at Albion College; [email protected]. Meghan J. Pifer is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Widener University. Blair Flemion is a Certified Professional Accountant at Pricewater-houseCoopers.

Vicki L. Baker Meghan J. Pifer Blair Flemion

The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 84, No. 4 (July/august)copyright © 2013 by the ohio State University

450 The Journal of Higher Education

interactions that are embedded in the doctoral experience. Similarly, Lovitts (2008) identified the process of becoming an independent re-searcher as an important area for research about doctoral education. we draw from these two prior contributions in our emphasis on studying doctoral education as both a means and an end—the process of learning and the process of becoming an independent scholar, particularly during Stage 2. another line of research focuses on the role of networks and relation-ships in creating access to developmental experiences, funding oppor-tunities, and other resources that contribute to successful and meaning-ful experiences in doctoral education. Some of this research has em-phasized networks and relationships explicitly (Baker & lattuca, 2010; Baker & pifer, 2011; Golde, 2000; lee, 2008; Nettles & millett, 2006; paglis, Green, & Bauer, 2006; tenenbaum, crosby, & Gliner, 2001), while a broader branch of research has investigated such interactions implicitly through the theoretical lens of socialization (austin, 2002; Gardner & Barnes, 2007; holley, 2011; weidman, twale, & Stein, 2001). a third approach to researching the doctoral student experience is based on the stage model, which is growing in predominance. Based on the earlier work of Braxton and Baird (2001) and Nerad (2004), re-searchers have extended that work by identifying and examining three different stages of doctoral education and the corresponding develop-mental challenges associated with each (e.g., millet & Nettles, 2006). alternatives to the three-stage model have also appeared. for example, Grover (2007) offered a four-stage model of doctoral education in his essay, which presents Stage 1 (coursework) as two stages, one for each of the first two years of the doctoral program. His reflection suggests that the stage model is useful in helping faculty members to concep-tualize the doctoral student experience; it is, however, not based on original research or linked to previous research, nor do we view it as an evidence-based alternative to the three-stage model. further research is needed to develop and apply the stage model to understanding and improving the doctoral education process and to integrate the variety of approaches that have evolved within this line of inquiry—given that the majority of research that has examined doctoral education has over-looked the nuances that are specific to each stage and has tended to favor the first and last stage without much consideration for Stage 2. our goal in this article is to better understand Stage 2, the time be-tween the completion of coursework and the defense of the dissertation proposal, through an exploration of the challenges to the doctoral edu-cation process in two applied social science fields: business and higher

Process Challenges and Learning-Based Interactions 451

education. we argue that what occurs, or needs to occur, during this stage is more than socialization into a profession. as students’ ap-proaches to learning evolve throughout the doctoral education process, so too do the relational and behavioral strategies that they employ to successfully transition through this stage towards scholarly indepen-dence. to that end, we begin with an overview of the theoretical frame-work that guided this investigation—an integrative approach to doctoral education research that brings together developmental networks and sociocultural perspectives of learning (Baker & lattuca, 2010). keep-ing in mind the notion of process that Golde and dore (2001) and lo-vitts (2008) illuminated, we identify the key challenges to the process of doctoral education (structural, interpersonal, individual) that have the potential to impede student success during this stage. these process challenges emerged from the data as a significant and previously undoc-umented component of Stage 2. we also use the theoretical framework to explore the student learning experience during Stage 2 and how stu-dents’ interactions in developmental and sociocultural contexts facilitate learning as well as responses to challenges. findings from this research provide a richer understanding of the characteristics and challenges of this critical aspect of doctoral education as well as the behavioral re-sponses students employ to achieve success during this stage.

Theoretical Framework

in the following section, we discuss relevant literature about the doc-toral student experience, with an emphasis on the stage model approach. we then explicate the theoretical framework that served as the founda-tion of this study.

The Stage Model of Doctoral Education

Several perspectives have been offered to conceptualize doctoral education through a stage model lens (Braxton & Baird, 2001; Nerad, 2004). Recently, doctoral education has most consistently been charac-terized as a series of three distinct stages of experiences and milestones towards degree completion (Gardner 2008b; millet & Nettles, 2006). the time spent within stages varies based on factors such as institu-tional and disciplinary contexts, sources of and access to funding, pro-gram expectations, career goals, and the role of the advisor and other important relationships (Golde & dore, 2001). for example, students in the physical and natural sciences conduct laboratory-based research as early as their first semester and thus have more frequent interaction with faculty advisors and advanced students/peers. there is generally a


shorter time to degree in the sciences than in the humanities and social sciences. despite disciplinary and institutional differences, however, “all doctoral programs have in common a structure of formal require-ments and informal expectations for students” (Golde & dore, 2001, p. 34). in this stage model, Stage 1 is described as a period of exploration, which includes the admissions process and the completion of not more than one year of coursework (National Research council, 1996). in Stage 2, the student typically completes coursework, passes candidacy or comprehensive exams, and begins the dissertation proposal process. this stage is characterized as the shift or transition from dependence to independence (Gardner, 2008b; lovitts, 2005, 2008). Stage 3 is the time after the proposal defense and includes both the successful comple-tion of the doctoral dissertation and the job search (austin & mcdan-iels, 2006; Gardner, 2008a; Golde, 1998; tinto, 1993). while the stage model may appear static, students’ experiences and development within and among stages evolves as a result of passing program milestones, engaging with members of their developmental networks, and learning what it means to be a scholar. The stage model ascribes some artificial-ity to a fluid and individualized process, but in doing so it establishes a tool for researching and improving doctoral education. to date, research that has examined the doctoral student experience has focused on the first stage (e.g., Baker Sweitzer, 2007, 2008, 2009; Golde, 1998), the dissertation stage (e.g., Sternberg, 1981), or the en-tire process (e.g., Golde, 2000; lovitts, 2001). few studies have focused specifically on Stage 2, which is a critical transition in the doctoral stu-dent experience. additionally, few studies have isolated the Stage 2 ex-perience within disciplinary contexts. during Stage 2, students work towards achieving independence as scholars as they develop their own academic identities and professional voices through the application of the knowledge acquired through coursework and prior professional and academic experiences. the process of achieving independence relies on an interconnectedness among students’ networks of relationships (i.e., developmental networks), the evolution of learning, and the subsequent evolution of their emerging scholarly identities. while we argue that the interconnectedness of these factors is salient across all stages of doc-toral education, Stage 2 is where the critical turning point in learning and relational behaviors occurs. Gardner (2008b) and lovitts (2005, 2008) conducted three notable explorations of this stage. Gardner (2008b) examined the experiences of students in chemistry and history at two institutions. She described


