Research in Higher Education, Vol. 44, No. 6, December 2003 ( 2003)

SOCIALIZATION OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS TO ACADEMIC NORMS

John C. Weidman*,** and Elizabeth L. Stein*

::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Using the framework for graduate and professional student socialization developed by Weidman, Twale, and Stein (2001), this study addresses socialization of doctoral students to the academic norms of research and scholarship. Data are presented about the perceptions doctoral students in a social science discipline (sociology) and in educational foundations at a major research university have of the scholarly and collegial climates of their departments. Data on students’ social relationships with faculty and peers as well as their reported participation in scholarly activities are also reported. A multivariate analysis provides support for the framework, affirming the importance of social interaction among both students and faculty as well as collegial- ity among faculty for creating a supportive climate for doctoral study that also has the potential to provide a strong foundation for subsequent academic and/or research careers by stimulating students’ research and scholarly productivity.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: KEY WORDS: graduate students; doctoral students; socialization; faculty impact; depart- mental climate; academic norms; scholarly research.

INTRODUCTION

During the last 5 decades, there has been a continuing interest in the socializa- tion of individuals to beginning levels of practice in a professional role (Baird, 1990; Becker, Geer, Hughes, and Strauss, 1961; Bragg, 1976; Bucher and Stell- ing, 1977; Lortie, 1959, 1975; Merton, Reader, and Kendall, 1957; Smart and Hagedorn, 1994). More recently, an update and conceptual expansion of Bragg’s work by Weidman, Twale, and Stein (2001) as well as a literature review by Antony (2002) represent the continuing interest in this subject.

Since a central purpose of postbaccalaureate education is to prepare individu- als for learned roles in society, knowing the relationship between the educational experience and expected outcomes is of great importance to academic institu- tions. The present study continues in this tradition of research on professional

*University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. **Address correspondence to: John C. Weidman, Department of Administrative and Policy Stud-

ies, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh, 5S01 Posvar Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. E-mail: weidman@pitt.edu

641

0361-0365/03/1200-0641/0  2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

642 WEIDMAN AND STEIN

socialization by exploring preparation for the scholar role, that is, the preemi- nent role assumed by individuals who have earned the doctor of philosophy degree. It looks at socialization to the scholar role rather than at commitment to a scholarly discipline (Ondrack, 1975) and uses survey research methods to explore the relationship between perceived characteristics of the faculty and peer climate in doctoral students’ academic departments and their scholarly ori- entations. A definition for the scholar role is presented to establish its theoretical relationship with the postbaccalaureate educational experience, suggesting ways in which the academic department socializes graduate students to both the stu- dent and the scholarly roles as well as characteristics of the academic depart- ment that have an impact on doctoral students.

The various dimensions of the scholarly role and of scholarly practice have been discussed by a number of sociologists (Bowen and Schuster, 1986; Fin- kelstein, 1984; Light, 1974;Weidman et al., 2001). Light has defined a scholarly profession as “an occupation with the attributes of a profession whose core of activity is the advancement of knowledge” (p. 11). For an individual to be in- cluded in the ranks of the scholarly professions implies the possession of a “license to practice” (a Ph.D. or its equivalent), membership in appropriate pro- fessional organizations, and the actual practice of the profession, that is, the advancement of knowledge (Light, 1974, p. 14).

The precise nature of scholarly practice has received a moderate amount of attention in the literature. However, the majority of the literature focuses on the behavior of one segment of the scholar role, that of the faculty in higher educa- tion, and debates the relative importance of teaching and research in the aca- demic role (Bowen and Schuster, 1986; Finkelstein, 1984). Light claims that the university faculty role and scholar role do not necessarily coincide. His analysis encourages us to go beyond a definition of the scholar role limited to the higher education faculty in order to reflect on the activities and practice of the scholar role as a whole. An example of a broader conception is provided by the follow- ing definition: “Scholarly work, which is composed of varied professional activ- ities, is that form of work which involves the application and use of knowledge and skill acquired through and certified by doctoral research training” (Braxton and Toombs, 1982, p. 267).

A central purpose of postbaccalaureate education, particularly at the doctoral level, is the socialization of individuals into the cognitive and affective dimen- sions of social roles related to the practice of learned occupations. Through socialization, novices “acquire the values and attitudes, the interests, skills, and knowledge, in short the culture, current in the groups of which they are, or seek to become a member (Merton et al., 1957, p. 287). A primary outcome of socialization is that the individual accepts, internalizes, and acts as though the prevailing norms of the role to which he or she is aspiring “has validity for him” (Clausen, 1968, p. 8). Because professional roles are of particular importance to

643SOCIALIZATION OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS TO ACADEMICS

society, an understanding of the ways in which individuals are prepared for them is especially important.

