Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86, 140–151, 2015 Copyright q SHAPE America ISSN 0270-1367 print/ISSN 2168-3824 online DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2014.987907

Rolling With the Punches: Examining the Socialization Experiences of Kinesiology Doctoral Students Jared A. Russell Auburn University

Purpose: An increasing body of literature examines the socialization experiences of graduate students on a myriad of topics across academic disciplines. However, relatively absent from these discussions are the perspectives of kinesiology doctoral students. Using Weidman, Twale, and Stein’s framework for graduate and professional student socialization, this research examined the doctoral education and socialization perspectives of 12 kinesiology students at 3 research institutions. Method: A phenomenological case-study approach incorporating interviews, both individual and focus group, and journals served to obtain participants’ perspectives. Traditional data analysis, coding, thematic category development, and interpretation techniques were used. Results: Participants provided critical experiences, enlightening perspectives, and specific recommendations regarding their socialization into the kinesiology academic field and profession. Four major thematic categories were derived from the data: (a) transition, when participants highlighted professional, academic, or personal shifts in perspectives occurring during studies; (b) negotiation, when participants pointed out experiences when significant consideration was given to the consequences, risk, and rewards of formal and informal interactions with peers, faculty, and administrators; (c) balance, during which participants described their struggles and successes with meeting academic, professional, and personal obligations; and (d) support, when participants identified emotional, financial, and professional resources that impacted their socialization. Conclusions: The authenticity and sameness of the participants’ experiences call for further scrutiny and discussion of kinesiology doctoral student socialization policies and practices. Suggestions for future research and administrative initiatives are discussed. Keywords: culture, development, graduate, support

For approximately the last three decades, the most common theoretical lens by which to examine the doctoral student experience has been socialization, which can be described as a process by which a newcomer learns and accepts the traditions, expectations, values, skills, and beliefs of an established group that he or she wishes to join (Gardner, 2008; Weidman & Stein, 2003). Although there are a multitude of theoretical premises, assumptions, and conceptualizations of doctoral student socialization, the general consensus is that the process is multifaceted and complex in nature. Indeed, a number of factors have been shown to significantly impact the student’s socialization and

Submitted November 22, 2013; accepted October 4, 2014. Correspondence should be addressed to Jared A. Russell, School of Kinesiology, Auburn University, 301 Wire Road, Auburn, AL 36849. E-mail: [email protected]

matriculation, including opportunities for involvement in professional organizations, effective academic advising, faculty mentoring, ethnic or cultural background acceptance, and status as a full-time or part-time student (Gildersleeve, Croom, & Vasquez, 2011; Mendoza, 2007; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). However, a review of the existing literature would suggest that additional scholarly attention should be directed at how doctoral students experience or “live” respective socialization processes (Gardner, 2008; J. C. Gonza´lez, 2006). The purpose of this study was to use phenomenological case-study techniques to better understand the socialization experiences of kinesiology doctoral students as they matriculate through their respective academic programs. Unlike other academic disciplines, the field of kinesiology has yet to fully explore the doctoral student experience and consequently has missed an opportunity to greatly inform how future

DOCTORAL STUDENT SOCIALIZATION

generations of professionals are developed. It is hoped that by offering these perspectives, individuals invested in doctoral education will work to maximize the positive aspects of the socialization process, while identifying areas for improvement.

141

independent researchers, graduate programs work to provide a sense of ethical practice. Much of this development and socialization occurs at the academic unit level and is facilitated by faculty mentors and advisors (Golde, 2006; Weidman et al., 2001).

DOCTORAL STUDENT SOCIALIZATION THE DOCTORAL DEGREE The doctorate of philosophy, or Ph.D., was first conferred by Yale University in 1861. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, institutions such as John Hopkins University, University of Chicago, Stanford University, Columbia University, and Harvard University conferred approximately 3,500 doctoral degrees. The German model of graduate education, with its emphasis on scientific inquiry and faculty engagement in research, provided the basic template for the newly created Ph.D.-granting academic programs (Gardner, 2009). As a result of America’s postWorld War I and World War II investment in basic and applied science, Ph.D.-granting institutions continued to flourish. In 2010, U.S. institutions awarded approximately 47,000 doctoral degrees across a wide range of academic disciplines (National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2012). However, despite the longevity, popularity, and growth of doctoral programs through the years, there has been little consensus on what exactly is the core purpose of the Ph.D. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, founded in 1905, advocates that Ph.D. holders should not only be competent researchers and professionals but also stewards—responsible managers of something or someone entrusted to their care—of their respective disciplines and professions. More specifically, Golde (2006) wrote: A Ph.D. holder should be capable of generating new knowledge and defending knowledge claims against challenges and criticism, conserving the most important ideas and findings that are legacy of past and current work, and transforming knowledge that has been generated and conserved by explaining and connecting it to ideas from other fields. All of this implies the ability to teach well to a variety of audiences, including those outside formal classrooms. (p. 10)

Kinesiology Ph.D. holders are expected to exhibit the characteristics and practices of discipline-specific and professional stewardship. Through mentorship, training, and professional development opportunities, graduate programs are expected to provide doctoral students with the skills to demonstrate competency in teaching and research. Additionally, doctoral students should be knowledgeable in the manner in which they are to conduct themselves in professional settings. Lastly, as efforts are made to assist in the development of doctoral students into