Stage 2 as one in which “doctoral students transition from being con-sumers of knowledge, such as they have experienced within the class-room, to creators of knowledge through their original research” (p. 328). lovitts (2005) referred to Stage 2 as the transition to independence in her theoretical exploration of doctoral education. She noted that “stu-dents’ relationship with knowledge changes from learning what others know and how they know it to conducting original research and creat-ing knowledge . . . students are expected to be autonomous” (p. 140). lovitts (2008) further examined this transition by interviewing faculty members from the sciences and social sciences and found that this path, or fate, as she described it, has several potential conclusions. lovitts’ (2008) research identified a variety of factors that influence a student’s fate on the path towards independence. in keeping with the notion of transition described by Gardner (2008b) and lovitts (2005, 2008), we argue that not only do students transition among the stages documented in the recent literature on doctoral education but also that the goal of achieving independence in Stage 2 is itself a transition in terms of iden-tity development and learning. Given the difference between Stage 2 and students’ prior academic and professional experiences, failure to recognize the challenges that characterize Stage 2 can lead to personal and professional challenges for doctoral students. a greater awareness of the challenges embedded in Stage 2 of doctoral education will enable students, faculty members, and administrators to work towards student success during this critical transition towards the emerging identity of the independent scholar.

Networked Sociocultural Learning in Doctoral Education

millet and Nettles (2006) described the doctoral degree process as the “art of learning” (p. 1). we emphasize that learning at the doctoral level is a sociocultural process through which students are increasingly able to participate in the social practices of the academic community (wortham, 2006). from a sociocultural perspective, learning results from interactions with skilled individuals and cultural artifacts, such as texts, in a given social context (packer & Giocoechea, 2000). this is a shift from a traditional conceptualization of learning as a relatively pas-sive, cognitive process of knowledge acquisition through which knowl-edge is transmitted from one person to another. the limited research on Stage 2 has revealed that doctoral students begin to move towards a more active, engaged learning process as they move towards indepen-dence (Gardner, 2008b; lovitts, 2005, 2008). although distinct from sociocultural learning theory, socialization


theory emphasizes active participation and has been a major concep-tual tool for guiding research about doctoral education and professional identity development (austin, 2002; Gardner & Barnes, 2007; holley 2011; weidman, twale, & Stein, 2001). implicit in doctoral student socialization is the reliance on relationships and interactions to facili-tate student learning and development. austin (2002) found that gradu-ate students value interactions with peers and opportunities to observe members within their scholarly communities—and that a great deal of informal socialization occurs through such interactions. Research has not, however, situated sociocultural learning in the context of the stage model or described the nature by which the necessary approaches to learning evolve throughout the doctoral student experience as students work towards active community engagement and role enactment. when learning is understood as a social process, questions arise about who contributes to students’ development throughout the doctoral expe-rience. the majority of research about the role of relationships in doc-toral education has focused on those within the academic community, such as advisors and fellow students (Baker & pifer, 2011; Golde, 2000; lee, 2008; Nettles & millett, 2006; paglis, Green, & Bauer, 2006; te-nenbaum, crosby, & Gliner, 2001). Research has also begun to reveal how students’ relationships outside the academic community affect de-velopment and persistence and thus should be included in the concep-tualization of developmental networks (Baker Sweitzer, 2007, 2008, 2009; Gardner & Barnes, 2007; weidman, twale, & Stein, 2001). these studies reveal the overall importance of such relationships, yet they do not explain the evolution of these relationships or their effects through-out the complete doctoral education process (lee, 2008, is one notable exception) or Stage 2. from the developmental network approach, rooted in social network theory and originated in organizational studies, learning occurs as a re-sult of social interaction with individuals in a given social network, or-ganization, or other context (ibarra, kilduff, & tsai, 2005; kilduff & Tsai, 2003; Kram, 1985). Defined as the “set of people a protégé names as taking an active interest in and action to advance the protégé’s ca-reer by providing developmental assistance” (higgins & kram, 2001, p. 268), developmental networks include multiple individuals, or devel-opers, who come from a variety of professional and social spheres and provide varying amounts and types of support (dobrow, chandler, mur-phy, & kram, 2012). pushing beyond the dyadic mentoring relationship, developmental network researchers are interested in understanding the influence of a variety of relationships and social interactions, within and


outside of the organizational context, on outcomes such as learning and identity development (higgins & kram, 2001). while the developmental network approach points toward the value of developmental networks in learning, current applications of this per-spective leave researchers and practitioners unsure of how to ascertain that value. the sociocultural perspective of learning provides this guid-ance; thus, Baker and lattuca (2010) proposed the integration of the two perspectives as one theory of networked sociocultural learning as poten-tially effective for researching the doctoral student experience. learn-ing as defined in this framework is both a process and product of social interaction and identity development. Baker and lattuca (2010) argued that an integration of the sociocultural learning and developmental net-works perspectives provides “a valuable framework for understanding how doctoral students’ participation in multiple, varied and overlapping social contexts and networks influences their learning and sense of iden-tity” (p. 810). the sociocultural perspective of learning provides clarity about the types of interactions and community practices that are neces-sary to influence learning and identity development in order to achieve active participation. developmental network theory helps us identify and define which relationships the focal individual perceives to be im-portant and the ways in which those relationships are linked to personal and professional outcomes. Our study begins to test and further confirm that linkages exist among developmental networks, learning, and identity as students transition towards independence during Stage 2. Given the paucity of research on the critical transition from dependence to independence as noted by Gardner (2008b) and lovitts (2005, 2008), we applied this framework to the exploration of Stage 2. Baker and lattuca’s (2010) framework is particularly salient for better understanding Stage 2 because it (1) emphasizes that learning is a social process in which individuals en-gage with community members and practices as they work towards in-dependence and (2) defines the kinds of learning and interactions that are critical to achieving active engagement in community practices. conceptualizing the processes inherent in this stage as learning-based interactions provides the foundation for identifying its challenges and effective behavioral responses. We define learning-based interactions as structured and unstructured interactions with community members that lead to students’ increased knowledge of and participation in commu-nity practices. we sought to identify the challenges associated with the process of completing Stage 2 and the relational-based behavioral strat-egies that serve as effective responses to such challenges.


