Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice

Volume 14 | Issue 2 Article 3

2017

Developing Scholarly Identity: Variation in
Agentive Responses to Supervisor Feedback
Kelsey S. Inouye
University of Oxford, [email protected]

Lynn McAlpine
[email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library:
[email protected]

Recommended Citation
Inouye, Kelsey S. and McAlpine, Lynn, Developing Scholarly Identity: Variation in Agentive
Responses to Supervisor Feedback, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 14(2), 2017.
Available at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3

Developing Scholarly Identity: Variation in Agentive Responses to
Supervisor Feedback

Abstract
The central task for doctoral students, through the process of writing, feedback and revision, is to create a
thesis that establishes their scholarly identity by situating themselves and their contribution within a field.
This longitudinal study of two first-year doctoral students investigated the relationship between response to
supervisor feedback on the thesis proposal and the development of scholarly identity (self-confidence,
independence in research thinking, positioning the self in relation to others), through the lens of individual
agency (self-assessing work, seeking and critically engaging with others’ feedback in order to clarify research
thinking). Data consisted of semi-structured interviews conducted over 3 months, different drafts of the
research proposal, and written supervisor comments on the drafts. Narrative analysis and open coding were
used to produce in-depth portraits of the individual experiences and perceptions of each participant. There
were differences between the two individuals in their growing scholarly identities as regards their agency. The
degree of agency exhibited in engaging critically with feedback in relation to self-assessment, and clarifying
research thinking appeared linked to the development of the student’s scholarly identity: her sense of
confidence, scholarly independence in thinking, and positioning in relation to others. Such confidence and
ownership in turn inspired greater agency. Interestingly, differences in the extent to which participants were
agentive in relation to feedback appeared influenced by previous experiences with feedback. These results
contribute a richer understanding of the relationship between use of supervisor feedback and growing
scholarly independence.

Keywords
scholarly identity, supervision, doctoral education, doctoral writing, feedback, agency

This journal article is available in Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3

Introduction

As aspiring scholars, doctoral students endeavour to enter the academic community by developing

their research and writing abilities through completion of a thesis (Aitchison et al. 2010; Kamler &

Thompson 2014). Composing the thesis, a process that involves writing, research, feedback and

revision, allows students to learn to situate themselves as scholars (Wegener et al. 2014) and

establish scholarly identity – a sense of independence as a researcher (Pearson & Brew 2002)

located within a discipline and contributing to the body of literature.

However, given the intensity of doctoral work and the difficulty of transitioning from student to

independent researcher, scholarly writing is often marked by an increase in anxiety in graduate

students, who are just beginning to navigate both the disciplines and the institutions in which they

are embedded (Lee & Boud 2003). Although many doctoral students have conducted research as

master’s students, the doctoral thesis is the first time they are asked to do research at such an in-

depth and substantial level, making the doctoral thesis a novel learning task in many ways.

In writing the thesis, supervisor feedback is considered essential to making adequate and timely

progress, and in encouraging scholarly growth (Kamler & Thomson 2014; Murakami-Ramalho et

al. 2011). Yet, while previous studies have investigated the communication and reception of

supervisor feedback, and what types of feedback students find useful, few studies have addressed

how supervisor feedback is related to the development of scholarly identity, particularly early on

in doctoral work. Thus, this study focuses on transfer of status or upgrade, which is the first step

towards completing the thesis in most UK doctoral programs. Transfer of status is similar to the

proposal defence in North America, except that the supervisor is not involved in the assessment

process. Students typically are expected to apply for transfer of status after the first year of

doctoral work, and must receive a successful evaluation to proceed to doctoral candidature.1

Because supervisor feedback has the formative possibility to help clarify the doctoral student’s

initial research ideas in revisions of the transfer paper, the purpose of this study was to explore the

relationship between variations in engagement to supervisor feedback on transfer-related writing

and the development of scholarly identity. We chose to do this by examining identity development

through the framework of identity-trajectory, with a focus on individuals’ sense of agency

(McAlpine, Amundsen & Turner 2013).

Agency and identity-trajectory

Identity-trajectory approaches identity development through the lens of variation in agency as

regards engagement in academic work (McAlpine, Amundsen & Turner 2013). Agency represents

efforts to work towards personally chosen goals, and deal with challenges. In relation to writing

and supervisor feedback, agentive behaviours include self-assessing work, engaging critically with

feedback to clarify research thinking and seeking feedback from various sources. Affect –emotion

– also plays a role in agency, in that it influences both one’s approach to the world and response to

it, including one’s desire to invest in or avoid certain activities or relationships. In other words,

individuals vary in the extent to which they perceive themselves as agentive in different contexts.