Versions of socialization theory have been successfully applied to various aspects of both the undergraduate and graduate academic settings (Gardner, 2008) in an effort to better understand the participants’ perceptions of their matriculation experience. Generally, socialization can be defined as the process by which an individual identifies, learns, and adopts the necessary attitudes, values, skills, norms, and knowledge for membership in a particular group, society, or organization (Tierney, 1997; Tinto, 2004). Bragg’s (1976) classic definition of socialization in higher education settings points out three key interactions associated with the socialization process: (a) the interaction between the specific educational setting’s environmental structures and the student (e.g., admission practices, clarity of academic unit values, etc.); (b) the interaction between the student and the faculty within that educational setting (e.g., mentoring, advising, academic expectations, etc.); and (c) the interaction between the students and their peers and colleagues (e.g., collaborative experiences, informal or formal socializing events, etc.). Gardner (2007) examined the perspectives of the socialization process of 20 chemistry and history doctoral students. Her findings identified five major themes describing common socialization processes that impacted student success: ambiguity, balance, independence, development, and support. Gardner (2007) stressed the need for graduate academic programs to continue investigating perspectives of their students as a means to better understand explicit and implicit existing socialization processes that either support or hinder student success. In 2008, Gardner followed her previous research with further study of a diverse subset of participants who described their graduate education experiences as “not fitting the mold” of the typical graduate student. Participants included older students, students of color, part-time students, and students with children. Her results highlighted a number of negative experiences and circumstances “lived” by the participants that impacted their overall satisfaction and integration into the culture of their respective academic degree programs. Again, she highlighted the need for graduate programs to obtain and constructively utilize the perspectives of their students to better existing socialization processes. It is important to note that unique to the graduate and professional student socialization experience is that the student is simultaneously being socialized both to his or her

142

J. A. RUSSELL

current academic unit’s school environment and to future professional roles within the context of a chosen academic discipline. Consequently, Weidman et al. (2001) offer a definition of socialization as it pertains specifically to graduate and professional students. These authors described socialization as “the process through which individuals gain the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for successful entry into a professional career requiring an advanced level of specialized knowledge and skills” (Weidman et al., 2001, p. iii). Akin to other theoretical socialization models, Weidman et al. highlight four shared general assumptions of socialization theories: (a) the student progresses through phases or stages of development, (b) the experiences are contextualized by academic discipline, (c) the experience is contextualized by the academic unit’s environment, and (d) the expected outcome is a successful development of a student’s professional commitment and identification with a chosen academic discipline. As the authors point out, “the outcome of socialization is not the transfer of a social role, but identification with and commitment to a role that has been both normatively and individually defined” (Weidman et al., 2001, p. 36). The Weidman et al. (2001) theoretical model allows for an accounting of the span of the doctoral student matriculation experience from entry to exit from the graduate program as well as the influence of various factors on that experience. First and foremost, Weidman et al. theoretically extend the general conceptualization of graduate and professional student socialization and depart from traditional theoretical frameworks by characterizing the experience as “ . . . dynamic and ongoing, without a definite beginning and end” (p. 40). Second, their model is characterized by an interactivity of the core and traditional stages of socialization including anticipatory, formal, informal, and personal. Third, they operationalize the student socialization experience via three fundamental elements: (a) knowledge acquisition, or obtaining knowledge, skills, and academic culture understanding associated with and deemed necessary for successful academic matriculation and entry into a chosen profession; (b) investment, or the appropriation and commitment of time, energy, and resources to meeting departmental academic requirements and professional expectations; and (c) involvement, or the purposeful engagement in activities that are aligned with professional, discipline-specific, or social development, particularly those that allow for interactions with advanced professionals. Fourth, the theory emphasizes the centrality of the institutional culture (e.g., academic departments, research settings, etc.) and key socialization processes (interaction, integration, and learning). Lastly, the model takes into account the impact of the prospective student’s predispositions and backgrounds prior to entering a doctoral program, impact of the development of professional identity and commitment to the profession, influence of formal and informal interactions with

professionals in the field or academic discipline (e.g., conferences, formal research presentations, etc.), and the effect of interactions with individuals in a student’s personal community (e.g., friends, peers, parents, etc.). The Weidman et al. model exemplifies the comprehensive, multifaceted, interactive, and complex description of the socialization of doctoral students into their professional roles. This framework has been used in multiple studies (Cole & Griffin, 2013; Gardner, Jansujwicz, Hutchins, Cline, & Levesque, 2014; O’Meara, Knudsen, & Jones, 2013) to investigate the organizational structures that act as barriers or gateways to successful doctoral student socialization. The field of kinesiology (and related academic disciplines) has made valuable contributions to the existing body of literature on doctoral education programs. A number of influential works have focused on the surveying and ranking of doctoral programs based on variables such as faculty and student productivity and general program characteristics (Rikard et al., 2011; Spirduso & Reeve, 2011). Additionally, authors have offered innovative and progressive conceptualizations of the future of kinesiology graduate education’s mission, format, and potential challenges (DePauw, 2008; Woods, Goc-Karp, & Feltz, 2003). Lastly, research has focused on preparing doctoral students for their professional roles and obligations (Boyce & Rikard, 2008; Silverman, 2012). Many aspects of the doctoral education process or experience have been scrutinized by researchers from a myriad of academic disciplines. Gardner (2009) summarized the existing scholarship: (a) student completion and attrition, (b) time to degree, (c) dissertation completion and process description, (d) types of advising roles and factors impacting academic relationship building, and (e) the general experience of the socialization process. Gardner (2009) noted that each of these basic categories of inquiry have also been investigated through the lens of gender, race, and disciplinary difference. For the purposes of this study, it is the last category of inquiry, the socialization process, which is most relevant. A recent report by The Council of Graduate Schools (L. M. Gonza´lez, Allum, & Sowell, 2013) revealed that as of fall 2012, approximately 137,000 applicants were accepted into doctoral programs in higher education across the country. Additionally, the same report found that from 2011 to 2012, roughly 67,000 students graduated with doctoral degrees. Obviously, there is a significant number of students taking part in the doctoral education experience and being conferred degrees. Consequently, it would behoove graduate academic programs to pay attention to how doctoral students are prepared for their professional roles. Bragg (1976) stressed the importance of examining and understanding the socialization process when she wrote: An understanding of the socialization process is vital to all persons involved in postsecondary education, for it is the

DOCTORAL STUDENT SOCIALIZATION

socialization process that allows education to achieve its goals. Through the socialization process the individual acquires the knowledge and skills, the values and attitudes, and the habits and modes of thought of the society to which he belongs. Thus, the socialization process encompasses all learning—the affective as well as the cognitive. (p. 9)

143

existing research examining the socialization experiences of doctoral students in the field of kinesiology, unlike other academic disciplines, this research is an attempt to add to that perspective.