Methods

Research Design

Because of the exploratory nature of the study and our desire to cap-ture changes over time, we employed a longitudinal, qualitative study design. Qualitative methods were appropriate due to our interest in re-searching participants’ construction of meaning based on their experi-ences and interactions within a particular context (merriam, 2002). we followed a 2x2 study design (see table 1), whereby we captured partici-pants’ perceptions during and after Stage 2 in two doctoral programs at the same institution: business and higher education. we selected these two disciplines in part through convenience sampling (miles & hu-berman, 1994) due to our personal experiences (academic and profes-sional) in these fields and in part through purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002) due to our interest in comparing and understanding participant experiences in two distinct disciplines in social science. as we discuss later, disciplinary differences were not apparent during the Stage 2 stu-dent experience.Each participant’s account of his or her experience was treated as a mini-case embedded in the larger departmental and insti-tutional context to better understand the dynamics in a single setting (Eisenhardt, 1989). this approach enabled us to conduct comparisons among participants within and across disciplines. it also facilitated a comparison of the experiences and perceptions of participants engaged in Stage 2 with those who had recently completed Stage 2.

Research Setting

central University (a pseudonym), a top-rated research institution, has nationally ranked undergraduate and graduate colleges of business and education (U.S. News and World Report, 2011). central’s college of Business has five disciplines: Accounting, Finance, Marketing, Man-agement and organization, and Supply chain and information Sys-tems. the program typically enrolls between 10 and 12 doctoral stu-dents yearly. only full-time students are admitted. Students receive full funding for five years, which is the typical time to degree in business. central’s goals for the business doctoral program are to train research-

taBlE 12x2 Research design

completers current

Business n = 11 n = 7higher Education n = 6 n = 7


ers who aspire to obtain tenure-track faculty positions in other top-rated business schools. central’s higher education doctoral program offers both phd and dEd degrees, and it prepares individuals for faculty appointments as well as non-faculty careers in areas such as institutional administration, state and federal government, postsecondary organizations and associa-tions, research institutes, and private foundations. the higher education program enrolls between 3 and 12 students yearly, and the majority of students receive funding. many students secure assistantships in student affairs divisions, research centers, or administrative offices. Other stu-dents secure funding through assistantships in the research center asso-ciated with the higher education program. the typical time to degree is 4.5 years.

Study Participants

we interviewed a total of 31 students (n = 18, business; n = 13, higher education). of the 31 participants, 14 were female (45%). one participant was african american (3%), four were asian (13%), two were indian (sub-continent) (6%), one student was latino (3%), and one was asian american (3%). the remaining 16 participants were white (52%). Six participants were international students (19%). all students in the entering cohorts were invited to participate. the average age of participants was 33 years, and the average amount of prior professional experience was 5.5 years in business and 4 years in higher education. participants in business held prior professional roles such as accountant, financial analyst, marketing manager, and project manager. Students in higher education held positions in residence life, admissions, alumni af-fairs, and development, as well as employment outside of higher educa-tion, and included both phd and dEd candidates. all business students were interested in pursuing faculty appointments upon graduation. in higher education, four students were interested in pursuing administra-tive appointments and two were interested in obtaining faculty appoint-ments at the time of data collection, with the remaining students unsure of post-graduation professional goals at the time of data collection. our sample included students enrolled in Stage 2 and recent completers of Stage 2. We define a “Stage 2 completer” as a student who had com-pleted coursework and defended a dissertation proposal at the time of data collection.

Data Collection Procedures

the students enrolled in business were already part of an ongoing longitudinal study that explored the entire doctoral student experience.


The interview protocol was adjusted to incorporate specific questions about the Stage 2 experience. the students in higher education received an e-mail invitation from one of the study authors inviting them to par-ticipate in a study that explored Stage 2 of the doctoral student expe-rience, both longitudinally and retrospectively. all students were in-formed that participation was voluntary and that all parts of the study had been reviewed and approved by the university’s institutional review board. we relied on a semi-structured interview protocol to guide our inter-views. the interview protocol captured information on six areas related to Stage 2: (1) key experiences (e.g., “are you involved in any research projects? if yes, can you describe that experience?”), (2) challenges (e.g., “what has been the biggest challenge of this stage of the doctoral student experience?”), (3) goals for performance/advancement (e.g., “what do you hope to accomplish by the end of this year?”), (4) key relationships (e.g., “Who has been most supportive or influential during this stage?”), (5) types of support present/absent (e.g., “what types of support do you need or receive that influenced your progression through this stage?”), and (6) personal and professional identity (e.g., “tell me what it means to be a doctoral student.”). we interviewed participants engaged in Stage 2 at the time of data collection during both the fall and spring semesters to assess changes over time. we asked the same questions at both interview times for comparative purposes, but we also followed up on information that was shared during the time one inter-view in the time two interview (e.g., “during our last interview, you mentioned the goal of submitting a research idea to your advisor. were you able to accomplish that goal?”). our goal for including Stage 2 “completers” was to capture more concrete impressions of Stage 2 from participants who had time to reflect back on their Stage 2 experiences. these participants were interviewed once. while our prior work (Baker & pifer, 2011) sought to identify similarities and differences across the two groups of participants (Stage 2 enrollees, Stage 2 completers), com-mon challenges during the Stage 2 process and participants’ responsive learning-based interactions were the focus of this study. the majority (85%) of interviews were completed in person; the remaining 15% were conducted via telephone. interviews lasted approximately one hour, were recorded, and were transcribed verbatim.

Data Analysis Procedures

we employed both an inductive and deductive analytic approach con-sistent with the team-based methods identified in MacQueen, McLel-lan, kay, and milstein (1998). we developed deductive codes based on


the research protocol and existing theories of sociocultural perspectives of learning and developmental networks. we then employed an induc-tive data analysis strategy that involved iterating between data collec-tion, data analysis, and the extant literature (Eisenhardt, 1989). this data analysis method was particularly important given the longitudinal nature of our study and contributed to establishing trustworthiness of the data. to further ensure trustworthiness of the data, we completed random member checks of ideas and themes and used the time two interviews to clarify and confirm ideas shared during the time one in-terviews. additionally, each author coded transcripts independently to identify codes prior to collaborative coding sessions that confirmed areas of commonality. we constantly tested themes as they emerged and as additional data were added. after initial coding, the authors devel-oped themes independently and then compared findings to refine themes and eliminate unreliable conclusions. finally, we compared emergent trends against ideas presented in existing research. data analysis occurred in four phases. during each phase, we relied on the framework offered by Baker and lattuca (2010) to focus our analysis on networked sociocultural learning. Phase one involved the creation of mini-case studies of each participant to identify and develop themes surrounding his or her Stage 2 experience (miles & huberman, 1994; yin, 2009). Each participant’s transcript was treated as an inde-pendent source of data. during phase two, we batched the mini-case studies by discipline to identify larger themes about the issues students experienced in Stage 2. Phase three involved cross-case comparisons of students within each discipline (business and higher education). finally, phase four involved the reliance on the emergent themes produced in the first three phases to refine and complete the analysis of the chal-lenges that characterize Stage 2 and participants’ behavioral responses, which are reported below. It is important to note that we identified very few disciplinary differences in terms of perceptions of and challenges associated with Stage 2. Similarly, while the phd and dEd students had different career goals, and while some participants were still engaged in Stage 2 and others had completed that stage, participants across these sub-categories shared many of the same concerns and observations about Stage 2.