In becoming part of the academy, identity-trajectory understands scholarly identity development

as enacted in three interwoven work strands: intellectual, networking and institutional (McAlpine,

1 Assessment criteria require the student to demonstrate they can “construct an argument, can present material in a
scholarly manner, has a viable subject to work on, and can be reasonably expected to complete it in three to four years”

(University of Oxford 2016, p. 2).

1

Inouye and McAlpine: Developing Scholarly Identity

Amundsen & Turner 2013). The intellectual strand refers to how the student seeks to contribute to

the body of work in their field through different forms of communication, including the thesis,

published papers and conference presentations. The networking strand is composed of the peer and

other academic networks the student builds and draws on for support (interpersonal networks), as

well as the inter-textual networks – the literature – that the student engages with and uses to

inform their own research thinking. The institutional strand focuses on the student’s active

engagement with both institutional obligations, in this case, completing the thesis proposal within

expected timelines, and institutional resources like supervisors, libraries and seminars to advance

their goals.

Identity-trajectory also places special emphasis on prior experience, specifically on how the past

influences present and future intentions. Thus, identity-trajectory views are not static, but

constantly evolving in response to the individual’s changing goals and experiences. To understand

how individuals vary in the degrees to which they are agentive in furthering their sense of

scholarly identity, one must recognise the personal histories and specific contexts in which the

individual is embedded. In short, students can be more or less agentive in the networking,

intellectual and institutional strands of their developing scholarly identity. Figure 1 illustrates the

interconnectedness of the three strands of identity-trajectory across time.

From the perspective of identity-trajectory, how the student chooses to engage with supervisor

feedback (an institutional resource) in developing the research project is a key site of inquiry, as

the development of the doctoral proposal and thesis, which create the intellectual contribution that

demonstrates a growing scholarly identity, are arguably the most central institutional responsibility

of doctoral work. . Likewise, whether the student seeks alternate sources of feedback and what the

2

Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 14 [2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3

http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3

student chooses to read contribute to both the thesis and the student’s understanding of their place

within the academy. Thus, the ways students seek out and critically engage with suggestions, for

instance, demonstrate how students can actively build their identities in the scholarly community

as they develop confidence and independence in their research thinking, and position the self in

relation to others. This study then explores in more depth how the research on writing can be

framed within students’ agentive engagement with the three strands of identity-trajectory:

intellectual, networking and institutional.

Writing, research thinking, and identity work

Over the past two decades, ample research has recognised the development of scholarly identity as

a process of becoming located within a discipline and institution based on one’s research

contribution; this encompasses the activities associated with being a teacher, researcher, writer,

administrator, etc. (Clarke, Hyde & Drennan 2013; Lieff et al. 2012; Murakami-Ramalho,

Militello & Piert 2013). Evidence of scholarly growth includes greater confidence in one’s work

and a greater critical perspective (Murakami-Ramalho et al. 2011), the development of one’s

technical vocabulary and interaction with networks within the chosen field to achieve a sense of

belonging (Lieff et al. 2012) and position oneself in relation to others, thus adding to the larger

conversation through one’s research (Cameron, Nairn & Higgins, 2009; Pare 2011). In other

words, prior work suggests that one forum for scholarly growth lies in writing (Kamler &

Thomson 2014), such as the doctoral thesis.

In other words, through writing, individuals clarify their ideas about the project as a whole.

Further, since one of the major goals of doctoral study is to produce independent scholars (Pearson

& Brew 2002), writing can be understood as a process of becoming independent in the ability to

critique, argue and position oneself in relation to others. Writing initially involves clarifying

research thinking and generating ideas, and later “integrat[ing] different parts of their work” when

completing the final draft of the thesis (Phillips 1982, p. 172). Thus, academic writing involves the

synthesis of a sense of identity and confidence as a writer (Ivanic 1998, 2004; Kamler & Thomson

2014; Lea & Stierer 2011), with a focus on putting a particular stamp on the text (Thomson &

Kamler 2016), thereby positioning the self as a legitimate voice with a contribution to make

(Cameron et al. 2009). In other words, writing is the tangible representation of an individual’s

research thinking and identity as a scholar.

Thus, from the perspective of identity-trajectory, the thesis and related research represent the

student’s potential intellectual contribution, since they are regarded as principally the work of the

student. The student must be agentive in developing and owning the research thinking and how it

is represented in the text, and work on the thesis constitutes development of the intellectual strand

of identity-trajectory.

The role of feedback: Encouraging self-assessment and research thinking

Agency is evident in the networking strand of identity-trajectory in the extent to which doctoral

students intentionally develop and use a network of support to help further their research ideas,

which are then represented in the text. One such source of support is supervisor feedback, a key

institutional resource and important means of achieving the student’s institutional responsibility

for timely completion.