The present research draws on the framework for graduate and professional student socialization developed by Weidman et al. (2001), which is based on Weidman’s (1989) framework for undergraduate socialization in an effort to subject several of its elements to an empirical test (Weidman et al., 2001). This framework represents the passage of individuals through the stages of profes- sional socialization. It reflects the prospective graduate students’ characteristics, including personal (ethnicity, gender, social and economic status) and educa- tional background as well as predispositions (values and expectations) related to the motivation to pursue a career in the educational leadership profession. It also represents the outcomes of successful professional socialization (knowl- edge, skills, values such as commitment to and identification with the educa- tional leadership profession).

At the core of this framework is the institutional environment of the university community or other higher education institution in which professional prepara- tion occurs. It includes both academic and peer culture as well as three mecha- nisms of socialization: interaction with others, integration into or sense of fit with the expectations of faculty and peers, and learning of knowledge and skills necessary for effective professional practice. The core socialization experience resides in the graduate program under the academic control of faculty within the institutional culture.

The framework also recognizes that, because universities are not encapsulated environments, graduate students experience communities with simultaneous, concomitant influences. These include professional, higher education institu- tional, and personal communities in which graduate students participate during the course of earning a doctoral degree. The process of socialization is not regarded as linear but as seamless, fluid, dynamic, interactive, evolving, and permeable (Weidman et al.). The experience by graduate students of personal and professional communities in an interactive environment encourages mutual exchange in higher education and job environments as well as with family mem- bers and friends in other settings.

The preparation of doctoral students for the scholar role is a type of adult occupational socialization (Miller and Wager, 1971; Mortimer and Simmons, 1978). Generally, socialization in this sense is “the process by which persons acquire the knowledge, skills and dispositions that make them more or less able members of society” (Brim and Wheeler, 1966, p. 3). In postbaccalaureate study, the cognitive dimensions of a role are transmitted through didactic in- struction (Thornton and Nardi, 1975) and assigned textual material; the norma- tive context and interpersonal relations among an academic department’s mem- bers socialize individuals to relevant occupational norms (Brim and Wheeler, 1966).

644 WEIDMAN AND STEIN

The cognitive and affective dimensions of the professional role differ in the extent to which they are reflected in the organizational structure of an academic department. The cognitive dimensions (knowledge and skills) of a role are clearly evident in the goals of the academic department. The affective and inte- grative aspects of the socialization process are less formally expressed (Merton, et al., 1957; Rosen and Bates, 1967). The formal elements of socialization tend to be “written, listed, stated directly and explicitly” (Thornton and Nardi, 1975, p. 876) and are associated with course requirements, the grading system and minimum grade requirements, preliminary and comprehensive examinations, and the eventual certification of knowledge (competence) by the granting of an academic or professional degree. It is clear that the cognitive dimensions of the professional role are closely related to the requirements of the student role. A student is required to demonstrate cognitive competence by earning acceptable grades and passing examinations, while the novice professional needs extensive knowledge as a basis for professional practice and authority (Friedson, 1986).

The relationship between knowledge and professional practice is usually im- plied rather than stated, however, and there are few organizational policies rela- tive to their transmission. The socialization of a novice to effective role dimen- sions and the integration of knowledge with professional practice has less to do with the formal structure or explicit goals of a department than with the general climate established by informal contact between faculty and students (Becker et al., 1961, p. 81ff; Merton et al., 1957, p. 41; Pease, 1967; Sherlock and Morris, 1967).

Several factors have been associated with students’ perceptions of the organi- zational climate of a department and thus with the socialization of doctoral students to the affective dimensions of the scholar role. First, Merton (1957) identified the importance of a distinctive environment (p. 164), an environment in which professional norms are clear and about which participants agree. Sec- ond, socialization requires opportunities for both formal and informal inter- actions between faculty and students (Merton et al., 1957, p. 287; Pease, 1967; Weidman, 1979). Third, socialization to professional norms is enhanced by a noncompetitive, supportive environment in which the faculty are committed to the students’ success (Antony, 2002; Katz and Hartnett, 1976, p. 59ff).

A fourth factor, closely associated with the third, is the extent of conflict between the student role and novice professional role. When an individual per- ceives tension between achieving as a student (i.e., receiving good grades) and beginning to do scholarly work, he or she is more likely to fulfill academic requirements, both because those requirements have been made clear in the policies of the department and because achieving academic success is necessary before one can be certified for beginning professional practice (Olesen and Whittaker, 1968).