Results

keeping the notion of process in mind as introduced by Golde and Dore (2001), we note first that the processes of Stage 2 are unlike doc-toral students’ prior academic experiences. these processes bring with


them new and often unanticipated challenges. our primary goal in ex-ploring Stage 2 was to identify the challenges most linked to the Stage 2 student experience in the social sciences. Study results point to three types of process challenges that characterize this stage: structural, inter-personal, and individual. these challenges are not necessarily mutually exclusive and may often be related. in particular, it may be the case that structural challenges to the learning process in this stage of doctoral ed-ucation are likely to prompt interpersonal challenges. findings also re-veal participants’ behavioral responses to the three types of challenges. These responses center on learning-based interactions, which we define as structured and unstructured interactions with community members that lead to students’ increased knowledge of and participation in com-munity practices. in the following section, we describe each of the three types of pro-cess challenges and examine how participants responded to those chal-lenges. we found that the doctoral students in this study relied heavily on both formal and informal learning-based interactions to acquire the knowledge, skills, behaviors, and self-perceptions that were necessary during the transition to independent scholar. our results indicate par-ticipants’ relationships and experiences facilitated (or hindered) learning and thus contributed to their ability to navigate Stage 2 of their doc-toral training. These findings reinforce the usefulness of the sociocul-tural conception of learning, in which learning is defined as increasingly skilled participation in a community and embedded in interactions with community members, and the developmental networks perspective, in which interactions and relationships with others generate support and opportunities for success.

Structural Challenges: Managing the Unknown Through Learning-Based Interactions

Stage 1 of the doctoral student experience, like students’ prior aca-demic experiences, is centered on structured (formal and informal) learning opportunities including classroom-based learning; regular in-teractions with peers, faculty, and program administrators; and events such as brown bag discussions and guest speaker series. in Stage 2, stu-dents move away from this structured dependent learning towards in-dependent scholarship (Baker & pifer, 2011; Gardner, 2008b; lovitts, 2005). Students at this stage have completed or are near completion of coursework. they are working towards candidacy and engaged in de-veloping their research agendas and professional goals. it is in Stage 2 that students begin to shift from knowledge consumption to knowledge creation as they engage in community practices. this shift in the formal


structure of the doctoral education process generates challenges for stu-dents. We define structural challenges as barriers to learning prompted by the unprecedented, and often unanticipated, lack of prescribed, orga-nized, communal delivery of the educational process through formerly present structures of courses and activities aimed at engaging students in the social aspect of learning. when discussing Stage 2, participants spoke at length about the un-precedented lack of structure. doctoral students no longer have guaran-teed “face time” with faculty through courses. Study participants noted that they were no longer in a position to gain consistent feedback on ideas or engage in academic discourse through class discussions. as one participant explained,

I’m definitely not as happy as I was in my first year. I think a part of it is just having structure, some sort of structure. . . . At the end of my first year, i felt like i knew stuff. i knew something. i don’t know. i feel like there’s a diminishing return on what i’m learning now and . . . i don’t have anyone to talk to about it.

at this stage, students become responsible for managing the task of learning in a way they have not yet been required to do. Because of the ways in which Stage 2 is structurally different from prior experiences, students’ approaches to learning must evolve. we noted a high reliance on learning-based interactions to combat the structural challenges that characterize Stage 2. Some students col-laborated with academic advisors to create learning-based interactions despite the absence of formal learning structures, thus managing the structural challenges of Stage 2. of the 31 participants, 19 participants discussed the role of advisors specifically and the increased reliance on their advisors’ social capital and experience to help students identify the community practices most critical to moving through the remainder of their programs. Students discussed specific strategies such as regu-larly scheduled advisor meetings and collaborative goal-setting plans. in other iterations of successful advising relationships, some participants explained that their advisors took the lead in guiding them through the new lack of structure and generating learning-based interactions that were no longer available through the classroom setting. as one student explained:

for the last month, i’ve just been completely off the leash, and it’s been very difficult to get motivated sometimes. I definitely have lost entire days where i didn’t really do anything productive . . . but i think when [my advisor]


comes back [from his travels], he’s very hands-on, so i’m assuming things are—the structure, whether i like it or not, will be imposed on me again in a few weeks.

many students noted the importance of regularly scheduled meetings with advisors in which drafts of their writing were shared and discussed. as one student described, “[my advisor] became my yoda and he helped me see beyond the immediate task of developing and writing a strong dissertation proposal. this was critical.” this consistent engage-ment allowed students to practice the work of an academic while testing and refining their knowledge. These interactions afforded students the opportunity to develop ideas, engage in dialogue, and participate in the community in nontraditional ways beyond the classroom. Not all participant responses to the structural challenges of Stage 2 served to facilitate learning during this stage. Eight participants noted their lack of confidence in their relationships with their advisors and other departmental colleagues. these students engaged in impression management, or the attempt to influence or shape others’ developing perceptions of them, to navigate the challenges of this stage—often to their detriment. Students actually impeded possibilities for learning-based interactions out of fear that they would be perceived negatively within their academic programs. as those students made sense of the transition from classroom learning to Stage 2 learning, they often in-dicated efforts to manage concerns through statements such as “i don’t know what i don’t know” and “Now that i passed candidacy and my comprehensive exam, i should know what i am doing, shouldn’t i?” al-though students wanted to engage with advisors and other faculty mem-bers to advance their learning, many were hesitant to pass along drafts for review until they were sure it was worth faculty time. as one partici-pant said, “if i don’t have a meeting scheduled or anything [substantial] to show . . . i’m not going to speak with [my committee members].” an-other student said of the detrimental effects of impression management behaviors in Stage 2:

[Students] sort of get this belief that “if i don’t know things already, then i shouldn’t ask because i should know these things already,” which i think further marginalizes them because, i mean, then they don’t ask and nobody tells them.

for doctoral students, issues of impression management are a dou-ble-edged sword: Students fail to ask important questions because they believe they should already know the answers, yet their efforts to man-


age faculty members’ impressions of their knowledge and abilities pre-vent them from acquiring the information or guidance they need. this tactic has the unintended consequence of ensuring that students remain on the periphery of the community, afraid to actively participate. Stu-dents who were able to push past impression management issues and their concerns regarding others’ perceptions of them, conversely, were more likely to obtain learning opportunities about community practices, engage in the roles associated with those practices, and successfully ad-vance towards becoming independent scholars. in summary, students’ approaches to learning and the ways in which learning occurs in Stage 2 are affected by the lack of formalized struc-ture. this shift requires students to move from a knowledge consump-tion approach to a knowledge creation approach. to combat the struc-tural challenges of Stage 2, participants tested and advanced their knowledge through learning-based interactions. Students who did not have positive relationships with their advisors expressed envy towards those who could rely on others to foster the learning-based interactions that were no longer inherently facilitated through the structural pro-cesses of this stage.

