Search results

While ample literature describes students’ experiences during graduate school, fewer studies examine how doctoral students transition into full-time employment post degree completion. The purpose of this study is to examine how faculty advisors, as well as other individuals, shape students’ experiences during a critical period in their graduate education – the job search.

This study is based on interviews with 47 PhD students in biological sciences in the US. This is a descriptive qualitative study, based on in-depth, semi-structured interviews.

Results reveal distinct roles that faculty advisors play in the job search process, including supportive, unsupportive and sponsorship. Supportive advisors offer opportunities for skill development and specific guidance during the job search process. Sponsorship advisors go beyond providing general support to leverage their personal networks to assist in the transition into full-time employment. Unsupportive advisors are on the other end of the spectrum and do not provide any assistance. In addition, the majority of doctoral students rely on individuals beyond their advisors during the job search, and they do so regardless of what type of support they receive from their advisors.

Presented findings highlight the complex constellation of social connections that graduate students draw on for entry into the career and make a compelling case for extending socialization research to dedicate more attention to students’ transition into full-time employment after degree completion.

While higher education has been encouraging interdisciplinary research, few studies have been conducted to understand how interdisciplinarity shapes the identity construction of scholars, especially doctoral students who may already strive to socialize into academia.

Therefore, this study adopts the approach of autoethnography to analyze my lived experience of developing disciplinary literacy and constructing interdisciplinary identity as a Chinese international doctoral student at a North American university. Communication theory of identity (CTI) is the theoretical framework through which I understand the negotiation among my personal, enacted, relational and communal identities while communicating my research through diverse literacy practices.

This autoethnography reveals that interdisciplinary doctoral students can flexibly use discursive resources from different disciplines and literacy practices in both English and their first language to dynamically create interdisciplinary identities communicable to different discourse communities. Their identities in different disciplines can develop simultaneously, rather than suppressing one for the development of the other as they do interdisciplinary research.

This study first extends current scholarly discussion of disciplinary literacy to a less-investigated setting, i.e. doctoral education in higher education. Second, it adds an additive and current layer of interdisciplinarity to the existing understanding of international doctoral students’ identity construction. Third, it helps to understand how the development of disciplinary literacy can facilitate disciplinary identity construction and how disciplinary identity construction can facilitate the development of disciplinary literacy.

This chapter explores the critical relationship between doctoral faculty advisors and their students. It examines the varying interpretations, historical significance, roles and responsibilities, and structural and psychological factors that affect this relationship. Understanding these elements is essential for creating an environment that supports positive outcomes and wellbeing in doctoral faculty advisor–student relationships. The recommendations outlined in the chapter could serve as enablers or guidelines for purposeful advisement or mentoring in doctoral faculty advisor–student dealings.

This author reflects on her academic career spanning three decades as a Black woman in higher education. Ironically, the elders' sayings she heard and detested as a child resonated throughout her career. While in eighth grade, her grandmother admonished her for being deceptive and trying “to pull one over” on her and said that this author would need “to get up ‘fore day in the mornin’” to accomplish that feat. “Fore day in the mornin” must have been the time before her grandmother was fully alert, astute, and had the most clarity. For Black women to succeed in the academy, we must remain alert and recognize when faculty, administrators, and students attempt to pull one over with microaggressions and other forms of resistance. Microaggressions and resistance were perpetrated across race and gender lines, and occasionally by those who look like her. Having been reared in urban and low-income communities, the author acknowledged the investments she received throughout her schooling and career from both members of the academy and from Black communities. Consequently, her mission to improve outcomes in schools and communities, much like those in which she grew up, has not changed in 33 years. Understanding race and culture in self-definition and identity are discussed, followed by embracing opportunities and return on investments. There are increased calls for reciprocal and culturally responsive mentor–protégé relationships and successful strategies for tenure and promotion. The author makes meaning of both successful and challenging critical incidents in the academy.