RESEARCH PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS WHY STUDY KINESIOLOGY DOCTORAL STUDENT SOCIALIZATION Golde and Dore’s (2001) seminal work At Cross Purposes clearly demonstrated that despite the best intentions by graduate academic programs, doctoral students perceived themselves to be ill prepared for the norms and rigor of their professional career options. This “mismatch” of intent and perceived benefit was evident despite the participants’ acknowledgment of substantial faculty efforts, allocation of resources, and opportunities for professional development. Particularly, findings suggested that the administration and faculty leadership’s efforts were not effective due to the inherent organizational structural barriers and inadequate socialization processes found within the respective doctoral programs. Thus, leadership perceived their efforts to be purposeful and effective while doctoral students expressed the opposite perspectives. By operating at “cross-purposes,” the resources and efforts of the graduate programs were not effective in the actual development of the doctoral students. Recent scholarship has substantiated the basic implications of these findings using doctoral student populations from a myriad of academic disciplines and cultural settings (Gardner, 2008; Mendoza, 2007). However, the field of kinesiology has yet to fully explore how our doctoral students perceive their socialization experiences, what organizational structures are impactful, and what is the actual professional development outcome of the doctoral experience versus the intended outcome. It has been reported that the doctoral student attrition rate in the United States is roughly 50% (Gardner, 2009) regardless of academic discipline. There is no one clear-cut reason for this high rate of attrition. What is known is that the issue of attrition is multifaceted and that the student losses have a lasting effect on the academic programs that initially admit and support the students, on those faculty who have invested time and training, and on the doctoral students themselves (Golde & Dore, 2001; L. M. Gonza´lez et al., 2013). Doctoral education advocacy groups have long established the importance of negating factors that lead to “cross-purposes” between programs and students as well as the general attrition of doctoral students from academic programs. Additionally, understanding the perceptions of doctoral students allows for the development of key organizational structures that may support the persistence of all students and particularly those from traditionally underrepresented student populations. Consequently, in light of a dearth of

The overarching research question for this phenomenological case-study research is: What were the effects and perspectives of the socialization experience on kinesiology doctoral students’ academic and professional development? Particularly, the current study’s theoretical foundation is built on the work of Weidman et al. (2001). Their model for the socialization of graduate and professional students provides an appropriate conceptualization of the transition of doctoral students through respective and contextualized stages of professional socialization. The research questions that guided this study were: 1. What were the common socialization experiences of kinesiology doctoral students? 2. What socialization processes or structures are perceived as meaningful to kinesiology doctoral students? 3. Regarding their socialization experiences, what recommendations do kinesiology doctoral students have for graduate program administrators, faculty, and members of the professional community?

METHOD Study Participant Recruitment and Description Due to the lack of research in the area of kinesiology doctoral education socialization processes and experiences, qualitative research was considered the most appropriate approach for obtaining a foundational perspective on the phenomena under investigation. More specifically, qualitative techniques allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of the doctoral education experience through the “participants’ voices.” This in turn allowed for a more authentic and trustworthy development of thematic interpretations by the researchers of meaningful socialization structures and experiences as perceived by the participants. In summer of 2011, three institutions located geographically in the Southeastern United States were chosen for this study. These Southern institutions were chosen due to their respective close proximity to the author’s institutions, and consequently, the opportunities for face-to-face interviews were increased. All three institutions were accredited Ph.D. granting programs and were considered by the Carnegie Classification System as either research university/high

144

J. A. RUSSELL

research activity or research university/very high research activity (RU/VH). The institutions and participants in this study were given pseudonyms to protect their respective identities. To further protect the identities of the participating academic programs and participants, three broad academic program titles/descriptions will be used to signify the subacademic program of each participant: health promotion and behavior (HPB), physical education teacher education (PETE), and exercise science (EXS). Phase 1 of the study involved the primary researcher contacting graduate program officers and faculty colleagues at these three predetermined academic programs and asking for participant recommendations. Out of this initial convenience sampling of potential participants (n ¼ 21), purposeful sampling techniques (Creswell, 2013; Denzin & Lincoln, 2013) were used to ensure diverse representation in the participant pool using factors such as full-time student status, gender, ethnic background, transition point in doctoral program, and academic discipline. Throughout the study, it was emphasized to participants that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Additionally, by diversifying the participant pool, a broader and more enriching dialogue was possible due to the innate diversity of the participants’ educational experiences, professional aspirations, and social backgrounds. Upon receiving and reviewing a number of recommendations, approximately 4 to 6 potential participants from each academic program were chosen to be invited to participate in the study. These students were contacted and given an overview of the research via e-mail, a formal letter of invitation, and an informed consent form (per intuitional research board human subjects approval policy). At this point, participants either accepted or declined the invitation to participate. All participants held full-time status as doctoral students throughout their involvement in the study. The participant pool was composed of 12 students with 4 coming from each institution (see Table 1 for participant demo-