Interpersonal Challenges: Managing the Isolation Through Learning-Based Interactions

Given that learning is a social process, interpersonal relationships are critical in Stage 2, as they are in the other stages of doctoral education. the goals of becoming an independent scholar and achieving active participation in the community are advanced by fostering relationships with community members that create opportunities for learning-based interactions. challenges to these goals, however, emerge in the transi-tion from Stage 1 to Stage 2. we conceptualize this set of challenges as interpersonal challenges, characterized as barriers to the learning process rooted in the shift from community-based interactions to learn-ing in isolation. interpersonal challenges were caused by this isolation and the related outcomes of fewer learning based interactions, such as opportunities for exhibiting behaviors that would lead to being viewed as a member of the academic community; enacting the role of commu-nity membership; and exchanging resources such as support, knowl-edge, and guidance. prompted in part by the structural shift away from the classroom and towards the library or laboratory, students in Stage 2 struggled to engage in learning-based interactions in the absence of previously formalized relationships with instructors and classmates. the shift towards independence also led to fewer opportunities to regularly observe the behaviors and actions of veteran community members such


as more advanced students, an important mode of learning as noted by participants. finally, this shift in structure led to fewer informal, organic social interactions within the scholarly community of the academic de-partment. Students were left with the task of creating their own opportu-nities. as one participant recalled,

i think if i’d had a group—if i had met with other doc students about my topic on a regular basis i think i would have done better. and i don’t mean necessarily in a class or a dissertation proposal [workshop], but . . . if i had met monthly and each month we each talked about each other’s work, i feel like that would have really helped me think about my work better. and so just to have been more connected and supported and seeing where someone else was going with it.

while students realized that they needed support from, and wanted strong relationships with, their faculty advisors, the development of re-lationships with other key individuals was also important in advancing their learning in Stage 2. Students became intensely aware of the need to create developmental networks, but the isolation of Stage 2 presented challenges to fostering connections and learning-based interactions. Stu-dents who managed the interpersonal challenges of Stage 2 successfully tended to be proactive in creating learning-based interactions and relied on a broad developmental network of faculty members, peers, advanced students, and scholars at other institutions. working on research teams and having teaching responsibilities contributed to participants’ skill de-velopment and knowledge acquisition. as importantly, such experiences also reduced feelings of isolation, encouraged relationships with peers and mentors, helped them engage in community practices required of the profession, and provided a sense of control and efficacy. These ex-periences seemed to serve as the foundation upon which students could take more risks and responsibility in their own work. as one student explained:

[during] my assistantship, i saw a lot. i learned a lot about how research is enacted rather than just talking about it. . . . one reason that it was such a great experience beyond just, you know, being able to list that i can do x, y and z, is that the faculty, who were on that project, all of them—even though it was a huge research project—all of them are teachers. i don’t mean that they teach a class. i mean in their nature, they’re teachers.

This finding supports the notion that there is a broad range of peo-ple who possess knowledge that enhances the student’s learning and


growth. Until students felt more comfortable with their own knowledge, they relied on the support that could be provided by more skilled mem-bers of the community, including advanced doctoral students. twenty-five of the 31 participating students spoke about the important role ad-vanced students in their programs played in their development. as one student noted, “i always go to the fourth-year [students] for help. they learned the hard way at times and we’ve heard the stories, so they are wonderful at making sure we don’t make the same mistakes.” Eight participants spoke of contacting faculty members with simi-lar research interests at other institutions or asking their faculty advi-sors to introduce them to notable scholars at conferences. Students who demonstrated proactive behaviors in response to the interpersonal chal-lenges of this stage viewed conferences as opportunities to identify fu-ture collaborators, key scholars in their disciplines, or fellow doctoral students at other institutions with similar interests. all study partici-pants attended at least one professional or disciplinary conference, and all gained experience as coauthors and co-presenters. these students viewed interpersonal opportunities as more valuable than merely attend-ing or presenting at conferences and seemed to believe, as one student expressed, that when it came to being successful through Stage 2, “extra lines on the cv were not going to cut it.” other proactive behaviors included identifying people with complimentary research foci, sharing research ideas with peers and advanced students, and seeking out op-portunities to serve as teaching assistants or research assistants. partici-pants who were adept at fostering interpersonal relationships were able to secure the subsequent resources and opportunities that are generated through networks of relationships, such as funding for the remainder of their doctoral studies, participation in research projects and the pub-lication process, letters of reference, and access to their mentors’ pro-fessional networks. perhaps most importantly, they generated learning-based interactions that contributed to students’ identity development and skills as scholars. To summarize the key findings related to the interpersonal challenges that characterize Stage 2, we found that as students’ identities shifted from classroom learners to future academics, they relied on and cul-tivated a variety of interpersonal relationships as sources for learning about their imminent lives as academics. participants learned as a result of interactions with more advanced community members, within the im-mediate institutional or departmental community as well as the larger disciplinary community. this allowed students to engage in knowledge enactment as mediated through networking and collaborations. addi-tionally, these interactions became more strategic in nature. participants


began a process of self-assessment to identify areas of need, support, and guidance and then sought out and cultivated the relationships to fill those voids. talking with faculty members and fellow students in their own programs and meeting other scholars in the field provided partici-pants with opportunities to observe and learn a variety of skills and be-haviors and also to enact the role of the fully participating academic in their chosen disciplines and professional communities.

