Enhanced Synthesis Paper: Doctoral Identity
In Topic 5, you submitted a Synthesis Paper and received both feedback from your instructor and a grade for your work. In this assignment, you will expand upon your original paper with additional research from outside sources, incorporate feedback from your instructor, and provide a reflection section addressing your revision process.
General Requirements:
- Locate the Synthesis Paper you completed in Topic 5.
- Locate and download “Enhanced Synthesis Paper Template” from the Course Materials for this topic.
- Locate and download “Enhanced Synthesis Paper Resources” from the Course Materials for this topic.
- Review the articles by Baker and Pifer (2011), Gardner (2009), and Smith and Hatmaker (2014) located in the Course Materials for this topic.
- This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
- Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. Review the GCU APA Style Guide for Writing located in the Student Success Center.
- You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Directions:
Select and read two articles from the Enhanced Synthesis Paper Resources list located in the Course Materials for this topic.
Locate the Synthesis Paper you completed in Topic 5. Using the feedback provided by your instructor and information from the two additional articles you selected, write an Enhanced Synthesis Paper with Reflection (1,250-1,800 words). Include the following in your paper:
- A Reflection (250-300 words) that discusses your revision process and how you incorporated your instructor’s feedback into the revised version. Similar to the format of an abstract, this section will receive its own page following the title page and preceding the Introduction.
- An introduction that includes a brief description of each article and its purpose, identifies the three themes that emerged from your reading, describes how they will be discussed in the paper, and presents a clear thesis statement.
- Support for your identified themes with evidence from each article. Provide analysis of these findings to strengthen your narrative.
- A discussion of the conclusions that can be drawn when the articles are taken together as a single entity. What is the overall message of the group of articles?
Running head: SYNTHESIS PAPER 1
7
SYNTHESIS WORKSHEET
Synthesis Paper
Denise Ratliff
Grand Canyon University: RES-811 Comment by Justina Kwapy: Title page needs to be formatted according to GCU Guidelines, not APA.
http://gcumedia.com/lms-resources/student-success-center/docs/APA/APA-6th-Edition-Style-Guide
Introduction
The three main themes shared between the three articles are relationships, academic success and individual effort to highlight the manner through which transition is included during developmental awareness for doctoral learners. According to (Gardner,2009), the word success if widely used in higher education to refer to compound outcomes consisting of models with the aim of understanding how success can be achieved by students. (Baker & Pifer, 2011) suggest that during the critical stages of transition, students need the acquisition of new competencies and skills as well as the development of new relationships while at the same time modifying old or existing ones. In fact, most students tend to shave their identities before engaging in a new community or domain. In order to develop new relationships, they need to have individual effort to get new knowledge and develop the necessary skills required to socialize into a new domain such as the adoption of new norms, values as well as culture, relationships, academic success and individual effort are vital in developing a doctoral identity that enhances academic success among doctoral learners. Comment by Justina Kwapy: Thanks for your introduction. It was adequately developed from the outline. In the future, you don’t need to introduce the articles, rather just bring them in as needed in the narrative of the paper. You do need to add more context of the topic to the intro. Tell your reader what your paper will discuss – concisely and directly. Check out this site for some tips on writing a snappy intro:
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/introductions/
Success
Lacking a coherent perspective concerning being successful in doctoral education, student’s expected outcomes and measurements remain vague. There is a need to make the effort of understanding the concept of success due to higher education. A wide-ranging understanding about different dimensions is required to comprehend the conceptualization of success particularly for doctoral student (Gardner, 2009) is. A number of outcomes are explained through the concept of success consisting of academic achievement, retention, graduating or completing and professional socialization. In the course of doctoral education, learners are measured based to a number of outcomes, which are significant pointers for their success (Gardner, 2009). Academic achievement is expected to remain high for doctoral education, in this case, it becomes problematic to measure differences, even though several differences are normally considered and measured in those populations that are underrepresented in the community.
Through interviews, (Gardner, 2009) found out that competency is an essential quality within the professional realm and is widely mentioned and explained in various literature on doctoral education. As a burgeoning professional, doctoral students are expected to learn appropriate skills, habits of mind, knowledge and values. Also, (Gardner, 2009) established that other types of quantifiable measures like test scores, GPA scores, graduating and retention are significant pointers to academic or professional success. (Gardner, 2009) Comment by Justina Kwapy: Your theme is well developed with good support. Be sure to discuss as a collective theme – what do you now consider the main point(s) about the theme? How does the examination of this particular theme in the article connect the study under discussion to the larger picture/discussion of which this study is a part?
Relationships
In order to explore and understand connections within the realm of developmental relationships, identity and learning, there is the need of depending on various interdisciplinary frameworks. These types of frameworks integrate sociocultural perspectives and developmental network theory. Based on such reliance, (Baker & Pifer, 2011) we’re allowed to understand whether and how relationships of learners both internally and externally have an affect or influence towards the development of their individual professional identities. During the development or course of doctoral education students need to explore its social nature. (Baker & Pifer, 2011) suggested that three main themes linked to the role of relationships during the process of identity development including the readiness of academic practice are students’ identity development, general advice and support and academic practice identity development.
During the process of identity development and professional socialization students find that developing relationships with their academic leader or mentor is significant. In a study conducted by (Baker & Pifer, 2011) discovered that when students develop relationship with scholarly individuals, students are more likely to become more productive and committed to their research due to support offered to them. During the early stages of the process of socialization, (Baker & Pifer, 2011) found out that the doctoral students particularly of chemistry and history were more inclined to develop relationships with their peers and faculty. Students relied on guidance and collaboration Developing a relationship and building a rapport with the faculty became stronger while it lessened with peers.
Based on the study conducted by Baker & Pifer (2011) students that my lack supporting relationships, in the course of study the student may develop stress and fear amongst other learners who may already be dealing with a stressful process. The absence of a fellow student, faculty member or mentor for support may make the development process difficult for students due to unclear expectations. Also, the study had shown when some students think that they may not have received the same level of guidance and support as their peer, there is a high likelihood towards the development of resentment. (Baker & Pifer, 2011) suggested that students’ feelings are normally affected when there are differences in the level of support and guidance which also can the main source of tension. Comment by Justina Kwapy: There is more than one kind of relationship discussed in the articles and they are not valued equally.
Here are some different sub-theme possibilities. You can pick a set, but do not combine them.
I am going to challenge you to take it step further for your week seven paper.
Formal Relationships & Informal Relationships.
OR Positive Relationships & Negative Relationships.
OR Personal Relationships & Professional Relationships.
OR Mentorship, Peer Relationships, Family Relationships, Absence of Relationships
OR Academic Relationships & Non-Academic Relationships
etc…
Could these be sub-themes choices for the main theme of Relationships?
You want to talk about relationships and how they emerge in the articles. Peer relationships? Family relationships? Etc…Mentorship is one way relationships emerge. Is there enough evidence from the three articles to create a sub-theme?
Do you see how I am synthesizing the evidence into ideas?
Individual Effort
Professional socialization is concerned with the individual effort of learning about a series of skills, expectations, performance demands, and behaviors linked with a specific profession. (Smith & Hatmaker, 2014) claimed that not only is it concerned with developing and learning individual identity but is also doing so based on one’s context of work including the expected outcomes. Strategies such as orientation sessions, mentoring, apprenticeships as well as training play a significant role in enhancing the process of socialization. All the preceding tactics are usually formal efforts enhanced by an organization with the aim of socializing new comers. (Smith & Hatmaker, 2014) suggested that they may be well thought out as institutionalized tactics since organizations tend to control or regulate involved mechanisms. Also, an enduring and relatively constellation of beliefs, motives, values, experiences and attributes to the student’s future professional identity.
However, this is based on individuals who play a professional role or who define themselves as professionals. Doctoral learners, (Smith & Hatmaker 2014) contend the process of socialization with the aim of becoming a self-governing researcher. Students are forced to transition towards the producer of knowledge by creating new and original research from the consumer of knowledge. For most students, this process is difficult and often frustrating, as the result the doctoral students will get their knowledge from the spheres of organizational literature and sociology. In addition, (Smith & Hatmaker 2014) found out that the transition of most doctoral learners was more inclined towards professional identity, particularly during mid-phases, which focused mainly on dissertation and candidacy.
Conclusion
An important caution needs to be made, the experience of doctoral education is never monolithic. Among different disciplines educational experience tend to vary because each of these disciplines have their individual cultures, qualities, values, codes of conducts as well as unique intellectual tasks, which eventually influence students, staff and faculty experiences. Therefore, it means that while such studies which have focused on undergraduate students’ experiences, success often transpire at the organizational level. Departments alongside their particular disciplines tend to become the main focal point of the doctoral students and their experiences instead of larger institutions.
References
Baker & Pifer (2011). The role of relationships in the transition from doctoral student to independent scholar. Studies in Continuing Education Vol. 33, No. 1, March 2011, 517. Routledge Publishers.
Gardner (2009). Conceptualizing Success in Doctoral Education: Perspectives of Faculty in Seven Disciplines. The Review of Higher Education Spring 2009, Volume 32, No. 3, pp. 383–406.
Smith & Hatmaker (2014). Knowing, Doing, and Becoming: Professional Identity Construction among Public Affairs Doctoral Students. DOI: 10.1080/15236803.2014.12001807
Running head: SHORTENED TITLE 1
TITLE GOES HERE 2
Title Should Suggest the Topic
Your Name
Grand Canyon University
Literature Review Resources
One of the most important aspects of your research will be how you organize your resources. RefWorks is an optional citation management software tool you can sign up to use that helps organize your citations. To find out more about how to sign up for your free, optional RefWorks account, review the information here:
http://libguides.gcu.edu/refworksandendnote
.
|
Number |
Article Information: Be sure entries are presented in alphabetical order. |
Added to RefWorks? Y or N (optional) |
|||
|
1. |
Reference |
||||
|
Permalink |
|||||
|
Annotation |
|||||
|
2. |
|||||
|
3. |
|||||
|
4. |
|||||
|
5. |
|||||
Running head: ENHANCED SYNTHESIS PAPER
1
PAGE
5
ENHANCED SYNTHSIS PAPER
Enhanced Synthesis Paper
Student A. Sample
Grand Canyon University: RES-811
Reflection
This assignment requires a Reflection Section (250-300 words) addressing your revision process and how you incorporated your instructor’s feedback into the revised version. This section will receive its own page (similar to the format of an abstract). It will be located after the title page and before the Introduction.
Title
The title does not receive bold font, but the rest of the headings do. Provide an introduction that includes a brief description of each article and its purpose. Identify the three themes that emerged from your reading and how they will be discussed in the paper. Conclude the introduction with your thesis statement.
Theme One
Support your identified theme with evidence from each article and provide analysis of these findings to strengthen your narrative.
Theme Two
Support your identified theme with evidence from each article and provide analysis of these findings to strengthen your narrative.
Theme Three
Support your identified theme with evidence from each article and provide analysis of these findings to strengthen your narrative.
Conclusion
Provide a conclusions that can be drawn can be drawn when the articles are taken together as a single entity. What is the overall message of the group of articles?
The reference list should appear at the end of a paper (see the next page). It provides the information necessary for a reader to locate and retrieve any source you cite in the body of the paper. Each source you cite in the paper must appear in your reference list; likewise, each entry in the reference list must be cited in your text. A sample reference page is included below; this page includes examples of how to format different reference types (e.g., books, journal articles, information from a website). The examples on the following page include examples taken directly from the APA manual. The word Reference does not receive bold font.