3

Inouye and McAlpine: Developing Scholarly Identity

Feedback is understood as “information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, book, parent, self,

experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding” (Hattie & Timperley 2007,

p.81). Feedback creates or highlights what the assessor considers a “gap” between the quality of

student work and the target level defined by the assessor – which students may mitigate by seeking

out and addressing comments, and by learning to detect issues in their work through self-

assessment (Hattie & Timperley 2007). Much evidence of this link exists at the undergraduate

level.

Previous research suggests that self-regulation and self-assessment are important components of

writing development and performance (Cho, Cho & Hacker 2010), and that teachers may

encourage self-assessment by asking students to evaluate their work (Nichol 2010). For doctoral

students, there is evidence that peer writing groups may be useful in encouraging self-assessment

as students learn to position themselves by collectively building identities as writers and peer

reviewers, and sharing experiences in pursuit of the common goal of producing quality writing

(Aitchison & Lee 2006; Lee & Boud 2003). This notion of self-assessment is also central in

understanding the role of agency in research development. The way students evaluate their work,

interpret and assess supervisor feedback and make appropriate revisions is representative of the

agentive nature of scholarly growth.

At the doctoral level, much of the research on feedback has focused on that between the supervisor

and supervisee, because it is under the supervisor’s purview that the student shapes a thesis.

Specifically, doctoral students’ supervisory needs most frequently include writing, research plans

and process, institutional issues and disciplinary and academic practices (McAlpine & McKinnon

2012). Prior work on supervisor feedback has focused primarily on classifying types of feedback

(Kumar & Stracke 2007; Basturkmen et al. 2014). Such studies have examined the linguistic

functions of comments (Kumar & Stracke 2007) as well as trends in the substantive content of

feedback (Basturkmen et al. 2014) and how graduate students view different types of feedback –

what is perceived as most useful, and what is not (Kumar & Stracke 2007; Basturkmen et al.

2014). Supervisor feedback may support changes in research thinking and scholarly development

in doctoral students by introducing the student to new literature, methodologies or possible

theoretical frameworks (Kwan 2009), and posing reflective questions that prompt students to

reevaluate their work (Ghazal et al. 2014).

Responses to feedback: Emotion and experience

Because identity-trajectory takes into account the role of prior experience in shaping present and

future intentions and perspectives, past experiences with writing play an important part in shaping

how students respond to feedback. In other words, in becoming a PhD student, individuals bring

with them a long history of experience with feedback on text. These varied experiences provide

the context in which they respond to feedback in the doctoral context.

Research suggests that writing the thesis can be an emotional journey of highs and lows. Feedback

that challenges a doctoral student’s thinking and actions can lead to negative emotional responses,

which may subsequently affect self-efficacy, particularly in students with little practice giving and

receiving feedback (Can & Walker 2011; Caffarella & Barnett 2010; Carlino 2012). Part of

moving from student to independent researcher (Aitchison & Lee 2006; Aitchison et al. 2012) is

learning to value challenging feedback as a mechanism to enhance one’s thinking. In this shift,

giving and receiving feedback comes to be seen as a collaborative process requiring skill and

cooperation from both supervisor and student, involving student regulation of the emotions

4

Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 14 [2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3

http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3

associated with revision and writing. In other words, a significant aspect of responding to

supervisory feedback is learning to negotiate criticism in productive ways (Li & Seale 2007).

Students who lose motivation and self-confidence as a result of negative feedback may also refrain

from seeking feedback (Can & Walker 2011), while those who are less affected by criticism are

more likely to actively seek feedback from multiple sources (Can & Walker 2011) and critically

review their own writing (Kumar & Stracke 2007). Likewise, students who are motivated and

focused on improvement tend to question feedback and exhibit greater confidence in their research

ideas (Can & Walker 2010). Students with greater self-efficacy may also be more likely to justify

their revisions and decisions not to follow all supervisor suggestions, thereby exhibiting agentive

decision-making (Caffarella & Barnett 2010).

The study

This study was guided by the following research question:

• How do engagement with supervisor feedback and revision decisions about the transfer
paper reflect and facilitate the development of scholarly identity?

While prior research has demonstrated that writing is a major site of scholarly identity

development, and that doctoral students acquire self-assessment skills and gain confidence in their

scholarly identities through giving and receiving feedback in peer groups, there is limited research

that examines the role of supervisor feedback in this identity development, particularly in the early

stages of doctoral work. Given this context, this study investigated the extent to which two first-

year doctoral students demonstrated greater or lesser agency in their responses to supervisor

feedback on their transfer papers, and how this process was related to the development of their

scholarly identities. We looked specifically at their evaluation and use of supervisor feedback,

assessment of their own work and clarification of research thinking in connection to growing

confidence and positioning of the self in relation to others.