Individual Challenges: Academic Realities and Learning-Based Interactions

previous research has documented the parallel processes of identity development as students and scholars that occur in Stage 2 (Baker & pifer, 2011). these concurrent, and sometimes competing, processes, combined with the structural and interpersonal challenges inherent in Stage 2, have the potential to generate a third type of challenge to stu-dent learning: individual challenges, which we define as students’ re-alization of academic life and subsequent concerns about how that re-ality aligns with personal and professional goals, both current and an-ticipated. Such challenges stem from doctoral students’ professional identities as well as their personal identities. they included achieving work-life balance, embracing the identity of an academic, maintaining productivity, identifying research interests, and adequately preparing for timely graduation and obtaining academic appointments. all 31 partici-pants spoke at length about their future plans, both for the remainder of their programs and post-graduation. as part of their discussions about the individual challenges of Stage 2, participants also talked about their sense of fit within their programs and the academic career. In fact, fit was a recurring theme for 23 study participants. together, these indi-vidual-level challenges threaten learning as students seek to success-fully transition into the third and final stage of doctoral education and subsequent employment. in Stage 2, individual challenges often gen-erated from participants’ increased awareness of professional and per-sonal demands placed on them in their roles as academics-in-training, and students often expressed frustration over attempts to advance their own learning while meeting external personal and professional de-mands. thirteen participants indicated explicitly that the threat of ongo-ing isolation, productivity expectations, and independence presented a challenge. for example, issues such as balancing teaching and research and frustration with the publication process started to become evident as students prepared for their future careers:

it’s a lot of work . . . and it’s very quick rewards that pass really quickly. we don’t think that getting this publication is this epiphany or this great moment


that lasts for weeks. it lasts about two hours and then you’re done. then you move to the next one and you’re anxious about it for months and months.

Not all participants perceived the realities of academic life negatively, however. Some participants described successful strategies for manag-ing the multiple demands placed on them during Stage 2. as one student explained,

it means, in a lot of ways, that you are very much your own boss; you are responsible for getting yourself into work each day, setting targets, finding people to collaborate with, generating ideas. you have gotten to the point where there’s no babysitter, there’s no net . . . you get to focus on what really matters to you rather than coursework and meeting course deadlines.

participants who were able to develop and enact self-directed learn-ing strategies—whether independently or collaboratively with the sup-port of peers, advisors, and family members—expressed a positive as-sessment of the professional demands placed on them at this stage and confidence in their ability to persist through the individual challenges of Stage 2. Such strategies included establishing writing groups (n = 8), specific goals and deadlines (n = 15), and consistent accountabil-ity checks through meetings with members of their developmental net-works (n = 21). ironically, doctoral students’ dedication to surmounting the profes-sional challenges of Stage 2 can result in unanticipated personal chal-lenges. as students progress through Stage 2 and obtain a clearer sense of the academic career, the escalated commitment to the academy has the potential to emerge as a threat to students’ personal commitments or plans. for example, it may be taxing to remain in the geographic area of one’s graduate program if that area is not ideal for one’s family, con-ducive to meeting people, or close to one’s broader developmental and support networks. One participant reflected on such challenges:

I think of the sacrifices that I make as a doctoral student, particularly here. I’ve made quite a few sacrifices living here. Moving from [a large city] and now living in [a college town], huge difference. . . . my social life went from something that was absolutely phenomenal to something that was tiny. i went from having a very diverse social life to just the opposite, to having a very small community.

Such challenges may be particularly acute during Stage 2, after the newness of the doctoral student role has worn off and before students can see clearly when, how, and where the next phases of their careers


will transpire. decisions about dissertation topics, research agendas, and skill development during Stage 2 may be affected by efforts to become a desirable job candidate at a specific type of institution. Perceived pres-sure to make such decisions about ideal institution type, location, and mission feel particularly overwhelming as students struggle with the challenges of Stage 2 and work to assert themselves as professionals and scholars. Beyond planning for employability and a sense of fit at the institutional level, Stage 2 seems to evoke an internal dialogue among students as to whether membership in the professoriate is, in fact, their desired career goal and whether they have the ability to succeed in that career track. Students who experience challenges in Stage 2 may be less likely to perceive themselves as capable of being successful in an aca-demic career or may be less attracted to the life of the faculty than they had once been. Regardless of whether students viewed the academic lifestyle as promising, threatening, or a combination of the two, effective behav-ioral responses to these process challenges were critical for their con-tinued success through Stage 2. twenty-six participants demonstrated a clear transition from the day-to-day perspective that got them through Stage 1 to long-term planning as they began to focus on degree com-pletion and their future careers. as they engaged in sense-making and personal reflection, students’ relationships became vital to helping them manage the individual challenges that rose to the forefront of the doc-toral student experience in Stage 2. discussions with faculty members played an active role in generating behavioral responses. faculty mem-bers’ modeled behavior took on new meaning as participants grappled with questions of professional identity and goals. as one student noted, “i love [a particular faculty member], but i have no intentions of being her . . . she has no life and it’s sad.” participants also relied on their personal networks, especially family members, to help them decide whether the faculty career was achievable and desirable. the learning-based interactions students relied on to manage the individual chal-lenges in Stage 2 extended beyond formal knowledge and skills to in-clude knowledge of self, assessments of network members’ behavioral choices and career outcomes, and efforts to obtain advice and informa-tion from developmental network members as they focused on their evolving personal and professional goals.

Discussion

our goals for conducting this exploratory study of two applied so-cial science fields were (1) to provide a more definitive definition and


description of Stage 2 of the doctoral student experience by highlight-ing the key challenges of this stage, (2) to better understand the use of learning-based interactions as a means of managing those challenges, and (3) to apply the networked sociocultural learning theory proposed by Baker and lattuca (2010) to the study of doctoral education. there is a lack of research that explores Stage 2 of the doctoral student experi-ence, which is particularly alarming given that students begin to make a critical transition towards independent scholars during this stage. this research begins to fill that gap in the literature and contributes to re-search on doctoral education in several ways. previous consideration of Stage 2 has begun to explain the characteristics of this stage (Baker & pifer, 2011) but has not connected such descriptions to their effects on student learning and identity development. our study builds on the prior work of Gardner (2008a, 2008b) and lovitts (2005, 2008) by providing more details about Stage 2 of the doctoral student experience through an exploration of why and how this transition occurs. additionally, our reliance on a theoretical framework that brings together sociocultural perspectives of learning and developmental networks (Baker & lattuca, 2010) allowed us to identify and illuminate three types of challenges that characterize Stage 2: structural, interpersonal, and individual. Stage 2 learning is about knowledge creation rather than knowledge consumption. to manage this new approach to learning and the chal-lenges of this stage, students engaged in learning-based interactions with members of their developmental networks, which included mem-bers within and outside the academic community, with a primary goal in mind: active engagement in community and professional practices that connects to the process of becoming members of the academy. Study results reveal the interconnectedness of developmental net-works and students’ learning. our research extends the importance of networking at the graduate student level as noted by Gardner and Barnes (2007). Both students’ networks of relationships and the nature and pur-poses of those relationships evolved due to the structural, interpersonal, and individual challenges that characterize this stage. it is not just ac-ademic and professional experiences but also interactions with others that help doctoral students understand the common practices of, and legitimize their membership in, institutional, disciplinary, and profes-sional communities. Students actively engaged in their own transitions towards independence changed their approaches to learning by seeking out and engaging with their developmental network members. through conversations with study participants, we noted their awareness of the importance of key relationships and experiences that led them to seek out learning opportunities through strategies such as networking, col-