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Daresh, J. C. (2004). Beginning the assistant principalship: A practical guide for new school administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Herbst-Damm, K. L., & Kulik, J. A. (2005). Volunteer support, marital status, and the survival times of terminally ill patients. Health Psychology, 24, 225-229. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.24.2.225
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (2003). Managing asthma: A guide for schools (NIH Publication No. 02-2650). Retrieved from http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/
health/prof/asthma/asth_sch
Vicki (Baker) Sweitzer
I want to gratefully acknowledge the advice and support received from Carol Col-
beck, Lisa Lattuca, Ann Austin, and KerryAnn O’Meara during the development and
writing of this article.
Vicki (Baker) Sweitzer is an Assistant Professor at Albion College.
The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 80, No. 1 (January/February 2009)
Copyright © 2009 by The Ohio State University
What role do relationships play in the profes-
sional identity development process for individuals on the path to the
professoriate? Understanding the influence of relationships and deter-
mining “how and why relationships matter” (Gersick, Bartunek, &
Dutton, 2000, p. 1027) has been important for scholars and practition-
ers in higher education. For years, researchers have examined the influ-
ence of the academic advisor and peers on the doctoral student experi-
ence, and this work has served as the foundation for research on
doctoral education (Golde, 2000; Green, 1991; Green & Bauer, 1995;
Nettles & Millett, 2006). To date, however, few studies have accounted
for the influence of relationships beyond faculty and peers in the acad-
emic context, with even fewer studies accounting for the multitude of
relationships students are likely to rely on outside of the academic
community. Wulff and Austin (2004) acknowledged this gap in gradu-
ate education research in their book Paths to the Professoriate. They
noted that future research on graduate education would benefit from
the inclusion of a variety of voices and perspectives both inside and
outside of higher education. In addition, more longitudinal and inter-
disciplinary research that examines the graduate student experience
Towards a Theory of Doctoral Student
Professional Identity Development:
A Developmental Networks Approach
would inform the current understanding of the experience, the factors
that influence it, and would likely improve graduate education in general.
In an attempt to address these needs in the literature, I followed a co-
hort of business doctoral students throughout their first year of study to
begin to explore the influence of students’ personal communities or as I
refer to them—developmental networks—defined as the “set of people a
protégé names as taking an active interest in and action to advance the
protégé’s career by providing developmental assistance” (Higgins &
Kram, 2001, p. 268). I sought to uncover if there were relationships be-
yond the academic advisor that were important to doctoral student suc-
cess. If so, what other types of relationships were important and what
kinds of support were provided? In addition, I wanted to understand how
interactions with a variety of individuals and their expectations influ-
enced students’ developing conception of the faculty career. The ulti-
mate goal of this research was to theoretically advance the study of doc-
toral education by proposing preliminary models of doctoral student
professional identity development and to address the paucity of research
that explores the influence of relationships, both within and outside of
the academic community, on outcomes such as professional identity de-
velopment. I relied on literatures from higher education and organiza-
tion studies to inform this work.
This article proposes preliminary models for doctoral student profes-
sional identity development. It explores the question, What role do rela-
tionships play in doctoral students’ professional identity development?
In the first section, I provide an overview of the prior research that in-
formed this study with an emphasis on two previously proposed models
of the doctoral student experience (Tinto, 1993; Weidman, Twale, &
Stein, 2001). In the second section, I discuss the theoretical framework
that guided this research. Specifically, I describe social network theory
and the connection between social (developmental) networks and pro-
fessional identity development. I also include a brief summary of social-
ization theory as it pertains to the first stage of the doctoral student ex-
perience. In the third section, I provide an overview of the background
to the study. In the fourth section, I describe the preliminary models of
doctoral student professional identity development for the two clusters
of students that emerged. In the final section, I draw on the students’ sto-
ries and experiences and the perspectives of their network partners (the
individuals identified by the students as influential, positive and nega-
tive, throughout their first year) to generate preliminary theoretical in-
terpretations and propositions to advance the study of doctoral education
through the exploration of professional identity development while on
the path to the professoriate.
2 The Journal of Higher Education
Prior Research
Models of the Doctoral Student Experience
The notion that students’ personal communities are important to the
doctoral student experience is not novel. In fact, researchers have ac-
knowledged the likely importance of such communities. For example,
Weidman, Twale, and Stein (2001) proposed the Graduate Socialization
Framework which highlighted the importance of personal communities
that include relationships with individuals not associated with the acad-
emic program. Weidman et al. noted that these individuals may also
have expectations for a student’s progress that are likely to influence
various outcomes such as persistence and attrition. Tinto (1993) pro-
posed a theory of doctoral student persistence in which he highlighted
two key factors thought to influence it: (a) institutional experiences, in-
cluding program level, which support or inhibit degree attainment, and
(b) individuals who provide support to the student throughout the doc-
toral program. In terms of relationships, Tinto suggested that doctoral
students’ social membership within the academic program and student-
faculty interactions were important to doctoral student persistence. Al-
though both of these models acknowledged the importance of students’
personal relationships, they focused primarily on students’ relationships
with faculty and peers from within their respective academic programs
as important to professional career attainment (Tinto) and professional-
ization (Weidman et al.).
Fundamental to the Weidman et al. (2001) model is socialization,
which they defined as “the process by which persons acquire the knowl-
edge, skills, and dispositions that make them more or less effective
members of their society” (p. 4). They argued that throughout the social-
ization process, graduate students acquire necessary information by way
of communication strategies to aid in their transition. Prior research on
doctoral education supports this notion and has shown that the doctoral
student experience is the first stage of socialization to the faculty career
(Austin, 2002; Austin & McDaniels, 2006). Authors including Austin
and McDaniels (2006), Braxton and Baird (2001), Gardner (2007),
Golde (1998), and Lovitts (2001) discussed the various stages of social-
ization that occur at the doctoral level which prepare students for acade-
mic careers. During the “beginning” or “anticipatory” stage, students
enter a new program and begin to learn the language of a particular dis-
cipline and start to identify with the new role. Particularly important to
the first stage is the development of relationships with peers and faculty.
Past research on the first stage of socialization informs and supports the
current study by showing that relationship development in the first year
Student Professional Identity Development 3
not only occurs but is an important part of the socialization process.
However, predominant reliance on socialization theory fails to capture
the importance of the variety of relationships, within and outside of the
academic community, that are important to students’ “communication
strategies” and there is a need for alternate theoretical frameworks to en-
hance the perspective socialization theory provides.
Theoretical Framework
Social Network Theory
In an effort to enhance existing research that relies on socialization
theory, the current study introduces social network theory as a mecha-
nism for exploring professional identity development and the process by
which it occurs for doctoral students, which is lacking in the literature
(Hall, 1968; Robole, 2003). Social network theory, or a developmental
networks approach, is particularly salient for studying doctoral educa-
tion because it seeks to explain how a network of actors establish and
maintain connections within an organizational context and how those
connections facilitate a multitude of outcomes such as professional ad-
vancement, information acquisition, and identity development (Ibarra,
Kilduff, & Tsai, 2005; Ibarra, 1999; Kadushin, 2004). Research has
shown that individuals’ networks influence career outcomes including
job satisfaction and attainment (Podolny & Barron, 1997), promotion
and advancement (Burt, 1992), and overall career success (Guiffe, 1999;
Hansen, 1999). Doctoral students are likely to have relationships or ties
to many types of individuals such as peers, faculty, friends and family,
and business associates who may provide various types of support, in-
cluding friendship, advice, or developmental assistance throughout a
student’s doctoral program. As noted earlier, doctoral education and the
experiences that occur during this time are regarded as the first stage to
the faculty career (Austin & Wulff, 2004), therefore exploring doctoral
students’ networks as important to that process is a logical and necessary
step to further advancing the study of doctoral education.
In an attempt to bridge mentoring and social network theories, Hig-
gins and Kram’s (2001) notion of developmental networks incorporated
traditional concepts such as mentor, sponsor, and coach, yet acknowl-
edged a new role, “developer,” meant to encompass all of the previous
terms mentioned. The term “developer” expands the concept of the sin-
gle, traditional mentor relationship by acknowledging that developmen-
tal relationships may provide support beyond just career and/or psy-
chosocial support to include knowledge development and information
sharing which is likely important to the doctoral student experience and
4 The Journal of Higher Education
professional identity development. Individuals’ developmental networks
are likely to change as career needs change resulting in the development
of new relationships and the loss of others. There is a need in the career
context to better understand which relationships are most important at
different career stages and the same is true for doctoral education.
Austin and McDaniels (2006) argued that professional networks are
vital to faculty and graduate students alike, yet there is very little empir-
ical evidence that examines the roles of a variety of relationships. The
developmental networks approach described by Higgins and Kram
(2001) provides a theoretical foundation to explore those relationships
for doctoral students as a precursor to the faculty career.
Although most social network research examines the different types
of networks (friendship, advice, entrepreneurial) independent of each
other, I studied which network partners provided various types of sup-
port and how they provided that support. This information was then ex-
amined to determine how those relationships and support received by
the doctoral student influenced professional identity development and
the process by which it occurs. To move the study of doctoral students’
relationships beyond a dyadic focus and to bridge the interdisciplinary
divide, this paper answers calls from both higher education (Wulff &
Austin, 2004) and organization studies (Gersick, Bartunek, & Dutton,
2000) by exploring how and why relationships matter in organizational
contexts and to outcomes such as professional identity development.
The developmental networks approach emphasizes the examination of
all an individual’s relational ties and the potential outcomes of those ties
that may result.
Professional Identity Development
Recently, social network scholars have begun to explore the possibil-
ity that individuals’ social networks may serve as identity construction
mechanisms (Ibarra, Kilduff, & Tsai, 2005). “Although networks have
been thoroughly studied as conduits for information and resources, we
know little about the role they play in creating and shaping identities”
(p. 362). Operating under the assumption that individuals construct
their identities through their developmental networks, Dobrow and
Higgins (2005) studied the extent to which individuals’ developmental
relationships enhanced the clarity of their professional identity. This
study was the first to look at the influence of developmental network re-
lationships on professional identity development longitudinally in ca-
reer contexts and used two developmental network characteristics: high
and low developmental network range (social relationships from multi-
ple contexts or from a single context) and density (access to redundant
Student Professional Identity Development 5
or nonredundant sources of information). Their research suggested that
as developmental network density increased (i.e., less access to non-re-
dundant sources of information), the clarity of one’s professional iden-
tity decreased. However, the authors noted that more longitudinal re-
search is needed that examines the content and help-giving interactions
of relationships and why and how developmental networks change over
time.
Background of the Study
The study explored longitudinally how the friendship, advice, and de-
velopmental support provided by peers, faculty, family, friends, and
business associates facilitated doctoral students’ early professional iden-
tity development in the first year of a business doctoral program. The
proposed models of doctoral student professional identity development I
report here are based on analyses of mini-case studies of the 12 doctoral
students (and their networks) enrolled in five business disciplines at a
top ranked research university and college of business which I refer to as
Valley University/Valley College of Business. Valley University is a top-
rated research institution in the Northeast which enrolls approximately
40,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Valley College of Business
is rated among the top 50 business colleges across the country and offers
five doctoral degree programs: Accounting, Finance, Management and
Organization, Marketing, and Supply Chain and Information Systems.
Each year, Valley College of Business enrolls between 12-15 doctoral
students and provides full funding through degree attainment to all of
the doctoral students in the form of research assistantships. Some stu-
dents serve as teaching assistants, though that is the minority. While stu-
dents do enter doctoral programs with a variety of professional experi-
ences, mostly in the business realm, Valley faculty are hesitant to admit
students with “too much professional experience.” I was told by an
Associate Dean and other faculty that too much professional experience
is a potential red flag whereby the admissions committee questions stu-
dents’ ultimate interest in earning a research faculty appointment. As
such, the goal of Valley’s doctoral program is to train “researchers who
will place at other top-rated research institutions upon graduation.” Stu-
dents entering this program aspire for faculty careers and communicated
those goals throughout the first year interviews.