graphics). The racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the final pool of participants was consistent with national statistics and trends across the country (L. M. Gonza´les et al., 2013; Hodge & Wiggins, 2010). Once informed consent was obtained, Phase 2 of the data collection process was initiated. Data Collection: Interviews and Journals Phase 2 began in fall 2011 and required each participant to complete and submit a demographic questionnaire developed by the researchers. Phase 2 involved the bulk of the data collection processes and spanned the entirety of the participants’ involvement in the research study. Each semester (fall, spring, summer), each participant took part in a 30-min to 45-min individual interview as well as a 60min to 90-min focus-group interview, either via conference call or in person once per academic semester (see Table 2 for sample interview questions). In-person interviews were often held at kinesiology-oriented professional events (e.g., the annual American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance convention and expo). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the traditional constant comparative method (Creswell, 2013). Within 10 days of the interview, participants were given an opportunity to perform a member check of their respective interview transcript. This process allowed for an interviewee to confirm or disconfirm the accuracy of transcripts and any tentative interpretations or themes provided by the researchers. The primary topics of the interviews included: (a) identification of critical incidents during the doctoral socialization process, (b) professional development opportunities, and (c) cultural or organizational structures that were perceived to hinder or support positive development as future professionals. Although the interview protocol was structured, flexibility was allowed in the form of follow-up questions and participant elaboration, which allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of the factors and

TABLE 1 Breakdown of Participants by Gender, Discipline, Ethnic Background, and Transition Point Pseudonym

Gender

Discipline

Ethnic Background

Transition Point

Grace Isaac Sky Grover Drew Richard Baron Rose Marcus Alex Winston Abby

Female Male Female Male Female Male Male Female Male Female Male Female

EXS HPB PETE EXS HPB PETE EXS EXS EXS HPB PETE EXS

African American/Black European American/White Multiethnic European American/White European American/White Multiethnic European American/White African American/Black European American/White European American/White European American/White European American/White

Coursework Coursework Comprehensive Exams Coursework Coursework Dissertation Comprehensive Exams Coursework Dissertation Coursework Coursework Comprehensive Exams

Note. EXS ¼ exercise science; HPB ¼ health promotion and behavior; PETE ¼ physical education teacher education; multiethnic ¼ self-identified as having two or more ethnic backgrounds or heritages.

DOCTORAL STUDENT SOCIALIZATION

experiences that were perceived to impact the participants’ socialization. The phases of the constant comparative method occurred simultaneously with the data collection process and informed the development of themes and interpretations. Participants were asked to maintain and provide monthly entries in an electronic reflective journal. The e-journal was in the form of a Microsoft Word document that was maintained by the participant and also stored electronically by the primary researchers. The participants were provided guiding questions (see Table 2 for sample questions) to facilitate reflection, and the researchers provided monthly prompts for the participants to make entries via e-mail. Particularly, participants were asked to journal any critical incidents that they perceived to have impacted their transition and matriculation through their respective doctoral education programs. Each month, the researchers received an updated participant journal, which was then stored on a researcher’s computer. When the participant exited the research study, due to graduation, he or she entered Phase 3 of the study. This phase involved the submission and review of all participant data to the researchers. Within a month of receiving the various data, the participant was given an opportunity to debrief and member-check respective data comprehensively for accuracy of recording. Also, the participants were encouraged to provide feedback regarding the accuracy of tentative themes and interpretations presented by the researchers. Data Analysis In accordance with the phenomenological methodology, the analysis process was composed of recognizing, systemTABLE 2 Sample Journal Guiding Questions and Individual Interview and Focus-Group Interview Questions Interview Questions 1. Generally, what has been your experience matriculating through your current doctoral education program? 2. Using the provided definition as a prompt, describe a recent impactful socialization experience or occurrence. a. Weidman, Twale, and Stein (2001) define socialization as “ . . . the process through which individuals gain the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for successful entry into a professional career requiring an advanced level of specialized knowledge and skills” (p. iii). 3. How would you describe the environment of your academic unit? Your institution? 4. Do you feel you are progressing toward your educational goals? Why or why not? Guiding Questions 1. Why did you choose to enter a doctoral education program? 2. Within your academic unit, what identifiable support mechanisms were impactful on your matriculation? Why? 3. What recommendations can you offer to enhance the doctoral socialization experience within your academic unit? 4. What obstacles or challenges have you experienced? How was your doctoral education experience impacted?

145

atizing, and coding data into meaningful themes that emerged from the data (Moustakas, 1994). The data from the individual interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim, which provided optimal clarity for the data to be analyzed. In addition to the individual interviews and focus groups, participants also wrote reflective journals about their doctoral socialization experiences. This created an ongoing analysis process, beginning with the participants’ initial reflective journal (Creswell, 2013). Analysis of the data sets was conducted to identify uniformity among themes. The transcripts were first reviewed to acquire a general sense of the data. This was followed by a-priori coding to identify general themes based on previous literature regarding doctoral student socialization (e.g., role of faculty mentorship, importance of adequate funding, etc.). Further analysis of data led to the development of respective thematic categories presenting the essence of the participants’ shared doctoral experiences. Trustworthiness and Generalizability Through triangulation of data sources, the researcher was able to present a comprehensive and holistic representation of these specific students’ kinesiology doctoral education experience. The author reviewed all data and developed tentative thematic categories supported by participant data. Thematic categories and tentative interpretations were internally audited for trustworthiness by current kinesiology doctoral students not participating in the research, and they were externally audited by two qualitative researchers not connected to the research study. Additionally, participants were able to member-check all acquired data and tentative thematic categories for accuracy. Researcher’s Subjectivity This research represents an effort to describe and understand the kinesiology doctoral student socialization experience. My general assumption about this socialization process is that there will be similarities and shared experiences among the participant population that are noteworthy of further investigation. Similar to the participants of this study, I completed my graduate studies, master’s of arts degree and Ph.D., at a Southeastern RU/VH institution. I was afforded considerable support in the form of a teaching assistantship and, most importantly, faculty mentorship within and outside of my respective doctoral program. However, I was very much aware of fellow doctoral students who did not have similarly positive socialization experiences. Consequently, I expect that the participants in this study will have a range of socialization experiences to discuss that are both similar and dissimilar to those of their peers and my own experiences regarding key socialization structures, processes, and events. Additionally, I believe that the students are able to best articulate and describe the organizational

146

J. A. RUSSELL

culture, academic challenges, and quality of their overall doctoral studies experience. My expectation is that these results will shed light on the current state of doctoral education in kinesiology and will promote further scholarly attention.