laboration, and impression management. Students employed such strate-gies not only to secure educational and professional opportunities but also to respond to the key challenges of Stage 2, including a lack of structure, isolation, rigorous professional demands, the need for long-term planning, and, ultimately, the transition to independent scholar. we also sought to test the framework developed by Baker and lat-tuca (2010) in the context of Stage 2 within two applied social science fields. The sociocultural conception of learning provided guidance as to the kinds of learning that move community members towards ac-tive engagement in community practices. the developmental networks perspective sheds light on the content of interactions, the evolution-ary nature of students’ relationships and learning approaches, and the possible outcomes of those interactions. we were able to identify the prevalent challenges of Stage 2 and the learning-based interactions stu-dents employed to respond to those challenges (successfully or unsuc-cessfully). this research supports Baker and lattuca’s (2010) assertion that developmental networks, learning, and identity development are interconnected influences in the doctoral education process. A reliance on networked sociocultural learning illuminated participants’ behavioral strategies as they transitioned from knowledge consumption (Stage 1) to knowledge creation (Stage 2).

Implications for Research

our goal was to shed light on Stage 2 of the doctoral student experi-ence, specifically through the identification of challenges that character-ize the transition towards independence. findings reinforce that the in-terconnectedness of developmental networks, learning, and identity, as suggested by Baker and lattuca (2010), are salient for the study of doc-toral education, given the documented influence of students’ develop-mental network during this time. Specifically, as students’ approaches to learning evolve in response to the characteristics of Stage 2, they begin to adopt a scholarly identity that helps them engage in relational-based interactions and behavioral strategies to successfully navigate Stage 2. there are several limitations worth noting. this study was explor-atory in nature and was not meant to provide definitive conclusions about this stage of the doctoral student experience. the study was con-ducted in two applied social science fields at one institution, Central University, and is not generalizable to all institutions or institution types. more research is needed to understand these ideas and connec-tions in the context of disciplinary, institutional, and departmental cul-tures. for example, the challenge of learning in isolation may be ex-


perienced differently by students conducting laboratory-based research in the sciences or archival research in history than the ways in which participants in the social sciences described it. One finding of this research is that students who respond to the chal-lenges of Stage 2 successfully are those who receive or, more often, cre-ate opportunities for learning-based interactions. alternatively, students who were not participating in what they perceived to be the “right” proj-ects expressed feelings of marginalization, inadequate training, and a lack of mentoring. for those who had access to such experiences, the familiarity of their roles as students and learners provided a foundation for them to engage in learning about the technical skills related to teach-ing and research that would be necessary for their careers as scholars. their assistantship responsibilities and similar experiences became a substitute for the formal structure of the classroom as they continued to learn and identify with the various components of their future pro-fessional roles. future research should explore whether and how differ-ences in student characteristics, perceptions, or skills contribute to vari-ation in their behavioral responses to the process challenges of Stage 2. Student status (full-time or part-time) may influence students’ pro-gression through Stage 2. the full-time students in our study expressed feelings of marginalization and isolation when no longer in the class-room. Students in part-time doctoral programs or those who complete traditionally full-time programs on a part-time basis may also face chal-lenges not identified in this study. While we found many similarities in the experiences of phd students and dEd students in higher Educa-tion, students pursuing the dEd and/or careers outside the professoriate reported concerns about being marginalized. Understanding the role of individual differences, prior experiences, thought processes, and pro-fessional identities and goals behind relationship choices is critically important to the transition to independence that occurs during Stage 2. additional areas of research might include how relationships and the relational-based strategies students employ to successfully navigate this stage differ across disciplinary differences and enrollment status in a given academic program. Research is also needed to explicate the individual differences that contribute to students’ varied experiences. Some students may enter doctoral programs with better relationship-building skills. other stu-dents may be more solitary in nature and may prefer to rely less on re-lationships. prior experiences and individual differences may lead some students to be more comfortable in academic and disciplinary contexts than others. the well-documented chilly climate for women in the sci-ence, technology, engineering, and math (StEm) disciplines (Burke &


mattis, 2007) and the experiences of latinas/os in doctoral programs (Gonzalez, marin, figueroa, moreno, & Navia, 2002) serve as impor-tant reminders about the interplay between individual identity and pro-fessional identity related to departmental, disciplinary, and institutional contexts.

Implications for Practice

findings from this study suggest the need to reconsider the strategies and skills that students, faculty members, and administrators employ when supporting doctoral students during Stage 2 of their training. for students, we suggest a thorough examination of their needs and skill sets as being particularly critical to Stage 2. the participants who were able to successfully manage Stage 2, and do so in a more positive man-ner, were particularly adept at identifying areas of personal weakness, establishing professional goals (sometimes on a weekly or daily basis), and identifying the key individuals who had complementary skill sets that could support their transition. for faculty members, a more clear understanding of this transition may help provide the necessary support for doctoral students. Given that students may be likely to engage in impression management tactics in response to the challenges of this stage, we encourage faculty mem-bers to reach out to students and to be proactive about providing learn-ing-based interactions and encouraging the cultivation of supportive de-velopmental networks. for example, faculty members might host brown bag lunches or coffee hours where topics such as research, career paths, or teaching strategies can be discussed. this provides students with an opportunity to engage in dialogue with colleagues, learn about effec-tive practices in the academy, and socialize with program members. we encourage faculty members to refer to the examples of effective advis-ing in participants’ experiences—helping students set goals, providing structured writing plans, and requiring regular progress checks. Both faculty members and administrators may wish to consider how improved understanding (and communication) of the challenges of Stage 2 might lead to improved practices at various points of doctoral student recruitment, selection, and retention. an honest, informed ac-knowledgement of the challenges of Stage 2, and potentially success-ful responses, may help students to feel less stressed and isolated dur-ing this critical time. for example, admissions personnel and graduate program coordinators might educate incoming students about the im-portance of relying on existing support networks and being proactive


about identifying ways to achieve work-life balance during the gradu-ate student experience. Graduate programs or central offices may host workshops that help students build an effective developmental network and offer strategies about how and why this is important. it may be use-ful for on-campus health services providers to be better informed of the stressors and challenges of this stage and thus better equipped to con-tribute to the holistic support of student success. the allocation of re-sources towards educational experiences is, as always, an opportunity for administrators to support graduate students during the transition to independence. Such strategies might include investing in office or lab space for doctoral students to foster learning-based interactions to com-bat the isolation that comes with Stage 2. additional initiatives might include providing funding for doctoral student travel to conferences, social and professional events designed to foster students’ developmen-tal networks, or support for professional development in career-specific areas such as research skill development or teaching experience. It is our aim that this initial identification of the challenges of Stage 2 of the doctoral education process and students’ behavioral responses to those challenges will better equip students, with the help of their net-works of educators and supporters, to enact successful strategies as they continue to transition towards becoming independent scholars.