Development of “Fit” Categories
One key difference that surfaced during the longitudinal analysis was
the types of relationships students chose to identify as important to the
6 The Journal of Higher Education
first-year doctoral student experience. Specifically, it appeared that
some students chose to rely on individuals within the academic commu-
nity only while other students relied on a combination of relationships
with individuals inside and outside of the academic community. These
differences in developmental networks were associated with variations
in support provided to students, expectations communicated by network
partners, students’ conceptions of the doctoral student, research assis-
tant, and teacher roles, and students’ corresponding impressions of the
faculty career.
Two clusters of students emerged based on these differences which I
labeled Perceiving Fit and Assessing Fit. Fit, for the purposes of this
study, is defined as congruence between students’ goals for perfor-
mance, placement, and weighting of academic roles (doctoral student,
research assistant, and teacher) with Valley’s goals for student perfor-
mance, placement, and weighting of academic roles. I developed the
Perceiving Fit and Assessing Fit characterizations at the end of the
first year of data collection based on students’ responses to the five key
questions (content areas) believed to be most related to their develop-
ing professional identity: (a) what does it mean to be a doctoral stu-
dent, (b) what does it mean to be a research assistant, (c) what does it
mean to be a teacher, (d) how do you prioritize these roles, and (e) how
does your experience in these roles serve as a preview to the faculty
career. If a student’s response to these five categories of questions ap-
peared to mirror or support Valley’s goals, that student was categorized
as Perceiving Fit. If a student’s responses were not congruent with
Valley’s goals, or the student appeared to be questioning Valley’s
goals, that student was categorized as Assessing Fit (see Table 1 for
Perceiving Fit and Assessing Fit student quotes related to the five key
questions).
Perceiving Fit students identified faculty and peers within the Valley
community as important to first-year success while the Assessing Fit
students identified relationships with faculty within the Valley commu-
nity as well as family, friends, and prior business associates not affili-
ated with Valley. Based on these two clusters of students (Perceiving
Fit and Assessing Fit), I developed two models of doctoral student pro-
fessional identity development which posit that the process by which
most doctoral students begin to develop professional identities as fu-
ture faculty members is explained, in part, by individual differences
such as socialization susceptibility and learning orientation, and by the
new relationships they developed during the experience and the pre-
existing relationships students brought to their doctoral education
experiences.
Student Professional Identity Development 7
TABLE 1
Perceiving Fit and Assessing Fit–Development of Categories
Perceiving Fit Assessing Fit
Mean to be a doctoral student
Mean to be a research assistant
Mean to be a teacher
How do you prioritize the roles
Preview of faculty career
• “It means that you’re here to
develop a very wide range
of skills from . . . skills in
research. . . .”
• “You’re trying to accumulate
a good research portfolio.”
• “I don’t see the teaching as
being a major part in the
particular major that I’m in
. . . all I can think of is
publish, publish, publish.”
• “You do your research
assignments … and if you
contribute to a paper you can
be a co-author on that paper.”
• They [faculty] just give you
the option to teach for money
over the summer. But, I don’t
think they’re really pushing
you in that direction.”
• “Here, the teaching load
isn’t too high which is good
. . . I need time to work on
research.”
• “Research and developing
good ideas is my number one
priority.”
• “While the student role is
most important to me now, I
see it as the most important
because it will help me be a
better researcher.”
• “The key focus here is
research which is good
preparation for being a
researcher at a ‘Top 50’
institution.”
• “I think they [faculty] do a
good job here showing us
how important research and
publication is to earning a
top faculty position.”
• “You know, I’m not here for
the degree. I’m just here to
see if I can learn some
more.”
• “Most of the time you are
just a student and you try to
increase your knowledge
level”
• “It means to give back some
of what you got from the
school . . . , it means to
establish a relationship with
your professor you’re
working with. And, it’s a
source of ideas as well.”
• “As a research assistant, your
job is twofold: it’s to learn
how to do the research and to
provide value to the field and
for the faculty member that
you’re working with.”
• “I like teaching a lot and I
look forward to teaching here
. . . it’s an opportunity to
help people develop.”
• “Being an instructor means
to do something that I
think is beautiful . . . it’s
interaction with other
students and developing
knowledge together.”
• “I see all the roles as
opportunities to learn . . .
but I guess the student role
is most important as I need
to develop the tool box of
skills.”
• “The most salient role for me
right now is being a student
and trying to be a sponge . . .
just taking it all in.”
• “To be honest, I am not sure
. . . I haven’t taught yet and
am just learning how to
develop research ideas.
When I have to juggle it all,
then I will be able to tell
you for sure.”
Methods
Data collection included interviews with the focal doctoral students
(N = 12), their self-identified network partners1 (N = 22), and other Val-
ley faculty and administrators (N = 15) most involved in the first-year
experience. To triangulate the data and to cross check information I col-
lected during the interviews, I conducted direct observations of college-
wide orientations at the beginning of the fall and spring semesters and
content analyzed Valley documents such as the strategic plan, web sites,
and doctoral program brochures. A series of three interviews were con-
ducted throughout the first year of study (September 2005, January
2006, May 2006) to capture students’ development and changes
throughout the first year. Each student interview elicited information re-
garding students’ personal characteristics, the factors that influenced
their decision to pursue doctoral study, the relationships (positive and
negative) that were most influential to their progression throughout the
first year, the expectations students’ network partners placed on them,
the primary types of support provided by network partners, their percep-
tions of what it means to be a doctoral student, research assistant, and
teacher, and how the first year experience served as a preview of the
faculty career.
Network partner interviews were conducted during the spring 2006
semester and were used as an opportunity to assess consistency (or in-
consistency) in students’ and network partners’ perceptions, as well as to
learn more about the Valley culture. Network partner interviews elicited
information about the focal students’ personal characteristics, the types
of interactions the network partner had with the students, the primary
expectations the network partner placed on the student, the overall ex-
pectations of the Valley College of Business doctoral program in terms
of placement post-graduation and performance (if network partner was a
Valley community member), and the types of support the network part-
ner provided to the student.
Due to the longitudinal nature of the study, individual write-ups were
created for each student at each interview time that served as stand alone
entities (Eisenhardt, 1989). Included in each student write-up were data
from corresponding network partner interviews and drawings of stu-
dents’ developmental networks. The drawings included the network
partners identified by the students and indicated the type and frequency
of interaction between student and network partner. Interviews were an-
alyzed to assess changes in students’ developmental networks, percep-
tions of network partner expectations, and early professional identity de-
velopment in the roles of doctoral student, research assistant, and
Student Professional Identity Development 9
teacher. Using students’ responses to the above noted questions, I cate-
gorized students as Perceiving Fit or Assessing Fit at each interview
time. At the end of the first year, 6 students were categorized as Perceiv-
ing Fit and 6 students were categorized as Assessing Fit. In fact, one of
the Assessing Fit students withdrew from Valley after completion of the
second interview but remained in the study (see Table 2 for Perceiving
Fit and Assessing Fit Categorizations for each student at each interview
time).
Using the Time 3 categorizations as an end point, I also examined
other individual differences or demographic data that may have con-
tributed to students’ categorization of Perceiving Fit and Assessing Fit.
The individual differences and demographic data comparisons examined
include gender, international status, age, and years of prior work experi-
ence (see Table 3). As is evidenced by Table 3, gender and international
status did not appear to influence a student being categorized as Perceiv-
ing Fit or Assessing Fit in this group of students. Males were just as
likely to be Perceiving Fit or Assessing Fit as were females. Interna-
tional status, age, and years of prior work experience also did not appear
to be a contributing factor to fit categorizations in this small sample.
While other comparisons such as marital and parental status and depart-
mental differences were considered, those comparisons are not included
in order to protect students’ identities as they are still enrolled at Valley.
10 The Journal of Higher Education
TABLE 2
Perceiving Fit and Assessing Fit Categorizations at Each Interview Time
Student Perceiving Fit Assessing Fit
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
A X X X
B X X X
C X X X
D X X–Withdrew X–Withdrew
E X X X
F X X X
G X X X
H X X X
I X X X
J X X X
K X X X
L X X X
The individual student write-ups, the Perceiving Fit and Assessing Fit
categorizations at each interview time, and the other individual differ-
ence comparisons facilitated a cross-case analysis which allowed for
the identification of patterns in types of relationships, key expecta-
tions communicated in those relationships, and how those relation-
ships appeared to influence students’ perceptions of the faculty career.
After identifying patterns across students’ experiences and relationships,
I returned to the literature to develop preliminary theoretical interpre
tations and working propositions regarding students’ relationships and
their influence on the student experience and professional identity
development.
The Models
In the following section, (a) I provide an overview of the key compo-
nents shared by the two models of doctoral student professional identity
development, and (b) discuss the models with specific illustrations re-
lated to Perceiving Fit and Assessing Fit students.
General Model Overview
An individual enters a doctoral program with key individual differ-
ences that are likely to influence the doctoral student experience: social-
ization susceptibility and learning orientation. As a result of those
Student Professional Identity Development 11
TABLE 3
Perceiving Fit and Assessing Fit Comparisons at Time 3
Perceiving Fit Assessing Fit
Age
20 –30 3 2
31+ 3 4
Gender
Male 4 3
Female 2 3
International Status
International 2 3
Domestic 4 3
Prior Work Experience
5 years or less 3 3
6 years + 3 3
individual differences, students are likely to develop and rely on a vari-
ety of relationships (e.g., developmental network) that are likely to in-
fluence the types of experiences students engage in and the types of
goals they develop in terms of performance in the program and place-
ment post-graduation. Interactions with network partners may influence
a student’s activation of a particular learning orientation at later times in
the program based on expectations communicated by network partners.
At the same time, a student is likely to begin to evaluate whether he or
she agrees with or accepts the goals of the program for placement and
weighting of academic roles which they have been socialized to accept
(i.e. percentage of time that should be allocated to research, teaching,
and service). This, in turn, triggers the student’s questioning or accep-
tance of fit with the academic program and the faculty career, thus influ-
encing their developing professional identity as a faculty member.
Perceiving Fit
The students I labeled as Perceiving Fit at the end of their first year in
the program entered the program with two distinct characteristics: a
strong orientation to identify and describe themselves in professional
terms only and a focus on tangible goals such as publications in top-tier
journals and placement post-graduation at highly ranked research insti-
tutions as the metric for success in the program. These characteristics
appeared to influence the types of relationships they chose to develop or
identify as important to success in the program. In fact, the Perceiving
Fit students only described relationships with individuals within the Val-
ley community with those who shared the same goals and expectations
for performance and placement. Engaging in relationships with Valley
community members only appeared to influence the types of activities
the Perceiving Fit students engaged in such as early involvement in re-
search assistantship duties and a strong within developmental network
socialization that further supported publication and placement as met-
rics for program success. I characterized these relationships as internal-
mission supporting developmental networks because the primary mes-
sage and expectation communicated to students in these types of
networks supported Valley’s goals for research productivity and “Top
50” placement (e.g., earning a faculty appointment at another top-ranked
research institution).
Valley faculty and administrator emphasis on pre-established indica-
tors of success as a basis for interaction (i.e., training of “Top 50” re-
searchers) appeared to activate students’ adoption of performance orien-
tation learning goals. According to Graham (2003), performance
orientation occurs when individuals are motivated by the desire to
12 The Journal of Higher Education
demonstrate adequate mastery while simultaneously displaying tenden-
cies to conceal low levels of ability. Socialization efforts that encourage
students’ activation of performance orientation as the primary goal may
persuade students to adopt an “all or nothing” metric of success and
thereby contribute to students’ assessment of fit with the institution or
discipline. Most of the Perceiving Fit students’ responses to interview
questions throughout the first year were consistent with a role prioritiza-
tion similar to Valley faculty’s weighting of academic roles (i.e., re-
search is more important than teaching or service), thus indicating the
acceptance of Valley’s “prototypical” professional identity.