Because socialization is a developmental process, and because anticipation of

645SOCIALIZATION OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS TO ACADEMICS

the future role is part of the process (Thornton and Nardi, 1975), graduate stu- dents can be expected to participate to some extent in scholarly activities. For example, Bucher and Stelling (1977) found that commitment to the norms of the anticipated professional role resulted in participation in the role behavior while still in school. Similarly, Cresswell (1985) found that one of the best predictors of participation in scholarly activities among faculty was demon- strated scholarly productivity while still in graduate school.

This research examines the relationships among an academic department’s informal structures and the socialization of doctoral students to the scholar role as reflected in their level of participation in scholarly activities. The literature suggests that a doctoral student’s perceptions of departmental support for schol- arship and of the faculty’s orientation toward scholarship will have an impact on his or her participation in those activities. It further suggests that departmen- tal climate influences students through their interactions with faculty and that normative expectations that are clearly held by the faculty and about which there is consensus are most readily transmitted.

It is expected that the perception among graduate students that faculty are engaged in and encourage scholarly activities will result in participation in such activities by doctoral students. Further, it is expected that doctoral students will perceive a department as supportive when there is a collegial environment char- acterized by frequent student–faculty interaction, mutual respect among faculty and between faculty and students, and the encouragement of student scholarly aspirations.

STUDY DESIGN

Data were gathered by means of a mailed questionnaire. All data analysis was done with the PC version of SSPS: Statistical Package for the Social Sci- ences. Data reduction was accomplished by scaling sets of related items identi- fied as being related to one another both conceptually and through exploratory factor analysis. Relationships among variables were assessed by correlation and multiple regression.

Sample

The questionnaire was sent to all 83 active Ph.D. students enrolled in two departments in a major public research university that is a member of the Asso- ciation of American Universities: 40 in the Department of Sociology and 43 in the Educational Foundations Program housed within the School of Education’s Department of Educational Policy and Administration. These two departments were chosen to enable a comparison between students enrolled in a professional school department whose doctoral students in Educational Foundations were

646 WEIDMAN AND STEIN

required to take courses in the humanities and social sciences (including sociol- ogy) as part of their “supporting field” requirement and a related disciplinary department in the arts and sciences. Students in the Department of Educational Policy and Administration specializing in the sociology of education are encour- aged to take a master’s degree in the Department of Sociology.

Completed questionnaires were received from 26 sociology Ph.D. students (a 65% return rate) and 24 educational foundations Ph.D. students (a 56% return rate). The distribution of respondents by gender (70% male) and nationality (58% foreign) was representative of the Ph.D. student population in each depart- ment, but both figures are considerably larger than the national averages. There are so many foreign students in the Educational Foundations Program because it includes a distinguished concentration in comparative and international educa- tion.

Of the respondents, 66.7% already had earned advanced degrees (primarily the master’s), and 35% were currently at the dissertation stage of study. All had completed at least one academic year of graduate study in their current depart- ment. A third of the respondents from each department aspired to careers as professors. Just over 25% of the sociology doctoral students indicated they wished to become researchers. About 15% of the educational foundations stu- dents wanted to be consultants, a common aspiration among those specializing in comparative and international education.

The median length of time since enrollment for sociology students was three academic years, compared with two academic years for students in education. The reason for this difference is that most sociology Ph.D. students tended to come to graduate school directly from their undergraduate institutions, whereas educational foundations Ph.D. students tended to have earned a master’s degree and had some employment experience prior to their enrollment in the doctoral program. This pattern was reflected in the median age of the Ph.D. students enrolled in each department: 34 years in sociology and 39 years in educational foundations. Doctoral degrees had been received by 19% of the respondents during the academic year in which the survey was conducted and 50% more were planning to graduate within two academic years.

Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire consisted of items designed to assess departmental characteristics that have been identified as being important elements in the so- cialization of graduate students. Some items were adapted from the 1969 Na- tional Survey of Faculty and Student Opinion sponsored jointly by the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Carnegie Commission (Trow, 1975), an index of scholarly activities developed by Braxton and Toombs (1982), and a questionnaire used for graduate program reviews at the research university

647SOCIALIZATION OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS TO ACADEMICS

where the present study was conducted. In addition, several items were devel- oped specifically for the questionnaire.

Variables

Six composite variables were identified for the research: participation in scholarly activities, student–faculty interactions, student–peer interactions, sup- portive faculty environment, department collegiality, and student scholarly en- couragement. In addition, there were two dummy variables: citizenship (foreign country other than the United States) and major department (educational founda- tions). There were no significant differences by gender in the variables under investigation so it was not included in the analysis.

Participation in Scholarly Activities