Notes

We gratefully acknowledge the advice received from Ann Austin, Kimberly A. Griffin, and two anonymous reviewers during the writing of this manuscript. this research was supported by a grant from the hewlett-mellon fund for faculty development at albion college in albion, michigan.

References

austin, a. E. (2002). preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as social-ization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122.

austin, a. E., & mcdaniels, m. (2006). preparing the professoriate of the future: Graduate student socialization for faculty roles. in J. c. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Hand-book of Theory and Research (vol. xxi, pp. 397–456). New york: Springer.

Baker Sweitzer, v. (2007). professional identity development among business doctoral students: a social networks perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). the penn-sylvania State University.

Baker Sweitzer, v. (2008). Networking to develop a professional identity: a look at the first-semester experience of doctoral students in business. In C. L. Colbeck, K. O’Meara, & a. E. austin, Educating integrated professionals: Theory and practice on prepara-tion for the professoriate (pp. 43–56). San francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass.


Baker Sweitzer, v. (2009). towards a theory of doctoral student professional identity de-velopment: a developmental networks approach. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 1–33.

Baker, v. l., & lattuca, l. R. (2010). developmental networks and learning: toward an interdisciplinary perspective on identity development during doctoral study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 807–827.

Baker, v. l., & pifer, m. J. (2011). the role of relationships in the transition from doctoral student to scholar. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(1), 5–17.

Braxton, J. m., & Baird, l. l. (2001). preparation for professional self-regulation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(4), 593–610.

Burke, R. J., & mattis, m. c. (2007). Women and minorities in science, technology, en-gineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers. Northhampton, ma: Edward Elgar.

dobrow, S. R., chandler, d. E., murphy, w. m., & kram, k. E, (2012). a review of de-velopmental networks: incorporating a mutuality perspective. Journal of Management, 38(1), 210–242.

Eisenhardt, k. m. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

Gardner, S. k. (2008a). fitting the mold of graduate school: a qualitative study of social-ization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 125–138.

Gardner, S. k. (2008b). what’s too much and what’s too little? the process of becom-ing an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326–350.

Gardner, S. k., & Barnes, B. J. (2007). Graduate student involvement: Socialization for the professional role. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 369–387.

Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. in m. S. anderson (Ed.), New directions for higher education, 1998 (pp. 55–64). San francisco: wiley publishing.

Golde, c. m. (2000). Should i stay or should i go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition processes. Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199–227.

Golde, c. m. (2004, January 15). leaving the phd behind. colloquy live [live chat]. The Chronicle of Higher Education (host). http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2004/01/phd/

Golde, c. m., & dore, t. m. (2001). at cross purposes: what the experiences of today’s doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. philadelphia: pew charitable trusts.

Gonzalez, k. p., marin, p., figueroa, m. a., moreno, J. f., & Navia, c. N. (2002). inside doctoral education in america: voices of latinas/os in pursuit of the phd. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 540–557.

Grover, v. (2007). Successfully navigating the stages of doctoral study. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2, 9–21.

hartnett, R. t., & katz, J. (1977). the education of graduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 48(6), 646–664.

higgins, m., & kram, k. (2001) Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 264–288.


holley, k. a. (2011). a cultural repertoire of practices in doctoral education. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6, 79–94.

ibarra, h., kilduff, m., & tsai, w. (2005). zooming in and out: connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Sci-ence, 16, 359–371.

kilduff, m., & tsai, w. (2003). Social networks and organizations. london, Uk: Sage.kram, k. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenville, il: Scott foresman.lee, a. (2008). how are doctoral students supervised? concepts of doctoral research su-

pervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281.lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: a theoretical perspec-

tive on the transition to independent researcher. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154.

lovitts, B. E. (2008). the transition to independent research: who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296–325.

macQueen, k. m., mclellan, E., kay, k., & milstein, B. (1998). codebook development for team based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10(2), 31–36.

merriam, S. B. (2002). introduction to qualitative research. in S. B. merriam and associ-ates (Eds.), Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 3–18). San francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass.

miles, m. B., & huberman, a. m. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. thousand oaks, ca: Sage.

millet, c. m., & Nettles, m. t. (2006, october). three ways of winning doctoral educa-tion: Rates of progress, degree completion, and time to degree. paper presented at an-nual chERi conference, ithaca, Ny. Retrieved from http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/conferences/upload/2006/millett.pdf

National Research council. (1996). The path to the PhD: Measuring graduate attrition in the sciences and humanities. washington, dc: National academy of Sciences.

Nerad, m. (2004). the phd in the US: criticisms, facts, and remedies. Higher Education Policy, 17, 183–199.

Nettles, m. t., & millett, c. m. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore: the Johns hopkins University press.

packer, m., & Giocoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35, 227–241.

paglis, l. l., Green, S. G., & Bauer, t. N. (2006). does advisor mentoring add value? a longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 451–476.

patton, m. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). thousand oaks, ca: Sage.

Sternberg, d. (1981). how to complete and survive a doctoral dissertation. New york, Ny: macmillan publishers.

tenenbaum, h. R., crosby, f. J., & Gliner, m. d. (2001). mentoring relationships in gradu-ate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 326–341.


tinto, v. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. chicago, il: University of chicago press.

U.S. News and World Report. (2011). Retrieved from http://grad-schools.usnews.ranking-sandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools

weidman, J. c., twale, d. J., & Stein, E. l. (2001). Socialization of graduate and profes-sional students in higher education: A perilous passage (aShE-ERic higher Educa-tion Report 28, no. 3). washington, dc: association for the Study of higher Education.

wortham, S. (2006). Learning and identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning. cambridge: cambridge University press.

yin, R. k. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). thousand oaks, ca: Sage.

process challenges and learning-based interactions in stage 2 of doctoral education: implications...

Documents