Assessing Fit
The Assessing Fit students, as labeled at the end of Year 1, also en-
tered the program with two distinct characteristics that differed from
their Perceiving Fit counterparts. When asked to describe themselves,
the Assessing Fit students focused on more personal characteristics such
as “creative,” “interested in learning,” and “a good person.” Program
success in their opinion was more about learning and developing as an
individual with much less emphasis on top-tier publications and place-
ment at top research institutions. The combination of network partners
identified by the Assessing Fit students appeared to share common goals
with an emphasis on individual development and learning as the primary
motivator in the doctoral program. Because of this emphasis on individ-
ual development, most Assessing Fit students and their network partners
viewed academic roles (doctoral student, research assistant, and teacher)
as integrated and as opportunities for learning. Integration occurs when
Student Professional Identity Development 13
MODEL 1. Perceiving Fit Model of Doctoral Student Professional Identity Development
engagement in academic roles achieves more than one goal such as
when a professor uses findings from a research study to inform a class
discussion among graduate students (Colbeck, 2002). As such, I labeled
this network individual-development supporting.
The within developmental network focus on individual development
and integration of academic roles appeared to activate the Assessing Fit
students’ adoption of a mastery orientation toward learning. A mastery
orientation results, according to Graham (2003), when students “are ori-
ented toward acquiring new skills or improving their level of compe-
tence . . . they may strive to develop competence by learning as much as
they can” (p. 1694). While the Assessing Fit students and their network
partners’ goals for performance were complementary, the difference in
goals (e.g., mastery orientation rather than performance orientation), ap-
peared to result in Assessing Fit students questioning fit with Valley’s
weighting of academic roles or more specifically, prioritization of acad-
emic roles. Thus, it may be possible for a student to accept the given
roles of doctoral student, research assistant, and teacher but not place the
roles in the same priority that veteran organizational members assign to
the given roles. While it is likely that the Assessing Fit students began to
develop professional identities as future faculty members, they did not
appear to accept Valley’s “prototypical” professional identity which
emphasized “A-level publications” and placement in a “Top 50” re-
search institution by the end of the first year.
14 The Journal of Higher Education
MODEL 2. Assessing Fit Model of Doctoral Student Professional Identity Development
Propositions and Future Research
The models of doctoral student professional identity development I
describe above focus on four key areas: individual differences students
bring to the doctoral student experience, within developmental network
experiences, the role interactions with network partners have on stu-
dents’ prioritization of academic roles, and the likely influence these
areas have on doctoral students’ ultimate assessment of fit with the aca-
demic program and future faculty career. In the following section, I ex-
plore specific relationships among the four key areas addressed, discuss
working propositions, and propose areas for future research to advance
the study of doctoral education.
Individual Differences
For decades, researchers have explored the role individual differences
play on a myriad of outcomes (Detert, Treviño, Sweitzer, 2008; Murphy,
2002; Treviño, 1986), and have acknowledged that individuals respond
differently to organizational contexts as a result of past experiences.
Furthermore, research revealed that individuals reflect on past experi-
ences to help make sense of their current environment (Louis, 1980;
Trice, 1993) and it is reasonable to suggest that the doctoral student ex-
perience is no different. Individuals enter doctoral programs with indi-
vidual differences that influence their choice in academic program,
the research agendas they pursue, and the types of relationships they
develop along the way. Two individual differences that appeared to
be salient for the students I followed from the Valley College of Busi-
ness were something I labeled socialization susceptibility and learning
orientation.
Socialization Susceptibility
Organizational socialization has received substantial research atten-
tion as a means of understanding how organizational newcomers come
to identify and understand the norms and expectations of their new envi-
ronment and future profession (Austin & McDaniels, 2006; Chao,
O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Schein, 1971). One criti-
cism of socialization programs or processes is that a large number of or-
ganizations, including doctoral programs, offer “one-size-fits-all” so-
cialization programs that often result in individuals feeling that their
personal needs are being neglected. The failure to account for individual
agency as important to the development that should occur in a doctoral
program, and the realization that most socialization efforts fail to ac-
Student Professional Identity Development 15
knowledge the importance of individual differences led to an important,
yet still unanswered question in the socialization literature: who is “so-
cializable” and who is not?
During the Time 1 interviews students were asked, “Who were you
prior to coming to Valley” and I continued to ask this question at the
close of each interview. Students’ responses across interview times
served as a base of comparison for how they perceived themselves dur-
ing their first year experience. While I originally asked the question to
assess changes over time, it was their initial self-descriptions that were
either supported or changed as a result of interactions with their network
partners. In turn, this led me to question Valley faculty’s tacit assump-
tion that older, more experienced students are less “malleable” and have
a more difficult time accepting or fulfilling the rigors associated with a
research career. Based on my discussions with these students, it ap-
peared that age, experience, and other identifiers such as parent or
spouse were less influential, as thought by Valley faculty. Rather, their
self-descriptions were much more likely to contribute to how (un)will-
ing they were to be socialized.
The students I characterized as Perceiving Fit described themselves in
relation to their most recent professional experience, such as consultant
or research analyst beginning at Time 1. Conversely, the Assessing Fit
students focused much more on personal self-descriptors such as
“loyal,” “creative,” or “interested in learning.” The Perceiving Fit stu-
dents were much more willing and accepting of the strong socialization
they were experiencing at Valley, it appeared, because of their propen-
sity to focus on their professional selves. The Assessing Fit students, on
the other hand, were hesitant to shed the other roles and interests that led
them to pursue doctoral study even after realizing the possibility that
those roles could and likely did conflict with Valley’s intense socializa-
tion. Therefore, it appeared that individuals who readily identified with a
prior professional role, regardless of age and prior work experience,
were more accepting of strong socialization efforts because they already
had the propensity or “susceptibility” to be socialized because of their
stronger focus on external, professional self-descriptors. Conversely, the
individuals who described themselves in more personal terms, regard-
less of age, prior work experience, or outside commitments, were less
susceptible to strong socialization efforts because they were more fo-
cused on internal, individual self-descriptors (refer to Table 3).
Proposition 1:
1a: Students higher in socialization susceptibility will more readily
accept the messages and expectations communicated through social-
16 The Journal of Higher Education
ization efforts because of their focus on external, professional self-de-
scriptors and their prior experience with and acceptance of profes-
sional socialization.
1b: Students lower in socialization susceptibility will have a more dif-
ficult time accepting the messages and expectations communicated
through socialization efforts regardless of prior professional experi-
ences because of their focus on personal self-descriptors rather than
professional self-descriptors.
The notion of socialization susceptibility is consistent with prior re-
search which suggests that individuals bring a multitude of experiences
to work and academic contexts that are likely to influence the ways they
make sense of socialization experiences (Louis, 1980; Trice, 1993).
Treating socialization susceptibility as a stable individual difference
trait, however, contributes to existing socialization literature. This view
contradicts the traditional one-size-fits-all perspective of socialization
and supports the notion that organizations that are able to effectively tai-
lor such efforts at the individual level are more effective, beneficial, and
current with the times (Murphy, 2002; Towler & Dipboye, 2003). While
an individual may be new to a particular organization, that person may
not be new to a given field or to being a professional; the notion of so-
cialization susceptibility acknowledges this difference. Doctoral pro-
grams that are able to effectively embrace students’ differences, rather
than viewing them as obstacles, and use those differences to the pro-
grams’ and students’ advantage will likely be more successful in prepar-
ing the next generation of faculty.
It is important to note that while findings from this study contribute to
the idea that socialization susceptibility may be a stable trait, data ob-
tained from the first year is not sufficient to confirm this assertion. There-
fore, future research is needed that explores the factors (such as individ-
ual differences) that may contribute to one’s socialization susceptibility.
Goal Orientation
An important area of research in both educational and psychological
fields is the attempt to uncover the motivational processes that affect
learning, with a particular emphasis on goal orientation (Ames &
Archer, 1987; Dweck, 1986; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). Two important
goal orientations widely examined in the literature are mastery orienta-
tion and performance orientation (Dweck, 1986). Mastery orientation is
defined as “the belief that effort leads to improvement in outcomes and
that ability is malleable” (Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998,
Student Professional Identity Development 17
p. 222). Mastery-oriented individuals are focused on developing new
skills and believe that success is realized by achieving self-referenced
standards (Ford et al., 1998). In contrast, performance-oriented individ-
uals are concerned with being judged as capable, they strive to outper-
form others, and they value ability and achievement of normatively high
standards (Ames & Archer, 1988). Research has shown that educational
environments that foster performance goals as the primary metric of
achievement encourage students to focus more on their ability than on
the learning process itself. A debate that is fundamental to this line of re-
search is whether goal orientation is a stable trait that remains consistent
across experiences and environments versus a trait-like variable that is
malleable and can be activated given the goals of the environment
(DeShon & Gillespie, 2005).
In an attempt to identify the conceptual and methodological inconsis-
tencies that fuel this debate in the goal orientation literature, DeShon
and Gillespie (2005) proposed a self-regulation model of goal orienta-
tion which they termed, motivated action theory (MAT). In their review
of the literature on goal orientation, they found that treating goal orien-
tation as a stable trait only accounted for part of the picture. In fact, they
noted that Dweck (1996) voiced concerns that the trait perspective failed
“to capture parsimoniously the dynamic, process-oriented nature of per-
sonality” (p. 348), yet researchers have failed to acknowledge this con-
cern when exploring goal orientation. They also suggested that situa-
tions, whether deemed weak or strong, are insufficient alone in
explaining goal orientation. Therefore, they suggested an interactionist
perspective that accounts for an individual’s propensity to consciously
or subconsciously enter into a situation with a certain goal orientation,
and the situational influences that either supports or activates the adop-
tion of one goal orientation over another given the organizational goals.
The models of doctoral professional identity development described ear-
lier account for both individual and situational influences.
Individuals entering doctoral programs are likely to enter the acade-
mic environment with varying learning goals which will influence how
they approach coursework, their interactions with individuals, and their
goals for development and advancement. While enrolled in the program,
two contributing factors are likely to influence students’ activation of a
goal orientation: the mission of the academic program and students’ in-
teractions within their developmental networks. Programs differ in the
extent to which their mission encourages the achievement of narrowly
defined targets. Valley’s “Top 50” placement goal could be categorized
as a narrowly defined measure of student success, and by its very nature,
is likely to encourage students to adopt a performance orientation. Con-
18 The Journal of Higher Education
versely, programs which have more diffuse missions may be more likely
to facilitate students’ adoption of mastery learning goals because of the
focus on individual development.
Differences within developmental network socialization may also be
associated with students’ adoption of different learning orientations.
Based on an analysis of the messages and expectations communicated
by students’ network partners, there was a major difference in how the
Perceiving Fit and Assessing Fit students were socialized. While all stu-
dents were exposed to the same messages and expectations from Valley
during orientation and other group-wide events, the messages and ex-
pectations that were communicated within students’ developmental net-
works appeared to influence the primary socialization these two groups
of students experienced. Through interactions with their internal-mis-
sion supporting networks, the Perceiving Fit students were continually
reminded that research productivity resulting in “A-level” publications
and placement at “Top 50” institutions upon graduation were the only
metrics of success by Valley standards. As such, the Perceiving Fit stu-
dents adopted those messages and goals as their own. Conversely, the
messages and expectations communicated to the Assessing Fit students
by their individual-development supporting networks emphasized indi-
vidual growth and skill building which appeared to support Assessing
Fit students’ existing values and program goals (see Table 4 for sample
messages from network partners).