RESULTS Four thematic categories were developed describing students’ respective doctoral socialization experiences. These themes represent a single case analysis of the entire participant pool’s collective perspectives and included: (a) transition, (b) negotiation, (c) balance, and (d) support. Additionally, frequency counts for each respective subtheme are provided.

working with . . . these are current professionals and future colleagues. I tightened up my CV (curriculum vitae) and got my act together quickly. I definitely transitioned to a more mature doctoral student after that conference. (Richard, PETE)

Overall, 8 of the 12 participants emphasized the importance of the process of transitioning from one phase of the doctoral socialization experience to another. Specifically, all of the participants who were at the coursework transition point (and one at the dissertation transition point) stressed the difficulty of adjusting to being a doctoral student. These transitions from respective master’s degree experiences included adjusting to the rigor of doctoral-level coursework, the necessity of practicing laboratory-based techniques outside of formal class or lab meetings, and studying extensive assigned readings.

Transition The participants offered descriptions of key transitions in their doctoral socialization experience—described as shifts in perspectives—as important to their overall professional socialization. Often, the respective doctoral experience was compared to previous educational settings. Recognizing the difference between the settings led to a transition in participant perspective. Grace, an EXS major, spoke about the increased emphasis on relationship building as being vital to her socialization experience: Building relationships is critical to success in your studies and beyond! It’s not enough to have a good rapport with your immediate faculty. You have to know the people throughout your field. They need to know your record of good scholarship. I consider it building my brand. (Grace, EXS)

Isaac, whose father is a full professor at a researchintensive university, spoke about how competitive doctoral studies could be and the need to develop a “get-yours” mentality: My father warned me that it was time to transition from hand-holding to competing hard for faculty’s attention and professional development opportunities . . . That was a major shift for me mentally, socially and professionally. (Isaac, HPB)

Negotiation Weighing the costs versus benefits of engaging in or being forced to be part of departmental politics, cultural or gender insensitivity, and faculty bickering was highlighted as impactful on the participants’ socialization experiences. Marcus, an EXS major, spoke about a time when he turned down an excellent professional development opportunity due to a strained relationship between his faculty advisor and another faculty member: Yes, you have to learn how to negotiate the politics and faculty issues. Once I was asked by one faculty to work on a project that I felt would help me but my major professor said, “Don’t do it.” Never said why but it was a little badblood between the two. I missed out on a publication and presentation. However, I wasn’t trying to “go there” and go against my professor. It wasn’t worth the headache. (Marcus, EXS)

Participants openly discussed weighing opportunities to voice their concerns or perspectives that ran counter to the sentiment of the majority of their peers and faculty. It was clear that despite perceived mistreatment or disrespect, students had to consider the repercussions of being perceived as confrontational within their programs. Rose, an EXS major, stated during an interview:

Lastly, participants pointed out the impact of going to professional meetings on their transition in professional self-identity. Richard, a PETE major, summarized his first major professional conference:

Sexism is a barrier that I’m still negotiating in my department. The comments and behaviors are so archaic and stupid. How do you be up-front with people who offend and not become marginalized? That’s the negotiating point for me. How do you not come off as the emotional and angry female? (Rose, EXS)

I went to my first major conference last year and it was unreal. You had to have your spill [sic ] down pat when other faculty asked you about your research and who you were

Participants were asked to make critical decisions about how to appropriately engage with their peers and faculty. Again, the negotiation was facing an issue, weighing the

DOCTORAL STUDENT SOCIALIZATION

147

consequences of an action, and making a decision. Richard, a PETE major, stated:

expectations and responsibilities as extremely helpful. Drew, an HPB major, stated during an interview:

Keep the peace and figure out if it is worth it or not. The decision can impact your standing in your lab or department . . . . Confronting bias or stupid comments, working with particular faculty or not, all of these are decisions that call for you to negotiate and be mindful of any consequences. Find a mentor who can give advice on when to speak up and when to let it “roll off your back.” (Richard, PETE)

My professor was good at laying out his expectations and my role in projects on the front end, which helped me manage my academic courses and overall time commitments. My advisor was clear at the beginning so I could fit into his “world” and be successful. (Drew, HPB)

A total of 10 out of 12 participants stressed the issue of negotiation. Similar to the transition theme, the issue of negotiating was most evident at the coursework transition point; it was evident for 2 students at the dissertation transition point and 1 at the comprehensive exams transition point. However, participants at the dissertation transition point emphasized the necessity of negotiating their environment so that their standing or reputation was not hurt as they prepared to enter the workforce. Conversely, those participants in the coursework and comprehensive exams transition points were more focused on gaining needed resources and support from faculty and administrators to better position themselves for success in the future. This included securing recommendations for student awards and scholarships, obtaining financial support via means other than departmental teaching assistantships (e.g., fellowships, grants, etc.), and having a lead role on research projects. Balance All 12 participants emphasized the theme of balance. There was no fundamental difference between the participants’ perspectives at any of the three transition points (coursework, comprehensive exams, dissertation). Participants pointed out the many seemingly conflicting roles, obligations, and responsibilities that demanded an acute awareness of the necessity to find balance in their lives. This “balancing act” was particularly important when family or social life, considered nonacademic, collided with their respective formal academic life as Baron, an EXS major, discussed during an interview: Life is crazy. I got a family, work, and I’m trying to complete my classes. The balancing act is critical. I want to spend time at conferences and advance my career . . . But I can’t always go due to family obligations. Balancing everyone else’s needs against my own professional goals is difficult but necessary. (Baron, EXS)