We focused on two students because we wanted to pilot a different conceptual framework (which

we have described earlier) and a different methodological approach to understanding the role of

supervisor feedback. Much previous inquiry has used thematic analysis that looks across

individuals. Instead, we chose a longitudinal narrative approach that centers on the individual as

the focus of analysis (Elliott 2005), and tends to use low numbers of participants given the large

data sets generated for each. The strength of narrative is that it permits the researcher to look for

individual differences—in our case, in agency and scholarly development. Further, incorporating a

longitudinal, multi-modal approach (see below) meant we could triangulate different data sources

in developing a rich understanding of growing scholarly identity. Similar studies that examine in-

depth feedback practices at the doctoral level have also used small sample sizes of one to three;

ultimately, “the appropriate sample size for a qualitative study is one that adequately answers the

research question” (Marshall & Rossman 1995).

5

Inouye and McAlpine: Developing Scholarly Identity

Methods

Participants
Participants were two first-year doctoral students, “Sarah” and “Isabelle”, studying education at

the University of Oxford.2 They were recruited via email advertisement and oral announcement

made by the Graduate Program Director. Announcements were made in class twice over three

weeks during the doctoral research seminar, followed by an email that included the researchers’

contact information and details of the study. Two students responded out of a possible 21 full-

time, first-year doctoral students. The small population, the time-consuming nature of this study

and the possibility that not all students had made sufficient progress on their papers likely explains

this response rate. The literature suggests that in studies involving in-depth qualitative interviews,

there is no minimum number of participants; rather, the question is whether there is “sufficiency”

of information to reflect a range of experiences, without having “oversaturation” (redundancy)

(Seidman 2006, p.55). The two participants who responded held very different perspectives and

prior experiences. Further, the narrative approach of this study rendered a small sample

appropriate, as described above.

Research design
Once the project had received ethics approval, data was collected in the following manner. Each

participant was interviewed after meeting with her supervisor, capturing the experience of three or

four consecutive supervision sessions from mid-February through May 2016. This was in line with

departmental policy that students can expect to meet with their supervisors once per month.

Supervisors were not notified that their students were participating in the research.

Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes and occurred either in person at agreed times

and locations, or via Skype, depending on the participants’ travel schedules. Interviews focused on

the students’ writing and feedback histories, their responses to supervisor feedback on the transfer

paper, plans for revision and perspectives on their research progress.3 Questions were drafted and

revised based on input from both authors of this study, and were informed by the literature. Prior

to each interview, the students’ notes, written supervisor feedback and drafts of the transfer paper

were collected and reviewed. All interviews were recorded and manually transcribed.

Data analysis
The data was analysed using a combination of narrative analysis and open coding. Narrative

analysis involves examining the data in a holistic way, viewing the texts as a whole (Riessman

2008). To understand each participant’s experience, interviews, student notes and drafts of the

transfer paper were narratively analysed. These analyses took place at two different times and had

two different purposes: 1) to produce cameos representing each participant’s writing and feedback

history, doctoral research project and supervisory patterns at the start of this study; and 2) later to

produce summaries that demonstrated how each participant situated the writing-feedback-revision

process within the period of the study, and how that process affected the extent of her

identification as an academic.

2 This research was conducted while the first author was a master’s student at the University of Oxford. The co-author of

this paper was her supervisor. Although both participants were also members of the Department of Education, they rarely,

if ever, encountered the author outside of set meeting times, and they did not know each other before the start of this
research.
3 The interview protocol can be obtained from the authors.

6

Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 14 [2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3

http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3

Next, trends in each participant’s interpretation of feedback were identified via open coding of

interview transcripts. Open coding, also referred to as emergent coding, is a common method in

qualitative analysis for classifying and interpreting data (Creswell 2013). Through this process,

five major themes were identified – agency, experience, emotion, personal networking,

supervisory patterns – which related to how the participants interpreted supervisor feedback,

decided what feedback to incorporate and subsequently viewed their research projects. Using the

tools in MaxQDA 12, including the code-relations browser, the summary grid and segment

retrieval, the data were further analysed for patterns. Quotes from interviews that illustrated the

participants’ thinking processes in taking up feedback and making decisions about revision were

also identified. The results of these analyses formed the basis for the narrative summaries (noted

above) that represented the complete experience of each participant in relation to the research

questions. All coding was separately reviewed by the co-authors of this paper, and were clarified

and refined through discussion, codes, definitions and interpretations.4

Results and discussion

This study set out to answer the following research question: How do engagement with supervisor

feedback and revision decisions about the transfer paper reflect and facilitate the development of

scholarly identity?