Proposition 2:
2a: Socialization that occurs in networks focused on the academic
program’s mission facilitates students’ adoption of performance ori-
entation learning goals because of the congruence between program-
matic goals and developmental network goals.
2b: Socialization that occurs in individual-development networks fa-
cilitates students’ adoption of mastery orientation learning goals be-
cause of the greater within network emphasis on individual develop-
ment and learning rather than achievement of programmatic goals.
DeShon and Gillespie (2005) discussed the tendency of this line of re-
search to encourage organizations to create climates that emphasize one
orientation over another. They suggest, given the performance demands
on most organizations and fields, an organization’s ability to adopt a
particular goal orientation is likely unrealistic. The academic profession
is no different. It is important to note that while an academic context
may promote the adoption of a performance orientation, implicitly that
Student Professional Identity Development 19
same student has to display an acceptable level of mastery. In other
words, a student may be focused on earning an “A” in a methods course
which would appear to support a performance orientation (e.g., a pri-
mary focus on the end result). However, the professor will not assign the
student an “A” if the student does not display mastery of the material.
The proposed models described earlier support research which sug-
gests that classroom learning environments influence how students view
themselves and the learning process (Ames, 1992; Ames & Ames,
1984). Prior research on learning goals has shown that self-efficacy,
knowledge development, and increased metacognitive activity have
been positively linked to mastery orientation (Ford et al., 1998). The
20 The Journal of Higher Education
Faculty
Peers
Family & Friends
• “Coursework is not important”
• “Coursework interferes with
research.”
• “Research is the most
important priority.”
• “Research gets you the most
recognition.”
• “Don’t let teaching interfere
with research.”
• “Get decent teaching
evaluations.”
• “Advanced students expect us
to succeed.”
• “Advanced students support
faculty expectations.”
• “Fellow cohort members expect
to be supportive of each other.”
• “Fellow cohort members are in
this together.”
• “Coursework is an opportunity
to develop.”
• “Not being the star in class is
okay as long as you learn and
push yourself.”
• “Learn to take an interest in
other grad students.”
• “Place at an institution where
you can make a contribution.”
• “Explore ideas that interest
you.”
• “Don’t lose balance.”
• “Do what makes you happy.”
• “Be the best you can be.”
• “Don’t forget about the
importance of family.”
• “We’ll move if this is not right
for you.”
1Network partners included Valley faculty (n = 6), advanced Valley doctoral students (n = 5), cohort members
(n = 5), business associates (n = 2), and family members including spouses and siblings (n = 5).
TABLE 4
Key Expectations Perceived by the Perceiving Fit and Assessing Fit students.
Perceiving Fit Assessing Fit
models suggest that learning goals may be associated with fit in an aca-
demic program and potentially the faculty career which is certain to in-
fluence professional identity development. Future research could ex-
plore longitudinally the effect of role performance and mastery
orientations on professional identity development and their subsequent
influence on preparing future faculty which would contribute to both
lines of research. Other research might also explore the effects of learn-
ing goals on persistence to degree or withdrawal from graduate study.
Such research might address questions including: Is mastery orientation
or performance orientation most likely to contribute positively to long-
term persistence and degree attainment? How does mastery or perfor-
mance orientation interact with institutional mission to influence persis-
tence? Although the proposed models of doctoral student professional
identity development note the importance of learning goals at Time 1
and beyond, I did not capture specific data about learning orientation.
Therefore, future research should collect data on learning goals at Time
1 in order to assess changes in learning orientation over time as a result
of within developmental network interactions.
Within Developmental Network Experiences
Research shows that very few students enter doctoral programs with a
solid understanding of doctoral education or the faculty career (Wulff,
Austin, Nyquist, Sprague, 2004). Furthermore, research has revealed
that a majority of doctoral programs often fail to facilitate students’ on-
going development in order to acquire the variety of skills now required
by the faculty career (Austin & Wulff, 2004). Doctoral programs, partic-
ularly those at top-rated research institutions, often train students for the
tasks and roles they themselves were prepared for during their own
training and that are rewarded by the promotion and tenure process at
similar institutions. While it is reasonable that faculty at top-rated re-
search programs aspire to place students at other top-rated programs, re-
search shows that very few students, at least initially, are able to earn
faculty appointments at comparable institutions for a variety of reasons
such as lack of faculty openings or students’ lack of interest for the re-
search faculty lifestyle (Prewitt, 2006). As a result, students are ill-pre-
pared for the responsibilities they are likely to encounter at other institu-
tional types.
Weidman, Twale, and Stein (2001), highlighted the importance of so-
cialization to the graduate experience noting that classroom engagement
results in important knowledge acquisition crucial for functioning as a
professional in a given field. They also discussed the importance of in-
Student Professional Identity Development 21
volvement, which they defined as engaging in some aspect of or prepa-
ration for a professional role. Although the authors noted that no two
graduate programs or graduate students are alike, it is reasonable to as-
sert that there is a fundamental similarity in experiences such as orienta-
tion, the series of required courses, and overall program requirements to
which all students are exposed in a given program. There are, however,
differences in within developmental network experiences that may be
more important than the overarching socialization efforts implemented
by an academic program. Based on my prior research (Sweitzer, 2008),
it appears that interactions within developmental networks either rein-
forces or detracts from program or institutional goals.
Interactions in internal-mission supporting developmental networks
reinforce the goals and aspirations the academic program places on en-
tering doctoral students for several reasons. First, the network partners
identified by the Perceiving Fit students consisted of faculty and peers
within the Valley community only. It appeared that these network part-
ners believed in Valley’s goals which influenced their interactions with
the focal students. Second, the activities and experiences the faculty, in
particular, helped involve the Perceiving Fit students in also supported
the overarching program goals, mainly early involvement in research to
establish a potential publication record. Interactions with within-com-
munity network partners and early involvement in research appeared to
further solidify shared goals within the Perceiving Fit students’ develop-
mental networks.
Conversely, interactions in individual-development supporting devel-
opmental networks appeared to contradict the overarching program-
goals communicated to students. In terms of relationships, the Assessing
Fit students identified and relied on a combination of relationships both
within and outside of the Valley community. The key relationships iden-
tified by the Assessing Fit students included Valley faculty and family
members including spouses, siblings, and parents. Several of the Assess-
ing Fit students said maintaining relationships outside of Valley was so
important to maintaining balance. Perhaps more important, the Assess-
ing Fit students said their relationships with these individuals helped to
remind them of their original purpose for enrolling in a doctoral pro-
gram, which was individual development and learning. The within de-
velopmental network focus on learning and development removed some
of the performance pressure that the students said they felt based on pro-
gram goals alone. One Assessing Fit faculty advisor communicated to
me that he advised his student to focus less on the actual grade on a
given assignment, and to spend more time working through ideas of in-
terest, even if it resulted in a “relatively crappy paper.” By emphasizing
22 The Journal of Higher Education
the learning, the Assessing Fit students did not feel the need to prioritize
the roles they held (doctoral student, research assistant, and teacher). In
fact, the Assessing Fit students, along with their network partners,
viewed the roles as opportunities to develop and hone skills, therefore
making it less important to view one role as more important than
another.
Proposition 3:
Within developmental network socialization is more important to in-
dividual student progression and program success and “trumps” the
socialization that occurs at the program and institutional-levels.
The focus on within developmental networks does, however, fuel a
chicken-or-the-egg-type debate. Are the students coming into the acade-
mic program with these beliefs and therefore developing relationships
with individuals that support their already existing goals? In other
words, are students seeking out individuals that tell them what they want
to hear rather than building relationships with individuals that challenge
existing values and goals? Or, are students’ developmental networks the
major source of influence throughout the experience? During the first
year, the faculty relationships students identified were with faculty they
were assigned to work with during that year. It is important to note that
while every student was assigned an academic advisor, not every student
mentioned the faculty advisor as important to the first year experience.
Furthermore, several students were married or in committed relation-
ships and not all students discussed those relationships as important to
first year success. Therefore, future research which continues to explore
(a) which relationships are important and why, (b) within developmental
network experiences, and (c) the changing nature of students’ develop-
mental networks will contribute to research on developmental networks
and the role they play in an organizational context and on professional
identity development.
Role Prioritization and Fit
My outcome of interest was professional identity development and I
was interested in exploring the factors that influenced this process. One
contributing factor that I believed to be important was students’ percep-
tions about and their development in three key roles: doctoral student,
research assistant, and teacher. I asserted that students would either
identify or disidentify with these roles. If students identified with these
roles, I believed they would be likely to persist. Conversely, if students
Student Professional Identity Development 23
disidentified with any of the roles, they would be more likely to with-
draw from doctoral study. However, the empirical evidence revealed that
for all 12 students who participated in the study, role identification and
role disidentification did not adequately address the differences between
the students’ experiences and perceptions surrounding the three roles.
This was especially true for the Assessing Fit students because these stu-
dents appeared to identify with the three roles (doctoral student, re-
search assistant, teacher), but they did not place the roles in the same
priority that Valley preferred or socialized them to accept.
This observation led me to consider an important question: can doc-
toral students persist to degree attainment if individual role priority does
not match program role priority? During the doctoral student experi-
ence, it may be possible for a student to accept the given roles of doc-
toral student, research assistant, and teacher but not place the roles in the
same priority that veteran organizational members assign to them. Per-
haps the doctoral student is more interested in teaching than research,
but still has an interest in research. In this instance, the student struggles
not with the roles themselves, but with the priority placed on the given
roles by veteran organizational members. This disconnect is likely to
trigger students’ assessment of fit with the doctoral program and possi-
bly with the faculty career. Person–environment fit is defined as the
“compatibility between an individual and a work environment that oc-
curs when their characteristics are well matched” (Kristof-Brown, Zim-
merman, & Johnson, 2005, p. 281). Lovitts (2001) noted that graduate
programs place too little emphasis on fit between a student’s interest and
the program’s strength. Therefore, the notion of fit is important in the
context of doctoral education because it can shed light onto issues such
as doctoral student development and persistence.
Differences within developmental network socialization are likely to
contribute to students’ perceptions of fit. Many students described their
apprehension in communicating doubt about choice of program of study
or research career to faculty and administrators involved in the program
because they feared they would lose faculty support or funding. The
Perceiving Fit students, as noted previously, heard the same messages
communicated within their developmental networks as they did from the
program-level. Again, this reinforced their notion of fit with the pro-
gram and expectations of the faculty career. This fear of negative
reprisal may have accounted for the composition of the Assessing Fit
students’ developmental networks. Developmental network type (inter-
nal-mission or individual-development) and the resulting socialization
may be associated with doctoral students’ evaluation of fit with the
surrounding environment.
24 The Journal of Higher Education
Proposition 4:
4a: Internal-mission supporting networks contribute to students’ per-
ceptions of fit because of the congruence between within network
goals, institutional or disciplinary goals, and the way students prior-
itize academic roles.
4b: Individual-development supporting networks contribute to stu-
dents’ questioning of fit because of the difference between within net-
work goals, institutional or disciplinary goals, and the way students
prioritize academic roles.
I did not develop the study with the notion of fit in mind. Rather, fit
was a consistent theme among the students and across interview times.