The role of mentors and role models was especially pertinent to the participants as they described efforts to successfully balance and prioritize their academic and nonacademic responsibilities and lives in general. They saw having major advisors and supervisors lay out clear

Support Consistent with the balance theme, all participants noted the importance of identifying and obtaining support for themselves during their doctoral education. Again, there was no discernible difference between the participants’ perspectives at any of the three transition points (coursework, comprehensive exams, dissertation). Support, whether in the form of financial support, mentorship, or the allocation of professional resources, was expressed as paramount to the overall positive socialization of doctoral students. Alex, an HPB major, stressed the need for quality mentorship and having a person willing to give you the “reality” of a particular departmental culture: Finding a faculty mentor was vital to my success. As a woman I needed both a role model and someone who knew the “ropes” of making it through a doctoral program in my area (physiology). Dr. Douglas [a pseudonym] gave me a brutally honest run-down of the reality of doctoral studies for women. It was “real deal” comments. She wants me aware of how the world really works in academia. (Alex, HPB)

Participants also acknowledged the need for financial support as being vital. Having a faculty member or administrator who invested in their careers via the allocation of financial support from grants, assistantships, or scholarships was deemed important. When asked about describing support received during his matriculation, Richard, a PETE major, wrote in his journal: Support starts with mentorship but there has to be that financial side of the relationship. Do I have an assistantship or some form of funding? Am I good enough to allocate grant money to and work in your lab? Are you willing to invest in me and my career? How do I get to conferences and how do I get myself out there for others to see? That’s the real support. It goes beyond talking and gets into doing which means money plays a part. (Richard, PETE)

On an alternative note, some participants discussed what was considered ineffective mentorship and diminished support. Specifically, support and mentorship were deemed as more than simply providing funding for students, but there was a strong professional socialization aspect to interacting with a faculty member. Abby, an EXS major,

148

J. A. RUSSELL

highlighted this scenario when she discussed her faculty advisor’s limited mentorship techniques: My advisor provides mentorship and support . . . But that’s it. He really doesn’t connect me to the greater profession. How do I get to where he is professionally? Help me to network . . . Networking and vouching for students is the difference between superstar doc students and average doc students. (Abby, EXS)

DISCUSSION The current research sought to examine the perceptions of kinesiology doctoral students regarding their respective socialization and educational experiences. Results suggested that participants recognized the multifaceted and intricate nature of the “doctoral education experience.” Insights were offered that illuminated both the explicit and implicit connections between organizational structures, cultural norms, and influential individuals perceived as “program power brokers.” An analysis of the data generated four themes that comprehensively describe the participants’ perceptions: transition, negotiation, balance, and support. These themes described “snapshots” of the students’ experiences at various stages of the doctoral education experience. This research was approached with three general philosophical questions in mind regarding kinesiology doctoral socialization and education. First, how are kinesiology doctoral students socialized into their immediate roles as students as well as their future professional roles? That is, in what ways are the acceptable skills, expectations, values, and norms communicated to doctoral students from cultural gatekeepers such as faculty, administrators, peers, and professionals in the field? Second, what organizational or environmental structures within academic units are deemed by doctoral students as most important to their socialization? Said another way, what makes the socialization experience “stick” and consequently the communicated information be deemed acceptable by doctoral students to value and accept as appropriate? Third, how best can administrators and faculty utilize the perspectives of doctoral students to inform policies and practices that could improve their overall doctoral socialization and education experience? These questions are important to consider because they speak directly to how the field of kinesiology can better recruit, retain, and graduate future professionals. For motivation to improve the doctoral socialization experience, one has only to look at recent reports that acknowledge the issue of doctoral student retention that is reported as low as 50% (Gardner, 2009). In light of the existing research and this study’s results, faculty members are deemed crucial to the overall socialization process and to addressing the aforementioned

questions. This is not surprising because theoretical frameworks often centralize the academic unit—and consequently the faculty that make up those units—as principal to the socialization process (Gardner, 2009; Weidman & Stein, 2003; Weidman et al., 2001). This is not to suggest that other individuals were not impactful and full participants in the socialization process for these students. To the contrary, peers, administrators, individuals in professional organizations, and family were also seen as important to the socialization process. However, it was faculty who were consistently identified as significantly aiding or even facilitating key socialization processes that directly impacted the educational experiences and professional development opportunities of the participants. Thus, it can be inferred that faculty are the “primary socialization agents” within kinesiology doctoral programs. This notion is consistent with Weidman et al.’s (2001) theoretical framework as well as a number of other socialization researchers (Bragg, 1976; Gardner, 2008; Golde & Dore, 2001; J. C. Gonza´lez, 2006; Tierney, 1997). Transitioning to doctoral study involved the participants experiencing multiple recalibrations of their academic expectations involving study habits, recognizing faculty evaluation techniques, and understanding their respective academic units’ climate. Particularly important was the necessity of controlling one’s academic reputation and professional reputation while building social networks with influential members of their academic disciplines. Consistent with existing research (Gardner, 2009; Weidman & Stein, 2003), the issues associated with transitioning between levels of doctoral studies were clearly impactful. Often, as found by Zhao, Golde, and McCormick (2007), it was the faculty advisor who provided the final approval of expectations for participants. This involved looking to their faculty and advisors for support and mentorship. Negotiation can be generally defined as a conversation or some form of exchange of perspectives between two or more people with the intent of reaching an understanding, resolution, or agreement. In this research, the negotiation process between students and faculty or administrators was seen as particularly one-sided due to lack of student empowerment. Essentially, the act of negotiation revolved around resolving or avoiding conflicts between the students, faculty, administrators, and their peers. Paramount to the students was weighing the overall consequences of empowering themselves to “control their space and have a voice” within their academic unit’s organizational structure (Golde & Dore, 2001; Russell, 2009). Faculty – student personality clashes, departmental faculty infighting, and faculty advisement/supervision issues have been identified as the primary reasons that students leave doctoral programs and the academic field (Lovitts, 2001; Zhao et al., 2007). For example, common issues identified included situations when students felt their faculty advisors had misadvised them academically or had publicly expressed culturally