The results below describe how two first-year doctoral students displayed varying levels of agency

in responding to feedback within the three strands of identity-trajectory. Despite the contrast in

their approaches to supervisor feedback, both participants advanced their scholarly identities by

using and evaluating feedback on their transfer papers. Given our narrative approach, we begin

with two cameos to introduce Sarah’s and Isabelle’s experiences of writing and feedback.

Sarah
Sarah was a first-year doctoral student whose research focused on using digital technologies to

teach modern history at the secondary level in England. Prior to the doctoral program, Sarah had

completed two master’s degrees in history. As a non-native English speaker, she had concerns

about her ability to express herself in English and appreciated feedback on language.

In the past, Sarah had had negative experiences with school and feedback. As an adolescent, she

took criticism personally, a problem that was exacerbated by comments from teachers that went

beyond assessing her work to issuing judgements about her ability as a student. After completing

her bachelor’s degree and a thesis under an influential supervisor, Sarah learned to separate herself

from criticism. At the time of this study, she had generally learned to temper her emotional

response towards feedback.

Sarah began working on her transfer paper in October 2015, shortly after starting the doctoral

program, and planned to submit in September 2016. Her thesis was guided by two female co-

supervisors. Sarah met with her “core supervisor” four or five times per term, and with both

supervisors once per term. At each supervision, Sarah and her supervisor(s) took notes. Sarah’s

notes focused on her supervisors’ suggestions for revision, and sources of further reading.

Following each meeting, Sarah typed her notes and uploaded them to a forum containing a “trail”

of both her and her supervisors’ notes, resulting in an archive reflecting the various topics they

4 A list of codes can be obtained from the authors.

7

Inouye and McAlpine: Developing Scholarly Identity

discussed. She also received in-text written comments on the first draft of her literature review in

the form of tracked changes and comments in a Word document.

In February, when Sarah’s first interview took place, she was in the early stages of developing her

research project, and the major evidence of her work was represented in a basic outline of her

research proposal that she submitted in December 2015 for the Research Training Seminar. Over

the next few months, Sarah drafted and revised her literature review, and discussed with her

supervisors two possible avenues for her research design. She also drafted the transfer document,

which contained the major elements of her transfer paper, including research purpose, research

questions, theoretical framework and methods.

Isabelle
Isabelle was a first-year doctoral student conducting research on the demand for higher education

from refugees in a developing country. English was her second language,5 which she mastered as

an undergraduate in the US. Isabelle enjoyed writing, which she had taught for a total of five

years. Thus, she was familiar with giving and receiving feedback. As a master’s student, Isabelle

also started …

International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2016, Volume 28, Number 1, 30-37
http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ ISSN 1812-9129

Waiting for the Expert to Arrive: Using a Community of Practice to
Develop the Scholarly Identity of Doctoral Students

Karie Coffman, Paul Putman, Anthony Adkisson, Bridget Kriner, and Catherine Monaghan

Cleveland State University

This qualitative study examined the identity of doctoral students in their quest to become scholars.
The research question asked: What impact did a Community of Practice have on the doctoral
students? The findings illustrated that on the journey the participants struggled to integrate multiple
identities and roles. They also refined their identities within the liminal spaces of the doctoral
process and the Community of Practice (CoP). The CoP provided validation to help the participants
grow and emerge into scholars as they built relationship through the many opportunities they used to
co-create knowledge for themselves and others. Under the guidance and direction of an expert and
scholar in the field, we held the vision of becoming experts within our respective subject areas,
trusting the CoP to facilitate the process of our transformation into scholars.

Talk with students currently in a doctoral program

or those who have completed their program, and they
will surely share how the experience comes with an
ample amount of work requiring lots of time, sweat,
and maybe even tears. In addition, they may further
reveal that the experience of a doctoral program is not
complete without also facing some anxieties and fears
about the mastery of what it means to be a scholar or
expert within a chosen discipline: anxieties about the
worthiness of his or her research, or the competency to
present research to groups of established scholars, or
even submitting research for publication and facing
criticism of prospective peers in a positive way, and the
list could continue. The process of becoming a
researcher and adopting a professional and scholarly
identity is a process of transformation and identity
development beyond that of an undergraduate or
masters level student.