Findings suggest that perceptions of fit influenced students’ develop-
ment of the prototypical professional identity they were socialized to ac-
cept (Sweitzer, 2008). The Perceiving Fit students appeared to initially
accept Valley’s prototypical professional identity because of the congru-
ence between developmental network goals and Valley’s goals. Con-
versely, the Assessing Fit students were still questioning fit due to the
apparent incongruence between developmental network goals and Val-
ley’s goals. By studying this phenomenon longitudinally, one could ex-
amine the point at which fit supports or hinders professional identity de-
velopment or persistence. In other words, at what level is questioning of
fit so overwhelming that it causes a student to leave a particular institu-
tion or the faculty career entirely? Additional longitudinal research
would reveal the connection, if one exists, between fit perceptions and
type of placement post graduation as well as further explain the associa-
tion between developmental networks and fit over time. Other research
questions worth exploring include, can a student have a mismatched role
priority with the program but still persist because of the support pro-
vided within his/her developmental network?
Professional Identity Development
Research has found that individuals’ developmental networks con-
tribute to professional identity development (Dobrow & Higgins, 2005)
and findings from my previous work contribute to this line of research
(Sweitzer, 2008). However, it is important to note that student’ relation-
ships (e.g., developmental networks) influence the professional identity
development process in different ways. As noted in Model 1, the Per-
ceiving Fit students’ developmental networks supported the develop-
ment of the “prototypical” professional identity that Valley socialized
Student Professional Identity Development 25
students to adopt. The Assessing Fit students’ relationships, on the other
hand, encouraged students to focus on their learning and individual de-
velopment (See Model 2). As suggested earlier, the Assessing Fit stu-
dents were also developing professional identities as future faculty
members, but their conception of the faculty career and what it means to
be a faculty member differed from those of the Perceiving Fit students
because of the nonredundancy in messages and the nature of their devel-
opmental networks (Granovetter, 1973). In other words, the different
messages communicated and types of support provided by network part-
ners to these two groups of students influenced the professional identity
development process, resulting in different conceptions of the faculty
career.
Proposition 5:
5a: High susceptibility to socialization and messages communicated
by internal-mission supporting networks and the academic program
lead to students’ prioritization of academic roles matching the pro-
gram’s prioritization because of the primary focus on achievement of
institutional goals (i.e., “Top” 50 placement).
5b: Low susceptibility to socialization and nonredundant messages
communicated to students by their individual-development support-
ing networks and the academic program lead to students’ mismatched
prioritization of academic roles because of the primary focus on indi-
vidual goals rather than institutional goals.
The suggested propositions of professional identity development con-
tinue to fuel the longstanding debate—what is the purpose of doctoral
education? It would be naïve to suggest that programs are not concerned
with their reputation or placement of students and that these factors do
not play a role in the socialization process and other program-related ex-
periences students are exposed to while enrolled in a doctoral program.
However, as Prewitt (2006) suggested, doctoral programs need to “take a
hard look at how doctoral training can be better designed to teach the
skills and instill the habits of the mind that, in fact, will increase the
odds of careers success . . .” (p. 26). This statement suggests that al-
though research is fundamental to PhD-level training, doctoral programs
are missing the mark because the majority of individuals who graduate
from doctoral programs at the top research institutions do not always
place at comparable institutions (Austin & Wulff, 2004; Prewitt, 2006).
The models of doctoral student professional identity development
described earlier account for the differences in within developmental
26 The Journal of Higher Education
network experiences and the influence those differences are likely to
have on students on the path to the professoriate. Both the Perceiving Fit
and Assessing Fit students began to develop professional identities as fu-
ture faculty members in business; however, their conceptions at the end
of the first year varied. It appears that even within the same college of
business, students were being exposed to different experiences. The Per-
ceiving Fit students might be likely to achieve the ideal touted by Valley
which would enable them to earn “Top 50” placement because of their
willingness to accept the existing model of success. The Assessing Fit
students, on the other hand, may be at risk for attrition in the Valley con-
text. It is important to note, however, that the Perceiving Fit and Assess-
ing Fit characterizations I assigned to the students or the models de-
scribed in this paper were not and are not based on students’ quality of
work or academic performance and do not indicate such.
Discussion
The goal of this paper was to theoretically advance the study of doc-
toral education by proposing models of doctoral student professional
identity development that draw on literatures from higher education and
organization studies. The models offer insight into students’ multiple re-
lationships, labeled developmental networks, and the role they play in
shaping students’ experiences and the development that occurs while on
the path to the professoriate. Specifically, the models posit a relationship
between developmental networks and key outcomes important to the
doctoral student experience, namely fit and professional identity devel-
opment. The models draw on four key variables—individual differences,
within developmental network experiences, the proposed relationship
between interactions with network partners and role prioritization, and
fit thus influencing professional identity development, which aided in
the development of working propositions and future research directions.
Contributions
This article and the proposed models contribute to research on doc-
toral education in several ways. First, it serves as a starting point for the
third generation of doctoral education research as described by Austin
and Wulff (2004) on several fronts. The proposed models acknowledge
and account for the focal student’s experiences and the experiences and
perspectives of the individuals most involved with the student from both
within and outside the academic community. To date, the majority of re-
search on doctoral education has regarded the advisor as the most criti-
cal relationship to doctoral student success with a predominant focus on
Student Professional Identity Development 27
within academic community relationships only. While Tinto’s (1993)
model accounted for external relationships as important to persistence,
these relationships are not considered a factor until the third stage of the
doctoral student experience. Both Tinto (1993) and Weidman et al.
(2001) discussed students’ outside relationships as important, yet funda-
mental to their models is a predominant focus on faculty-student men-
toring relationships which encourages a dyadic focus. The models I pro-
pose in this paper not only account for the influence of external
communities beginning in year one, but the models are a first attempt at
moving beyond within academic community relationships only by
proposing that students’ developmental networks and the experiences
that occur within those networks may be more important than program-
level socialization.
Second, the models draw on literatures from higher education and or-
ganization studies to explore the importance of a variety of relationships
to a student’s developing conception of the faculty career while recog-
nizing the variety of roles a student is likely to juggle that may influence
that development in different ways. This research makes an important
contribution to our understanding of the role relationships, within and
outside of the academic community, have on doctoral students’ profes-
sional identity development, an area seriously understudied in the litera-
ture. Weidman, et al. (2001) discussed the need for more student sup-
port, particularly from faculty as important to socialization and
professionalization. Again, faculty relationships are important, but near
sole reliance on faculty relationships fails to acknowledge that students
rely on a myriad of relationships and those relationships may be just as
important, if not more important, than faculty or advanced students in
the academic program. In fact, if students question fit with the academic
program or faculty career, they may be more inclined to rely on individ-
uals outside of the academic community for fear of negative reprisal. As
such, a social networks approach allows the focal individual to identify
the critical individuals involved in one’s developmental network which
facilitates the examination of types of relationships, the nature and fre-
quency of interactions, and the variety of outcomes associated with
those relationships.
Third, the models are based on longitudinal data collected from the
first year doctoral student experience as an attempt to capture changes
in developmental networks and how students’ network of relationships
influence the professional identity development process. Tinto (1993)
stated longitudinal research on doctoral education was needed “to trace
out over time the experiences and differential outcomes of a sample of
beginning doctoral students” (p. 241). By exploring the experience
28 The Journal of Higher Education
longitudinally using a developmental networks approach, it is possible
to truly capture the dynamic environment of doctoral education as de-
scribed by Weidman et al. (2001). Relationships within and outside of
the academic community can no longer be ignored when examining
doctoral education. Both worlds influence students’ experiences
throughout all stages of a doctoral program, result in expectations
which may conflict with those communicated by the academic pro-
gram, and help to shape individuals’ personal and professional selves
(Ibarra, 1999).
Practical Implications
As the models suggest, the faculty advisor is not always the most im-
portant relationship, particularly in the first year. Unlike the traditional
undergraduate student, most doctoral students have outside responsibili-
ties that extend beyond their academic pursuits and may conflict with
doctoral studies. However, most doctoral programs fail to acknowledge
this reality. Family support, particularly for the Assessing Fit students,
was regarded as the most important factor to first year success. This sug-
gests that doctoral programs would likely benefit by instituting policies
that allow for work-personal balance at the doctoral student level or that,
at a minimum, encourage family involvement in the academic as well as
social community. Institutions such as Princeton University and the Uni-
versity of California are investigating and instituting such policies
(Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008). In the case of
Valley, once perceived detractors such as marital or parental status or
substantial prior work experience may not be as detrimental as once
thought by the faculty and could instead be used more effectively in so-
cialization efforts.
Social network theory, or a developmental networks approach, allows
for an examination of interactions between individuals which provides
insight into the doctoral student experience. As Lovitts (2004) noted,
one cause of attrition is program culture. An important component of
program culture is the messages communicated between organizational
veterans and newcomers. The messages communicated to students, par-
ticularly early in the doctoral student experience, serve as critical
sources of information and set the tone for performance expectations
and future interactions. Inconsistent messages communicated between
new students and faculty, or between program and developmental net-
work, can lead to confusion and frustration or even a lack of information
that may lead to withdrawal. Alternatively, inconsistent messages may
serve as a “saving grace” for students to explore areas of personal inter-
est despite the messages communicated program-wide.
Student Professional Identity Development 29
Limitations
While this paper contributes to research on doctoral education there
are a few limitations worth noting. First, the data gathered and study
participants were from a single site—Valley University College of Busi-
ness—from five business disciplines. As a result, it is not appropriate at
this time to compare these students’ experiences to other doctoral stu-
dents’ experiences at the University or across universities. These models
were developed to be tested across a variety of disciplines in order to as-
sess their generalizability.
Second, although this study is one of a few that uses a longitudinal
rather than retrospective approach, the models were based on the first-
year experience only. In order to truly develop a comprehensive theory
of doctoral student professional identity development, an examination of
the entire experience is necessary across a multitude of disciplines.
Conclusion
The expectations of the faculty career are changing in many fields
and across institutional types. Pressures for promotion and tenure such
as “A-level” (top-tier) publications in top academic journals, procure-
ment of external funding, and earning a reputation for being the best
among one’s peers are becoming overwhelming. The pressures doctoral
students face, and continue to face, at Valley and other doctoral pro-
grams are immense and require personal and professional support to
meet these challenges successfully. I argue that it is the relationships
students have and develop, within and outside of the academic commu-
nity, that provide that necessary support and findings from this study
begin to address “how and why relationships matter” to professional
and personal development while on the path to the professoriate. Until
recently, few studies on doctoral education have included the variety of
relationships students deem critical to success. I argue that most, if not
all, individuals rely on relationships in and out of the work context to
provide support, advice, guidance, and nurturing. Doctoral students are
no different, and this study reveals that students’ personal and profes-
sional lives merge and can have an enormous impact on their profes-
sional identity development while on the path to the professoriate.
Clearly, more research is needed in a variety of disciplines to under-
stand the influence of students’ multiple developmental relationships
on professional identity development, but this study provides a useful
starting point for future research.
30 The Journal of Higher Education
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.
Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a
qualitative definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 353 –556.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1987). Mothers’ beliefs about the role of ability and effort in
school learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 409 – 414.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning
strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260 –267.
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate schools as so-
cialization 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: Grad-
uate student socialization for faculty roles. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research. Springer: The Netherlands.
Austin, A. E., & Wulff, D. H. (2004). The challenge to prepare the next generation of
faculty. In D. Wulff & A. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for en-
riching the preparation of future faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Braxton, J. M., & Baird, L. L. (2001). Preparation for professional self-regulation. Sci-
ence and Engineering Ethics, 7, 593 –610.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardener, P. D. (1994).
Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 79(5), 730 –743.
Colbeck, C. L. (2002). Integration: Evaluating faculty work as a whole. In C. Colbeck
(Ed.), Evaluating faculty performance, new directions for institutional research
(pp. 43 –52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory of goal orientation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1096 –1127.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical
decision making: A study of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 93(2), 374–391.