This paper aims to show how an Academic Literacies lens can contribute to a deeper understanding of writing for a professional doctorate (PD) by focusing both on the language of supervisors’ written feedback and on student and supervisor perspectives on feedback throughout Year 1 (Y1).

Firstly, written feedback summaries on formative assessments across two Y1 cohorts on a UK PD programme were analysed thematically to identify patterns in feedback practices. Secondly, two longitudinal, detailed student/supervisor case studies were developed, drawing on multiple data sources.

Supervisors’ written feedback enacted an encouraging dialogue around assessed writing, discursively constructing a sense of solidarity on the doctoral journey, focusing on the “long view”. Case study analysis, however, revealed tensions centred around jarring discontinuities in students’ feedback experience as they transitioned from formative to summative assessment at the end of Y1.

The paper demonstrates that an Academic Literacies approach can offer valuable insights into the specific, situated context of writing for a distance learning PD and makes the case for greater attention to writing in contexts of partly taught doctorates.

Findings suggest that PD programmes should work towards providing continuity of feedback experience, through supervisor and examiner training and through assessment arrangements which support students to navigate challenging transitions between formative and summative phases of assessment.

This paper reports on an innovative research design which combined a textual “snapshot” of supervisory feedback, paying close attention to language, with detailed longitudinal case studies exploring perspectives on feedback over time. It contributes to doctoral writing research by throwing light on the relatively underexplored domain of writing in the taught phase of the PD. It contributes to doctoral education studies by highlighting the central role of feedback on writing in shaping the experience of PD researchers.

This paper aims to examine how doctoral students in education and applied linguistics fields successfully navigated graduate writing demands by participating in a support community that catalyzed writing productivity, peer mentoring and feedback. Guiding graduate students’ writing processes based on scholarly interests and providing peer support are vital to scholarly productivity and transition into academia.

Following a collaborative analytic autoethnographic case study design (Adams et al., 2022; Chang et al., 2013), the authors narrated major events that impacted their writing and publication experiences. The authors visualized their entire doctoral writing experience based on the frequency of writing events that contributed to writing productivity. In data triangulation discussions, the authors reflected on writing experiences.

Findings show that the support community alleviated individual struggles associated with writing a dissertation and high-quality papers. Key factors contributing to scholarly growth included nonevaluative peer support, feedback and shared academic resources. Writing within the periphery of faculty research and predominantly focusing on doctoral milestones led to individual scholarly interests being overshadowed. Without structured guidance, doctoral writers may develop initiatives to alleviate individual struggles and meet academic writing demands in the disciplines.

The authors recommend including structured guidance on developing writing productivity and a personal research agenda in the early stages of the doctorate.

This study offers unique examples of how a student group supported writing productivity and socialization into the academic community. It illustrates the multifaceted nature of academic writing influenced by faculty–student relationships, peers and individual initiatives. This paper provides doctoral writers and graduate programs with examples of accomplishing academic publishing goals.

As emerging scholars of color with transnational backgrounds, we collectively recount our socialization experiences in US higher education institutes. We explore moments of betweenness as catalysts for envisioning a more inclusive academia that operates beyond the tokenism of diversity.

Employing betweener autoethnography (Diversi and Moreira, 2018), we inquire into the sense of impasse encountered by South Korean female emerging scholars in the field of education in becoming an outsider within the academic system.

Chronicling our shifts in perspectives of our positionality, we interweave inquiries motivating us to challenge normative pressures and map our betweener experiences onto the Wiedman and DeAngelo’s (2020) socialization model. Through this process, we wedge open in-between spaces in the socialization process that accommodate the nuanced positionality of transnational scholars.

Integrating postcolonial critiques on the Western-centric meritocratic academia, this piece sheds light on the complexity and fluidity of emerging transnational scholars’ socialization processes. The thick, nuanced description deepens the understanding of the complexity of their identity negotiation within the dominant logics of academia. Our inquiries interwoven through betweener autoethnography serve as guidance for mentoring international graduate students and transnational scholars.