For us, the terms “scholar” and “expert” are
interchangeable. Merriam-Webster defines expert as
“having or showing special skill or knowledge because
of what you have been taught or what you have
experienced” and scholar as “person who has studied a
subject for a long time and knows a lot about it: an
intelligent and well-educated person who knows a
particular subject very well” (“Merriam-Webster”,
n.d.). Caley and colleagues (2014) define an expert as
“someone with a comprehensive and authoritative
knowledge in a particular area not possessed by most
people” (p. 232). Burgman and colleagues (2011)
define experts as “those with certain qualifications,
track record, and experience” (p. 1). With these
definitions, a case could be made for the successful
completion of a doctoral program as evidence of
becoming a scholar or expert. Yet a scholarly identity
was, in our minds, beyond our grasp. It must be the
result of more experience, more education, more
published research, more conference presentations—
whatever we might possess; in our minds a scholar or
expert was someone who was a step beyond our own

accomplishments. Berliner (1986) identifies problems
in studying expertise; “the grand master in chess, of
course, has won thousands of games against tough
opponents. Points and wins are accrued over time. In
the same way an Olympic champion is accorded his or
her gold medal. In such cases agreement about who is
and is not an expert is easy to obtain” (p. 8), but it is not
always so easy, particularly within academia. Part of
our process involved demystifying scholarly practice
and moving closer to owning the identity of scholar or
expert.

The following is a research project that examines
how the identities of three doctoral students and a
recent doctoral program graduate in an adult education
program at an urban university developed over time
using the concept of Communities of Practice (CoP).
While demonstrating the use of CoP to influence the
development of the participants’ identities, the research
will further illustrate how a doctoral program functions
as a liminal space complete with traditional practices
and certain rites of passage in helping move students
closer towards an identity as a scholar. The exploration
into the development of a scholarly identity attempts to
address the need for further research about identity
development of adult students in higher education
(Kasworm, 2010), while also highlighting that identity
development is not isolated to traditional teaching
methods alone (Jimenez-Silva & Olsen 2012).

Literature Review

Lave and Wenger (1991) first postulated CoP as a

means of co-creating knowledge. It has been applied to
many arenas, such as business (Wenger, McDermott, &
Snyder, 2002), higher education (Monaghan, 2009), and
management education (Monaghan, 2011), to name a
few. Communities of Practice consist of individuals
who organically form a learning community to assist
them in self-directed, collaborative co-creation of
knowledge. In most instances, this may be driven by a

Coffman et al. Community of Practice 31

desire to enhance the learner’s professional
development. The CoP framework guided this study
from beginning to end. This particular CoP formed
during a doctoral class in an urban university, and the
members of this community continue to meet monthly
almost three years later to continue various projects.
The continuation of this CoP was a result of the
members’ desire to continue their professional
development from novice to expert scholars in their
field. This literature review will focus on CoP in higher
education with an emphasis on doctoral studies, identity
development and the development of emerging
scholars, the liminal nature of doctoral studies, and
transformational learning.

Communities of Practice in Higher Education

Wenger (1999) argues that learning is not an
activity that can be separated from other situations and
life experiences. He argues for a model of learning he
calls a “social theory of learning,” which encompasses
dimensions of learning such as social structure,
collectivity, practice, meaning, situated experience,
power, identity, and subjectivity. He does not propose
that his “social theory of learning” should replace other
models of learning, rather that his model is an attempt
to understand better the ways that learning operates
with the social structure.

Communities of Practice are used as a tool in many
higher educational contexts; they are used in the
contexts of faculty development and in both graduate
and undergraduate level education. In a CoP, learning is
both socially situated and socially constructed (Zimitat,
2007). A CoP can be an important tool for use in
education, as it can provide a practice-based situation
where learning can develop, moving an individual’s
knowledge from an accepted to transformed state
(Andrew & Ferguson, 2008). Even in an online
environment, CoP has been shown to develop elements
of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared
repertoire in participants (Moule, 2006). Further, it has
been demonstrated that the use of CoP in university
education can foster increased student confidence,
improved communication skills, development of
problem-solving skills, and acquisition of practical
experience in their discipline (Yap, 2012). In a CoP,
students learn actively through participation; in fact,
“learning by doing” is one of the hallmarks of
Wenger’s model. Communities of Practice models of
learning help prepare adult students for a more
successful early college experience (O’Donnell &
Tobbell, 2007). A CoP can be especially useful in a
doctoral program.

The purpose of a PhD program is to prepare a
student to become a scholar. “The program emphasizes
the development of a student’s capacity to make

significant original contributions of knowledge…”
(Council of Graduate Schools, 2005, p.1). This
transition requires students to shift from the role of
course-taker to independent scholar (Lovitts, 2005). A
course-taker is a “consumer of knowledge” that
operates in a “tightly bond or controlled environment”
(Lovitts, 2005, p. 138). Conversely, a scholar is a
“producer of knowledge that often results from
uncertain processes that take place in unstructured
contexts” (Lovitts, 2005, p. 138).