Dobrow, S. R., & Higgins, M. C. (2005). Developmental networks and professional
identity: A longitudinal study. Career Development International, 10(6/7), 567–583.
Dweck, C. S. (1996). Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior. In P. M. Goll-
witzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action. Linking cognition and motiva-
tion to behavior (pp. 69 –90). New York: Guilford Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,
41, 1040 –1048.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 4(4), 532–550.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relation-
ships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning
outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 218 –233.
Student Professional Identity Development 31
Gardner, S. K. (2007). “I heard it through the grapevine”: Doctoral student socialization
in chemisty and history. Higher Education, 54, 723 –740.
Gersick, C. J. G., Bartunek, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Learning from academia: The
importance of relationships in professional life. Academy of Management Journal,
43(6), 1026 –1044.
Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition.
In M.S. Anderson (Ed.), The experience of being in graduate school: An exploration
(pp. 55 –64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Golde, C. M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral
attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199 –227.
Graham, S. (2003). Motivation. In J. W. Guthrie (Editor in Chief ), Encyclopedia of
education, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 78(6), 1360 –1380.
Green, S. G. (1991). Professional entry and the adviser relationship. Group & Organiza-
tion Studies, 16(4), 387– 407.
Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisors: Relationships
with doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel Psychology,
48(3), 537–562.
Giuffe, K. A. (1999). Sandpiles of opportunity: Success in the art world. Social Forces,
77, 815 –832.
Hall, D. T. (1968). Identity changes during the transition from student to professor.
School Review, 76, 445 – 469.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing
knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
82–111.
Higgins, M., & Kram, K. (2001) Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmen-
tal network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 264–288.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in profes-
sional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791.
Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2005). Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals
and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization
Science, 16 (4), 359 –371.
Kadushin, C. (2004). Introduction to social network theory. Retrieved January 12, 2005.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ckadushin/Texts/Basic%20Network%20Concepts .
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integra-
tive/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition [Monograph]. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78, 311–328.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of in-
dividuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-
group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in enter-
ing unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2),
226 –251.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of depar-
ture from doctoral study. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
32 The Journal of Higher Education
Lovitts, B. E. (2004). Research on the structure and process of graduate education: Re-
taining students. In D. E. Wulff & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, K. (2002). Individual differences can both facilitate and limit individual devel-
opment. In M. Pearn (Ed.), Individual differences and development in organizations
(pp. 53 –70). Dublin: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Relationships and resources: Social networks and
mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 16, 18 –21.
Prewitt, K. (2006). Who should do what: Implications for institutional and national lead-
ers. In C. M. Golde & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral educa-
tion: Preparing stewards of the discipline. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Robole, D. D. (2003). Zooming in: The impact of primary relationships on doctoral stu-
dent persistence. (Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin 2003).
Proquest Dissertation & Theses—AAT 3118067.
Schein, E. H. (1971). Occupational socialization in the professions: The case of role
innovation. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 8, 521–530.
Sweitzer, V. (2007). Professional identity development among business doctoral stu-
dents: A social networks perspective. (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity 2007). Proquest Dissertation & Theses—AAT 3266209.
Sweitzer, V. (2008). Networking to develop a professional identity: A look at the first-
semester experience of doctoral students in business. In C. Colbeck, K. O’Meara, &
A. Austin (Eds.), Educating integrated professionals: Theory and practice on prepa-
ration of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Towler, A. J., & Dipboye, R. L. (2003). Development of a learning style orientation
measure. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 216 –235.
Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation
interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617.
Trice, H. M. (1993). Occupational subcultures in the workplace. New York: IRL Press.
Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The for-
mation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and
professional students in higher education: A perilous passage. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report 28, no. 3, Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher
Education.
Wulff, D. H., & Austin, A. E. (Eds.) (2004). Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for
enriching the preparation of future faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wulff, D. H., Austin, A. E., Nyquist, J. D., & Sprague, J. (2004). The development of
graduate students as teaching scholars: A four-year longitudinal study. In D. Wulff &
A. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation
of future faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Student Professional Identity Development 33
This chapter explores the benefits of enhancing doctoral
students’ abilities to exploit the synergies among their
multiple academic identities.
Professional Identity Development
Theory and Doctoral Education
Carol L. Colbeck
The academic profession is among a limited number of occupations that
have attained the professional status associated with comparatively high lev-
els of prestige, monetary rewards, security, and autonomy. Traits that most
professions have in common include a specialized body of knowledge that
supports the skills needed to practice the profession, a culture sustained by
a professional association, an ethical code for professional practice, recog-
nized authority based on exclusive expertise, and an imperative to serve the
public responsibly (Greenwood, 1957; Silva, 2000).
Students learn their chosen profession’s abstract body of professional
knowledge and its associated skills during lengthy degree programs and
apprenticeships. Students also observe the behaviors, attitudes, and norms
for social interaction prevalent among practitioners of their profession. They
interpret their observations in light of their own prior experiences, their
goals for the future, and their current sense of who they are and will try on
possible professional selves to see how well they fit (Ibarra, 1999). In the
process, each student is crafting a sense of identity as a particular type
of professional. The period of doctoral preparation is particularly important
because although identity is resistant to change, adaptations to one’s sense
of self are more likely to occur when one is transitioning to a new role (Cast,
2003; Ibarra, 1999). According to Austin and McDaniels (2006), develop-
ing an identity as a professional scholar is an essential task for a doctoral
student.
9
1
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING, no. 113, Spring 2008 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/tl.304
10 EDUCATING INTEGRATED PROFESSIONALS
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
In this chapter, I use identity and professionalization theories to explore
how doctoral students develop identities as professionals and how their
educational contexts shape the nature of their professional identities as inte-
grated or fragmented. I also discuss the implications of integrated or frag-
mented identities for their future careers as faculty members as well as for
the academic profession as a whole.
Identity Theory
Identity is “what it means to be who one is” (Burke, 2003a, p. 1), and indi-
viduals’ identities are often associated with labels for social positions or
roles. Role labels convey meanings and expectations for behavior that have
evolved from countless interactions among people in a social system. In a
research university setting, for example, the role labels “sophomore,” “first-
year doctoral student,” “teaching assistant,” “postdoc,” “new assistant pro-
fessor,” “chemist,” and “writing specialist” instantly convey varying sets of
expectations for how much time the individuals filling these roles will spend
in the library, lab, or office and the number and nature of their interactions
with freshmen, doctoral students, or tenured faculty members.
Roles are externally defined by other’s expectations, but individuals define
their own identities internally as they accept or reject social role expectations
as part of who they are (Stryker and Burke, 2000). Once an individual has
accepted and internalized expectations for a role as part of his or her identity,
that identity becomes a cognitive framework for interpreting new experiences.
For example, a first-year doctoral student who had spent much time and effort
negotiating admission to a prestigious biochemistry program and is trying on
the possible identity of serious scholar may be more likely to feel her profes-
sional identity validated by a professor’s invitation to a research colloquium
than by another student’s invitation to a workshop on effective teaching.
Multiple Identities. On the other hand, this doctoral student may face
some identity challenges if she began her doctoral program with an already
established identity as a dedicated high school biology teacher. People live and
work within many social networks. Individuals may have as many identities
as the number of groups within which they engage in distinctive roles (Stryker
and Burke, 2000). According to Stryker (1968), individuals organize their
identities in a hierarchy that affects the likelihood that one identity will be
more salient than other identities in any given situation. If the teaching work-
shop and the research colloquium are on different days, the doctoral student
may accept invitations to both activities; her existing teacher identity will be
activated at the first event and her emerging research identity at the second.
When two identities with contrasting meanings and expectations are
activated at the same time, an individual is likely to experience stress. In our
example, the doctoral student might feel stressed if the colloquium and the
workshop are scheduled during the same time period. To further explore
how individuals cope with identity conflicts, assume that the new doctoral
11PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT THEORY AND DOCTORAL EDUCATION
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
student receives the invitations to the research colloquium and the teach-
ing workshop during the same informal conversation with faculty and peers
after a graduate student orientation event.
According to Stryker’s articulation of identity theory, the student will
decide in favor of the identity most salient to her (Stryker, 1968; Stryker and
Burke, 2000). Salience will be determined by her level of commitment to
each identity. Commitment, in turn, is shaped by the extensiveness or num-
ber of social connections or role partners one has in relation to an identity
and the intensiveness or depth of those relationships with role partners. She
may well decide to go to the research colloquium if the teaching role part-
ner extending the workshop invitation is a new student from a humanities
program whom she has only just met and the research role partner extend-
ing the invitation to the biochemistry colloquium is her academic advisor.
But if the person offering the teaching workshop opportunity is an advanced
biochemistry student who will be supervising the new student’s work as a
teaching assistant for the introductory biology course during her first semes-
ter, the doctoral student may experience some stress, not only about the
immediate decision and her perceptions of the expectations held by each
role partner but also because of the meaning her behavior holds for who she
is. Her researcher and teacher identities would be in conflict. To favor one
identity, she may need to adjust her self-perception of the other identity.
A less stressful scenario involving simultaneous activation of two iden-
tities with similar levels of salience and commitment will occur if the
identities involve shared meanings. If the doctoral student’s goals include
conducting research on science learning and her advisor also values schol-
arly research on teaching, the student’s identities will be consistent and
mutually reinforcing (Burke, 2003b). Although she will still have to choose
between activities because of the time conflict, she may be able to negotiate
with her advisor and supervisor to determine which activity will the best for
her integrated professional development.
Negative Impact of Multiple Identities. Too often, however, resolution
of identity conflict is not as easy for future faculty—or, indeed, for current
faculty—as portrayed in the example just given. Identities as teacher, re-
searcher, participant in institutional governance, and provider of community
service are all aspects of being a member of the academic profession. Much
research about faculty work assumes that these identities and the activities
associated with them are distinct, mutually exclusive, and conflicting (see
Braxton, 1996; Colbeck, 1998). Similarly, colleges and universities evaluate
faculty members’ teaching, research, and service separately (Colbeck, 2002).
This expectation that academic identities are distinct and separate has resulted
in such problems as stress and reduced commitment to one or more roles.
Identity theory suggests that the current prioritization of research in
doctoral programs and faculty careers may actually intensify feelings of
time-related pressure and stress. According to Marks (1977), people tend
to experience time and energy as scarce if the activities and role partners
12 EDUCATING INTEGRATED PROFESSIONALS
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
associated with their different identities are isolated from each other. This
effect is exacerbated when people feel higher levels of commitment to some
identities and lower levels of commitment to others. Thus doctoral students
who are more highly committed to their researcher identities than teacher
identities may resent time they must devote to teaching assistantships. This
appears to be the case for many current faculty. Using data from nationwide
surveys of U.S. faculty, Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) report that on aver-
age, faculty prefer to do research even as they face ever greater expectations
to pay more attention to teaching, and the resulting stress may negatively
affect their work.
One negative effect particularly relevant to doctoral education would
occur if a student who has a high commitment to her identity as a teacher
chooses not to subordinate it in order to make herself fit the dominant
researcher identity promoted by the faculty in her program. In that case, a
potentially excellent and well-rounded future faculty member might select
herself out of the market for tenure-track positions in favor of fixed-term
teaching-only positions, or she might leave the academy altogether. “When
individuals are confronted with a persistent mismatch between identity
meanings and perceptions of the social environment, one possibility is sim-
ply to exit the role” (Cast, 2003, p. 45n).
