Search results

The work of academics has intensified, but the focus for most remains on teaching, research and contribution to service. Institutional imperatives and positioning within universities impact significantly on how individual academics fashion themselves to fit with expectations and demands. There is, of course, no simple version of scholarly identity and Barnett (2000) called attention to the ‘super complexity’ of academic work some time ago. ‘Scholarly’ has been deliberately used in the title of this chapter, even though ‘academic’ is also used throughout. The purpose here is to draw attention to – and avoid – the binary that Stuart Hall notes: Academic work is inherently conservative in as much as it seeks, first, to fulfill the relatively narrow and policed goals and interests of a given discipline or profession and, second, to fulfill the increasingly corporatized mission of higher education; intellectual work, in contrast is relentlessly critical, self-critical, and potentially revolutionary for it aims to critique, change, and even destroy institutions, disciplines and professions that rationalize exploitation, inequality and injustice. (reported in Olsen & Worsham, 2003, p. 13)

The speed of information transfer, discovery, and evaluation is accelerating the timeline for young researchers to establish their scholarly identity. A clear scholarly identity is an essential element in developing and maintaining a scholar’s reputation. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Texas A&M University is developing workflows and programmatic support for graduate students as they navigate a labyrinth of tools, such as ORCID iD, to establish and manage their identity and reputation.

This paper discusses the evolution of a collaboration between the Texas A&M University Libraries (A&M UL) and the Office of Research and Graduate Studies in the College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences to educate graduate-level students about scholarly identity and reputation.

The collaboration between the Texas A&M UL and the Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences Office of Research and Graduate Studies evolved into an intentional practice to assist emerging researchers as they navigate the labyrinth of standards and research information systems to establish their scholarly identity.

This paper aims to design a viable model for a scholarly communication system.

Stafford Beer's viable system model (VSM) is an exceptionally insightful analysis tool which has been applied in different fields. This paper illustrates the usefulness of Beer's model as a tool for anticipating, planning, and implementing large‐scale development in the scientific communication domain. Following the Beer thinking of organisational structure and the usefulness of VSM in knowledge management stated by some researchers, a viable scientific communication model (VSCM) was designed.

The paper has developed a viable scientific communication model which relates personal knowledge about a scientific communication system with Beer's viability thinking.

The designed model is fairly conceptual.

Compared with the earlier models, it seems that the suggested model is not dependent on context, time, and scale. This model may be used in many contexts because the functions and the operations of scholarly communication are unique. This model is viable and can update itself over a period of years. New elements of scholarly communication and the Web 2.0 platforms have also been incorporated into the model.

Professionals in higher education are expected to be informed consumers of knowledge who seek out scholarship, critical evaluators of the applicability of extant knowledge, and contributors who build new knowledge for higher education practice. Despite the understood importance of developing research competencies, many have limited opportunities to develop these skills. This study aims to explore one way individuals develop research competencies: through participation in team-based research experiences.

A longitudinal case study approach was used to investigate what participants in an education research group learn, and how their participation in the group changes the ways in which they think about themselves as researchers and scholars. Four group members participated in two focus group interviews (at the end of the fall 2015 and spring 2016 academic semesters). Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Study participants report gaining knowledge about research, developing an identity as a researcher, and learning about faculty roles. Particular group practices and activities (e.g. full group meetings, subgroup meetings, professional development moments) helped mediate members’ learning and identity development.

Research groups should be considered valuable contexts where teaching and learning take place. By learning – and integrating what we learn – from research group participation, the higher education and student affairs fields may become better able to generate innovative practices and activities that provide students and professionals with opportunities to develop important research competencies.

The author's purpose is to identify and analyze the progress of proposals and dissertations after mentor–mentee relationships rapidly transitioned to intensive online doctoral mentoring as a result of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19).

An exploratory pedagogic research design was implemented in 2020 to examine the COVID-19 Dyadic Online Mentoring Intervention, a four-month individualized approach to mentorship. A survey was completed by mentees in an educational leadership cohort that revealed the benefits and drawbacks of technology for learning within online doctoral mentoring contexts. Additional sources of data were published literature, mentor's notes, email exchanges, and scholarly enrichment products.

Data analysis yielded three themes: (1) mentoring strategies were utilized; (2) the pandemic unsettled reality and (3) personal professional development opportunities were evident. Although life challenges were exacerbated by the pandemic, the online doctoral mentoring intervention met dissertation-related needs and supported academic progress in a Doctorate in Education degree program.