It is somewhat of a paradox that research and
writing are so important in doctoral studies but students
feel “unprepared to make this transition” (Lovitts, 2008,
p.296). Students encounter ambiguous expectations that
they need to conduct independent research but struggle
when attempting to navigate the scholarly world. This
struggle occurs because students are not familiar with
the practices of scholars and therefore do not feel part
of the scholarly community (Lovitts, 2005; Vekkaila,
Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2013). Creating safe space for
students takes time but can make a difference. As noted
by Turner and colleagues (2012), “Facilitating the
development of an affirming environment can serve to
enhance students’ understanding of what is needed to
become exemplary researchers” (p. 109-110). Doctoral
students also need “support in interpreting the scholarly
world and its requirements” (Vekkaila et al., 2013, p.
76). In addition to personal traits like intelligence and
motivation, doctoral students need the support of
experienced academics and other graduate students to
facilitate the socialization process into academia and
engage in scholarly activities (Gardner, 2007; Lovitts,
2005; Turner et al., 2012; Vekkaila et al., 2013). Pairing
seasoned and emerging scholars in a CoP to engage in
the process of performing scholarly research can help
students make connections similar to the process
described by Jimenez-Silva and Olsen (2012), where
this combination of processes helped pre-service
teachers “bridge the gap between what they learned in
the courses…and their future practice” (p. 342). One of
the outcomes of a PhD program is to help students
develop an identity as a scholar, and CoP are intended
to help participants develop their identities.

Identity

Kim and Merriam (2010) take a sociocultural look
at identity within a CoP. Their qualitative study found
that participants in a computer learning course
increased their self-efficacy and self-esteem, and they
felt less marginalized than when they started the course.
Another important finding was that the CoP allowed
learners to hone their skills by mutually engaging with
other learners of varied experience within the context of
classes and social gatherings. Novice learners are not
only developing a greater competence in a professional

Coffman et al. Community of Practice 32

skill. As they become experienced members of a
community, their identity changes as they experience
integration and empowerment (Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Merriam, Courtney & Baumgartner, 2003).

Identity formation plays a large part in how graduate
students, as adult learners, go from a position of seeing
themselves as students to seeing themselves as scholars.
Some of the research (Kasworm, 2010) in the field of adult
education examining the role of identity and students has
looked at undergraduate students in both community
colleges and research institutions. It attempted to address
the nature of adult student identity within these respective
environments. Using social constructivism, Kasworm
(2010) explores the co-construction of positional and
relational identities. She points out that a student’s identity
is positional in the sense that the student is attempting to
negotiate meeting the academic challenges set before them
and developing a sense of agency as certain goals are
accomplished successfully. Similarly, she points to the
construction of relational identities as well, which are
developed through a student’s acceptance by others within
their social environment, in particular with their faculty
members. Kasworm believes the key to understanding the
co-construction of the students’ positional and relational
identities is recognizing how their identities reflect
multilayered, multisource, and paradoxical beliefs of
themselves and their positions. This study is key for
understanding how adult students 25 and older develop an
identity as students in an environment that is
predominantly made up of younger students. The result of
this study demonstrates how adult students found and
valued their voice within the classroom and that this
newfound voice was negotiated through their classroom
engagements and academic competence.

Deaux (1993) used the term “identity packages” to
describe how a person maintains membership in
multiple categories (p. 6). An individual’s choice of
categories and the meaning they attribute to these
categories forms their identity. Deaux’s concept of an
“identity package” illustrates that identity is not
singular but the assemblage of multiple identities.
Looking to the work of Ashmore, Deaux, and
McLaughlin-Volpe (2004), Goldie (2012) posits
“identity is realized through a dynamic process of
identification by which individuals classify their place
in the world as both individuals and members of
collectives” (Ashmore et al., 2004, p. e641).

Liminality

Further looking into the identity of students in
higher education, the research of Field and Morgan-
Klein (2010) proposes that “studenthood” or “the
variety of different ways in which registering for an
educational program is implicated in people’s sense of
who they are” (p. 1) is a distinctive identity form

related to the transitional nature of a learner in higher
education moving from one status to another. To
expand on this transitional nature of students in higher
education Field and Morgan-Klein use the work of
anthropologist Turner (1987) to discuss the concept of a
liminal persona or liminality. In Turner’s research,
liminality functions as rites of passage where
individuals move through customs and rituals to take on
new identities while leaving behind old identities.
According to Field and Morgan-Klein, studenthood is a
liminal status because of its temporality. It is between
the old identities and yet to be formed new identity, it is
bounded by time, which determines when you enter and
when you exit, and it has a prescribed set of curricula
and customs that must be accomplished and mastered
before exiting into the new identity.