Benefits of Multiple Identities. Alternatively, theory and prior research
about the positive effects of multiple identities in the work and family realm
show how doctoral education can enable future faculty members to manage
their several professional role identities successfully and productively (Col-
beck, 2007; Marks, 1977; Thoits, 2003). Marks (1977), for example, theo-
rized that individuals who feel high levels of commitment to each of several
role identities may gain rather than lose energy as they engage in activities
related to two or more of their identities. Furthermore, empirical research
has found positive associations between active engagement in both work
and family roles and mental well-being, physical health, self-esteem, and
resilience in the face of setbacks (see Barnett and Hyde, 2001; Thoits, 2003).
Developing a sense of shared meanings across different identities,
whether those identities are invoked within a single group or within intersect-
ing groups (Burke, 2003b), may help doctoral students craft professional iden-
tities that integrate their identities as researcher, teacher, and service provider.
Such integration may enhance their work efficiency and effectiveness.
Doctoral students’ multiple identities may be activated concurrently
within a single group. An example would be in a laboratory science research
group led by the student’s faculty advisor that employs undergraduates super-
vised by the doctoral student. In this example, the doctoral student’s identi-
ties as advisee, researcher, and laboratory teacher may come to have similar
levels of salience and commitment because they are activated together around
the shared purpose of addressing a research problem. This role integration
has the potential to reduce time-based conflicts while enhancing teaching
effectiveness and scholarly productivity. In a recent qualitative study of role
13PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT THEORY AND DOCTORAL EDUCATION
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
integration, faculty who perceived synergies among their academic roles found
ways to accomplish multiple goals with single activities (Colbeck, 2007). One
participant reported that his—and his doctoral students’—publication and
grant productivity increased significantly after he added scholarly research
about teaching in his discipline to his basic scientific research.
Doctoral students’ multiple identities may also be activated simultane-
ously when they are in the presence of two groups of persons who do not
usually overlap and who have differing sets of expectations for the student.
An example of such a situation might involve a doctoral student with a pre-
existing identity as a community activist. Because of her role as a respected
leader of a community environmental group, she participates in a town-
gown meeting involving other community members and university admin-
istrators in discussions about how the university might adopt sustainable
practices that would initially involve some cost to the university but would
enhance quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood. If the doctoral stu-
dent brings her scholarly expertise to bear on helping the university and
community group work toward agreement on a sustainability plan, the stu-
dent’s identities will reinforce each other (Burke, 2003b). Such role integra-
tion is likely to enhance her energy and productivity, especially if she
documents and analyzes these efforts in publications that meet scholarly
standards in her discipline (O’Meara, 2002).
Professional Work, Integrated Identities
Finding shared meanings and integrating all the professional identities
involved in faculty work are important to enhance doctoral students’ produc-
tivity, time and energy management, and well-being. But such an integrated
understanding of faculty professional work is also important to the academy
itself in order to slow the creeping deskilling and deprofessionalization of aca-
demic work (Rhoades, 1998). Professions are characterized by autonomy and
professional authority, resting on expertise—distinctive bodies of knowledge
that aspiring practitioners learn during long periods of specialized training.
Professional work is complex and multilayered, and it involves expert judg-
ment to solve nonroutine problems (Abbott, 1988; Scott, 2002). Hence a new
faculty member educated to become an integrated professional is able to apply
research skills to improve his teaching and his students’ learning; to derive
penetrating questions that advance his research agenda from thoughtful
communication with students; and to define, analyze, and resolve real-world
problems in partnership with interdisciplinary colleagues, students, and com-
munity members.
The notion that complicated and distinctive knowledge is embodied in
well-educated professionals stands in stark contrast to another common way
of managing complex work: bureaucratic division of labor (Scott, 2002).
Abbott described the effect of dividing complex (and integrated) professional
work into routine and nonroutine elements: “In every case, the eventual result
14 EDUCATING INTEGRATED PROFESSIONALS
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
has been the degradation of what had been professional work to nonprofes-
sional status, sometimes accompanied by the degradation of those who do the
work” (1988, pp. 125–126). He argues that division of labor between a “truly
professional” group (such as tenured university professors) and a group with
lower status and pay (such as fixed-term faculty with primary responsibility
for teaching or directors of campus public service centers) undermines the
lower-status group and places greater demands on the group who retain
higher professional status. Such processes have occurred in medicine over the
past few decades (Friedson, 2001) and are already at work in academe.
My concern here is less for the professional status of current and future
faculty than for maintaining and enhancing the quality, creativity, effective-
ness, and integrity of academic work. Fragmenting research, teaching, com-
munity engagement—not just into separate roles but into separate jobs—may
enhance administrative flexibility and control, but at the expense of current
and future faculty members’ abilities to perceive and exploit connections.
Such connections between research, teaching, and community service might
enable them to address complex problems in ways that advance personal,
economic, social, and public development. Educating doctoral students to
find the synergistic connections between their multiple academic identities
is a way of “reprofessionalizing” academic work, one student at a time.
Recommendations
Doctoral programs and their faculty should create contexts that encourage
students to develop and integrate their professional identities of researcher,
teacher, and engaged public scholar. According to Yehudi Elkana, president
of the Central European University:
Leaders in the disciplines must understand the critical roles of curricula and
pedagogical work in their field and how deeply these functions are affected by
the same epistemological understandings that relate to the research role. They
must recognize, empirically, that most of those who earn the doctorate will
spend far more time teaching and engaging with a variety of publics—in indus-
try, policy, and community settings—than they will at the frontiers of science.
Doctoral education must equip students to work in these settings [2006, p. 66].
Prior research has shown that current faculty integrate their research,
teaching, and service more than they recognize. For some, the process of dis-
cussing their role and identity integration led them to realize how doing so
has enhanced their work (Colbeck, 1998; 2007). If current faculty were
encouraged to share the evolution and the effects of their professional iden-
tity integration with doctoral students, both groups would benefit. Specific
classes, workshops, and programs can be designed or revamped to highlight
benefits attainable from integrating research, teaching, and service identities.
15PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT THEORY AND DOCTORAL EDUCATION
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
Faculty and administrators can also foster integration of doctoral stu-
dents’ teaching, research, and service identities by creating cultures in their
doctoral programs that elucidate shared meanings across the various aspects
of academic work. For example, learning for the purpose of producing
knowledge could be advocated as a mission that unifies teaching, research,
and service (Lattuca and Colbeck, 2007). With that mission guiding all
aspects of doctoral students’ professional development, students might be
more likely to perceive opportunities to integrate academic identities. For
example, when a doctoral student is teaching undergraduates in the class-
room, he may see his professional work as helping students develop deep
understandings of knowledge they can use inside and outside the classroom.
Similarly, the doctoral student may see his research as producing knowledge
that can be used to advance theory or application in his discipline.
How doctoral students come to see themselves as professionals has
implications far beyond the colleges and universities where they will
become employed. These future faculty will become the educators and role
models for future attorneys, nurses, business managers, industrial chemists,
psychologists, journalists, and practitioners of many other professions who
will learn their respective bodies of knowledge while attending degree pro-
grams in institutions of higher education. Universities, then, help define the
professions (Brint, 1994), and “whatever model of professionalism prevails
on campuses shapes the nature of professionalism in all professions” (Klay,
Brower, and Williams, 2001, p. 46). Ideally, the students of faculty who are
themselves integrated professionals will also learn how to accomplish com-
plex work that requires judgment and skill (Friedson, 1994; Abbott, 1988)
and to manage and integrate multiple professional and personal identities
successfully.
References
Abbott, A. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Austin, A. E., and McDaniels, M. “Using Doctoral Education to Prepare Faculty to Work
Within Boyer’s Four Domains of Scholarship.” In J. M. Braxton (ed.), Analyzing Fac-
ulty Work and Rewards: Using Boyer’s Four Domains of Scholarship. New Directions for
Institutional Research, no. 129. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2006.
Barnett, R. C., and Hyde, J. S. “Women, Men, Work, and Family: An Expansionist The-
ory.” American Psychologist, 2001, 56, 781–796.
Braxton, J. M. (ed.). Faculty Teaching and Research: Is There a Conflict? New Directions
for Teaching and Research, no. 90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Brint, S. In an Age of Experts: The Changing Role of Professionals in Politics and Public Life.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Burke, P. J. “Introduction.” In P. J. Burke, T. J. Owens, R. T. Serpe, and P. A. Thoits (eds.),
Advances in Identity Theory and Research. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2003a.
Burke, P. J. “Relationships Among Multiple Identities.” In P. J. Burke, T. J. Owens, R. T.
Serpe, and P. A. Thoits (eds.), Advances in Identity Theory and Research. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2003b.
16 EDUCATING INTEGRATED PROFESSIONALS
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
Cast, A. D. “Identities and Behavior.” In P. J. Burke, T. J. Owens, R. T. Serpe, and P. A.
Thoits (eds.), Advances in Identity Theory and Research. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum, 2003.
Colbeck, C. L. “Merging in a Seamless Blend: How Faculty Integrate Teaching and
Research.” Journal of Higher Education, 1998, 69, 647–671.
Colbeck, C. L. “Integration: Evaluating Faculty Work as a Whole.” In C. L. Colbeck
(ed.), Evaluating Faculty Performance. New Directions for Institutional Research, no.
114. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
Colbeck, C. L. “Academic Staff and Disciplinary Perspectives on Integrating Teaching
and Research.” Paper presented at the colloquium on International Policies and Prac-
tices for Academic Inquiry, Marwell, England, Apr. 2007.
Elkana, Y. “Unmasking Uncertainties, Embracing Contradictions: Graduate Education
in the Sciences.” In C. M. Golde and G. F. Walker (eds.), Envisioning the Future of Doc-
toral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2006.
Friedson, E. Professionalism Reborn: Theory, Prophesy, and Policy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1994.
Friedson, E. Professionalism: The Third Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Greenwood, E. “Attributes of a Profession.” Social Work, 1957, 2, 45–55.
Ibarra, H. “Provisional Selves: Experimenting with Image and Identity in Professional
Adaptation.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44, 764–791.
Klay, W. E., Brower, R., and Williams, B. “A Community-Oriented Model of Academic
Professionalism.” Metropolitan Universities, 2001, 12(3), 14–50.
Lattuca, L. R., and Colbeck, C. L. “Producing Knowledge: An Integrated Public Research
University Mission.” In R. L. Geiger, C. L. Colbeck, R. L. Williams, and C. K. Ander-
son (eds.), The Future of the American Public Research University. Rotterdam, Nether-
lands: Sense Publishers, 2007.
Marks, S. R. “Multiple Roles and Role Strain: Some Notes on Human Energy, Time, and
Commitment.” American Sociological Review, 1977, 42, 27–42.
O’Meara, K. ”Uncovering the Values in Faculty Evaluation of Service as Scholarship.”
Review of Higher Education, 2002, 26, 57–80.
Rhoades, G. Managed Professionals: Unionized Faculty and Restructuring Academic Labor.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.
Schuster, J. H., and Finkelstein, M. J. The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Aca-
demic Work and Careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.
Scott, W. R. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 2002.
Silva, M. K. “Accreditation, Knowledge, and Strategies of Professionalizing Occupations.”
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education Policy Studies, Pennsyl-
vania State University, 2000.
Stryker, S. “Identity Salience and Role Performance.” Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily, 1968, 4, 558–564.
Stryker, S., and Burke, P. J. “The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory.” Social
Psychology Quarterly, 2000, 63, 284–297.
Thoits, P. A. “Personal Agency in the Accumulation of Multiple Identities.” In P. J.
Burke, T. J. Owens, R. T. Serpe, and P. A. Thoits (eds.), Advances in Identity Theory
and Research. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2003.
CAROL L. COLBECK is professor and dean of education at the University of Mass-
achusetts Boston. Her research investigates how faculty integrate teaching,
research, and service; how faculty teaching and organizational climate affect stu-
dent learning; and how faculty balance professional and personal responsibilities.