Technology-mediated mentoring during crises involves more than modality changes. Faculty mentors should not be solely responsible for mitigating program and dissertation disruption. Academic cultures must support the adoption of pedagogic innovations like high-quality online doctoral mentoring.

Online doctoral mentoring structures utilizing synchronous and asynchronous technologies can help mentees make academic progress in a crisis, not only in “normal” times.

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.

Scholarly identity refers to endeavors by scholars to promote their reputation, work and networks using online platforms such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Twitter. This exploratory research investigates benefits and drawbacks of scholarly identity efforts and avenues for potential library support.

Data from 30 semi-structured phone interviews with faculty, doctoral students and academic librarians were qualitatively analyzed using the constant comparisons method (Charmaz, 2014) and Goffman’s (1959, 1967) theoretical concept of impression management.

Results reveal that use of online platforms enables academics to connect with others and disseminate their research. scholarly identity platforms have benefits, opportunities and offer possibilities for developing academic library support. They are also fraught with drawbacks/concerns, especially related to confusion, for-profit models and reputational risk.

This exploratory study involves analysis of a small number of interviews (30) with self-selected social scientists from one discipline (communication) and librarians. It lacks gender, race/ethnicity and geographical diversity and focuses exclusively on individuals who use social networking sites for their scholarly identity practices.

Results highlight benefits and risks of scholarly identity work and the potential for adopting practices that consider ethical dilemmas inherent in maintaining an online social media presence. They suggest continuing to develop library support that provides strategic guidance and information on legal responsibilities regarding copyright.

This research aims to understand the benefits and drawbacks of Scholarly Identity platforms and explore what support academic libraries might offer. It is among the first to investigate these topics comparing perspectives of faculty, doctoral students and librarians.

This examination of the higher education landscape now shifts to consider the relationship between the university and the teaching profession. The intention of this chapter is to focus on pre-service teacher education to examine how professional identity and university curriculum have become managed. This chapter will introduce the conception of the scholarly blind eye to illustrate how performativity works in the modernised university and three central arguments are forwarded. Firstly, that pre-service teacher education programs are increasingly managed from outside the university. Secondly, that this represents a significant change to higher education. And thirdly, that higher education is contributing to the reworking of teacher identity.

The purpose of this paper is to sharpen the intellectual identity of the field of educational administration (EA) and to understand its scholarly boundaries by comparing between the writings of this field and those of the field of organisational behaviour (OB), an area of study usually located in faculties of management, and share many commonalities with EA.

A qualitative content analysis of textbooks and journal papers in OB and EA, reading of previous writings that revolved around the epistemological dimensions of these fields.

The author sheds light on the theoretical and empirical distinctions of OB and EA historically and provides insight into the distinctive intellectual identity of the latter field during the 2000s. A special attention is given to paradigms and theories in EA imported to the field from outside and transformed in a way that specify the unique identity of EA in the academic world.

This comparison is warranted in order to clarify more profoundly the unique contributions of EA, both theoretically and practically, to emphasise the differences that separate it from other disciplines, and to legitimate its independent position in higher education.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how entering students and graduating students from an education doctorate (EdD) program viewed themselves as learners, leaders, and action researchers. Further, the paper examines differences in the identity trajectories between the two groups. Finally, the paper suggested a new identity status – scholarly and influential practitioners (SaIP) emerged from melding the three identity statuses.

The paper employed a mixed method design.

Results indicated students new to the program held strong identities as learners and leaders, but not as action researchers; whereas graduates held stronger views of each type of identity, especially as researchers. Program features such as cycles of action research (CAR), and leader-scholar communities were instrumental in influencing graduates’ identities as researching professionals.

SaIP emerge when doctoral programs enhance the learner and leader identity statuses of doctoral students while at the same time fostering the construction of a researching professional identity status.

Development of researching professionals can be accomplished by fostering a researcher ethos during their participation in a doctoral program. For working professionals, this can be accomplished by requiring and supporting ongoing CAR in a doctoral program.

With respect to social implications, researching professionals, especially those in education offer substantial promise of achieving the educational reforms the school so desperately need.

This research examines how one institution has attempted to develop researching professionals during their preparation in an EdD program, which is based on Carnegie Project for the Education Doctorate (CPED) working principles and design features.