DOCTORAL STUDENT SOCIALIZATION

insensitive perspectives or behaviors. Other sources of faculty/student tension included participants demonstrating autonomy in their research agendas and acknowledging receiving mentorships from faculty other than their major advisor. Participants were concerned about these conflicts because of their potential for being defunded, marginalized in laboratories, and not supported by their faculty advisors when seeking employment, as well as other “careerthreatening” consequences. This begs the question, in what ways can students confront or effectively negotiate with faculty or administrators? Is it worth “starting a fuss” to get a resolution and potentially alienating yourself? Balancing the roles and responsibilities of a doctoral student has been a consistent area of concern regarding doctoral student retention and attrition (Lovitts, 2001). Often doctoral students have multiple and competing roles and responsibilities. Key areas that proved difficult to balance were fulfilling funding obligations, completing academic coursework, taking part in professional development activities, and socializing with peers and family. During the dissertation phase of the graduate studies program, this balancing act becomes even more difficult because students are often adding job searches to their “plate.” Faculty members were seen as role models and “cheerleaders” who provided mentoring and support through difficult times. This was particularly the case when students’ academic progress or funding obligations were negatively impacted. Finding support, whether from faculty, peers, family, or administration, was seen as critical for the participants. Moreover, the two most prominent types of support identified could be categorized as either socially oriented or resource-oriented support. Socially oriented support included faculty mentorship, emotional support from family and peers, academic advising, and networking opportunities with faculty external to the student’s own academic units. Resource-oriented support centered on financial support, which included securing funding for graduate studies (primarily assistantships), conference travel funds, and grants or fellowships to support research endeavors. Again, faculty members were influential in obtaining support resources. This is consistent with research acknowledging the primary role of faculty advisors in supporting the overall socialization experience of doctoral students (Golde, 2006; J. C. Gonza´lez, 2006; Zhao et al., 2007). In light of these results, particularly the expressed importance of faculty as role models and cultural gatekeepers, it is critical that potential issues of homologous reproduction are addressed. Mullane and Whisenant (2007) defined the concept as “the process whereby dominants reproduce themselves based on social and/or physical characteristics” (p. 262). Kanter’s (1977) seminal work Men and Women of the Corporation elucidated the nature of corporate power and its impact on the opportunities, selfimage, and career outlook of female professionals. Kanter

149

theorized that the basis of the organizational barriers to promotion and advancement were three fundamental structures influenced by the dominant group: power (ability to influence decision-making processes), opportunities (awareness of career advancement chances), and proportion (availability of empowered role models). Similar to these corporate settings, academic units also have established “power brokers” and a dominant group. Regarding kinesiology doctoral student socialization, a primary concern is the potential for doctoral students to perpetuate the negative cultural norms or “status quo” of their respective academic units even if they find doing so to be objectionable. What if a student has a “bad or undesirable” socialization experience? What cultural messages, faculty expectations or bias will they carry from their respective doctoral experiences into their new professional roles? How can we work to ensure that negative messages are negated and graduates do not reproduce the negative aspects of their doctoral experiences? The results indicated that at different transition points, the doctoral students needed different forms of mentorship and support. Program leadership should review the needs of their students while keeping in mind that as the student is socialized into their professional roles, those needs will change. Again, as Weidman et al.’s (2001) model stressed, faculty perspectives, mentorship, and role modeling can be influential in assisting young scholars in their professional development. Academic departments must be careful to afford doctoral students the appropriate support and mentorship as well as adequate professional development opportunities. One faculty member should not be expected to provide all of the mentorship for any given student. Rather, the department or “academic village” should be responsible for providing a mixture of positive cultural messages that will aid the socialization and development of the student. However, what can be expected if a faculty member is unwilling or unprepared to be an effective advisor and mentor? As Weidman et al.’s work demonstrates, the core of the socialization process is the academic unit’s organizational culture and those faculty and administrators who comprise it. Every effort should be made to provide a supportive and inclusive environment for the betterment of doctoral students transitioning into their professional roles as stewards of the discipline. In conclusion, the doctoral students saw themselves as active participants in the socialization process. What is important to recognize is that the participants were cognizant of the structures and elements that directly impacted their socialization. Moreover, students took ownership of their socialization, and contrary to existing literature, their socialization was not “simply acted upon them.” Despite recognizing the limits of their ability or power to make “key decisions,” their lack of knowledge regarding the “laws and rules of faculty engagement,” and the impact of “office politics,” the students were able to

150

J. A. RUSSELL

successfully acknowledge the need to navigate a myriad of hurdles and obstacles to be successful. This is commendable and should be supported by faculty and leadership as key to the overall development of their students to be future professionals and leaders in their own right. Three limitations are evident in this study. First, recognizing the paucity of scholarship on kinesiology doctoral student socialization, this research represents an exploratory effort to understand the phenomenon. Although similarity of experiences may exist with doctoral students in other academic disciplines, the contribution of this research is the addition of the kinesiology participants’ “storytelling and meaning building” not currently found in existing literature. Second, the general homogeneity and participant pool size potentially underrepresented the experiences of students from diverse cultural, geographical, or socioeconomic backgrounds and thus limited generalizability. A greater diversity of perspectives could be obtained by sampling a greater range of participants and geographically diverse academic programs with differing institutional emphases on research productivity. Lastly, the participant pool represents a convenience sample. Future researchers may want to utilize additional student feedback processes (e.g., student-centered doctoral program evaluations, etc.) to obtain a wider range of perspectives. The present study provides valuable insights into the socialization experiences of kinesiology doctoral students. Four areas of future research are worth considering relative to expanding the current kinesiology literature base. First, future research should explore the impact of organizational structures (e.g., faculty mentors, curriculum, etc.) found in academic units on the successful matriculation of doctoral students and the development of their professional identity. Secondly, a theory of kinesiology doctoral student socialization should be developed using the current study’s framework (Weidman et al., 2001) as a foundation. Of particular interest is identifying socialization structures that impact the doctoral students’ retention and professional preparation. Third, the role of faculty in the socialization process should be further explored to better understand their impact on student retention and professional development. Lastly, additional attention should be afforded to investigating the experiences of demographic subsets (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, etc.) of the kinesiology doctoral student population.

WHAT DOES THIS ARTICLE ADD? This article adds to the existing literature in two ways. First, it explores the perspectives and “lived experiences” of kinesiology doctoral students while following a phenomenological methodology, which is a detour from the traditional quantitative survey-oriented inquiries into doctoral education programs. Second, the study provides a much-needed

examination and evaluation of current doctoral program socialization processes from a student’s perspective. Consequently, we now have participants’ representations of key issues and concerns impacting their doctoral education experience. Graduate academic program administrators and faculty now have evidence that suggests more attention should be focused on understanding the doctoral education and socialization process.

REFERENCES Boyce, A., & Rikard, L. (2008). A comparison of supply and demand for PETE faculty: The changing landscape. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 540–545. Bragg, A. K. (1976). The socialization process in higher education. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education. Cole, D., & Griffin, K. A. (2013). Advancing the study of student– faculty interaction: A focus on diverse students and faculty. In M. A. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 28, pp. 561 –611). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2013). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DePauw, K. (2008). Graduate education in kinesiology: Are we part of ‘America’s backbone for competitiveness and innovation’? Quest, 60, 131–138. Gardner, S. K. (2007). ‘I heard it through the grapevine’: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history. Research in Higher Education, 54, 723–740. Gardner, S. K. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 125–138. Gardner, S. K. (2009). Doctoral student development: Phases of challenge and support. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gardner, S. K., Jansujwicz, J. S., Hutchins, K., Cline, B., & Levesque, V. (2014). Socialization to interdisciplinarity: Faculty and student perspectives. Higher Education, 67, 255–271. Gildersleeve, R., Croom, N., & Vasquez, P. (2011). ‘Am I going crazy?’ A critical race analysis of doctoral education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44, 93–114. Golde, C. M. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In C. M. Golde & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education (pp. 3–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Retrieved from http://www.phd-survey.org Gonza´lez, J. C. (2006). Academic socialization experiences of Latina doctoral students: A qualitative understanding of support systems that aid and challenges that hinder the process. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5, 347–365. Gonza´lez, L. M., Allum, J. R., & Sowell, R. S. (2013). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2002 to 2012. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Hodge, S., & Wiggins, D. (2010). The African-American experience in physical education and kinesiology: Plight, pitfalls, and possibilities. Quest, 62, 35–60. Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

DOCTORAL STUDENT SOCIALIZATION Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. The Journal of Higher Education, 78, 71–96. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mullane, S., & Whisenant, W. (2007). Florida ADs and homologous reproduction. Public Organization Review, 7, 261 –267. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2012). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2012 (Special Report NSF 14-305). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/2012 O’Meara, K., Knudsen, K., & Jones, J. (2013). The role of emotional competencies in faculty–doctoral student relationships. The Review of Higher Education, 36, 315–347. Rikard, G., Boyce, B., Ward, P., Parker, M., Sinclair, C., & Sutherland, S. (2011). Introduction and overview: A multifaceted examination of the status of PETE doctoral programs in the United States. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 99–102. Russell, J. (2009). A survey of instructional program graduate teaching assistant development and support processes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80, 792– 795.

151

Silverman, S. (2012). Research preparation in kinesiology. Quest, 64, 61–74. Spirduso, W., & Reeve, T. G. (2011). The National Academy of Kinesiology 2010 review and evaluation of doctoral programs in kinesiology. Quest, 63, 411–440. Tierney, W. G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 2–21. Tinto, V. (2004). Student retention and graduation: Facing the truth, living with the consequences. Retrieved from http://www.pellinstitute.org Weidman, J., & Stein, E. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in Higher Education, 44, 641–656. Weidman, J., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Woods, M., Goc-Karp, G., & Feltz, D. (2003). Positions in kinesiology and physical education at the college or university level. Quest, 55, 30–50. Zhao, C., Golde, C., & McCormick, A. (2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behavior affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31, 263–281.

Copyright of Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Rolling with the punches: examining the socialization experiences of kinesiology doctoral students.

An increasing body of literature examines the socialization experiences of graduate students on a myriad of topics across academic disciplines. Howeve...
148KB Sizes 0 Downloads 3 Views