Transformational Learning

Another lens to examine the development of

emerging academic professionals and scholars is
transformational learning. Mezirow (1997) describes
transformational learning as “the process of effecting
change in a frame of reference” (p.5). Transformative
learning occurs when an individual’s perspective
profoundly changes, resulting in a new frame of
reference that will guide future action. This change is
not the result of a lived experience alone; rather, it
requires an individual to examine and clarify the
experience through critical reflection and reflective
discourse with others. The CoP provided the container
for reflective discourse with others.

In summary, a number of studies discussed form the
basis of the research gap that is addressed in this study.
Both Kim and Merriam (2010) and Jimenez-Silva and
Olsen (2012) demonstrate that learning is not isolated to
teaching methods but can be strengthened using CoP.
Kasworm (2010) concluded her study by stating that there
is a need for further research on adult student identity in
other collegiate contexts. Our study sought to examine the
premise that the validation gained through participation in
a CoP could enhance the validation of students in the
scholarly community at large.

Purpose of Study/Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to examine the
identity development of doctoral students as they
became scholars. The research question asked what
impact the CoP had on the students’ identity as
emerging scholars.

Methodology

This was a qualitative study. Qualitative research

focuses on achieving an understanding of how people

Coffman et al. Community of Practice 33

make sense out their lives, attribute meaning to their
experiences, and interpret their experiences (Merriam,
2009). This approach was used to explore how the
experiences within a CoP influenced identity
development as emerging scholars. Data was collected
over the course of fourteen months in the form of
written reflection and analysis in response to the
specific research question.

Context

The participants in this study were three doctoral
students and one recent graduate of the program who
was also the co-instructor in the course. The course was
“Advanced Seminar in Adult Learning and
Development.” One learner was in her first semester, a
second learner was at the beginning of her second year
of coursework, and the third learner was entering the
candidacy phase. All participants were interested in
becoming professionals within the field of adult
education and brought different backgrounds and adult
education experiences. The fifth member of the CoP
was the tenured faculty member who was the instructor
of record for the course.

Data Collection

The CoP conceived of a research project within the
course timeframe. Research questions were developed,
and all the participants/researchers agreed to write
detailed reflection papers in response. In order to
separate the course assignment from this research
project, the reflection papers were written and
submitted to the CoP six weeks after the course ended.
That process and the resulting research paper and
conference presentation led to the current research
question presented here. A prompt was given to address
the research question in the reflection papers: “Since
the completion of the Advanced Seminar Course a year
earlier, how has the evolving nature of the CoP
impacted your self-efficacy as an emerging scholar?”
After all of the participants submitted reflection papers
for this study, the researchers, who were also the
participants, proceeded to analyze the data.

Data Analysis

To analyze the data, several in-person data analysis
sessions were held to review and code the written
responses. Data was analyzed using categorical
aggregation (Hébert & Beardsley, 2001). Each
individual reflection piece was coded and member
checked by two readers to highlight themes related to
the research question to provide intercoder agreement,
thus to provide some evidence of validity (Mitchell,
1979). As issue-relevant clusters and patterns emerged,

they were coded and recorded. In addition, all the
researchers reviewed the themes and supporting data as
a further aspect of using member checks. “We have
found that members’ feedback [in a research team] is
very valuable and sometimes helps us see or emphasize
something we missed” (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p.
147). We report the primary themes that emerged in
response to the research question in the next section.

Findings

Several key themes emerged: multiple

identities, refinement of identity, validation of
scholarly roles, and struggle. This section provides
a description of each theme with participant quotes
to help elucidate the various themes. A discussion
of the findings follows.

Multiple Identities

The CoP allowed us to explore the connection
between our experience as scholars and our self-
knowledge. We described the scholarly identity as
one dimension of multiple identities. The theme of
multiple identities emerged because the CoP not
only nurtured the development of a scholarly
identity but also provided the space to explore the
connection between the scholarly identity and other
dimensions of our “multifaceted identities.” One
CoP participant describes, “I could look forward
and think about how my new identity influenced all
the spheres in my life – from personal, recreational
to professional.”

We discovered that the interaction between the
various dimensions of one’s identity is fluid as the
meaning attributed to life roles influences identity,
but self-perception also influences how one
approaches various roles. One participant describes,
“As I have worked on the development of my own
identity as a scholar, within the field of adult
education, I am also working on my identity as a
manager within [my] organization.” The image of a
bridge emerged to illustrate the connection between
multiple identities that are experienced
simultaneously. The participants expressed a need
to bridge the gap between different life roles,
particularly for those who have a career outside of
academia: “One path is scholarly; one path is my
current job outside of academia. At times I am able
to bring the paths in alignment, but it is not as often
as I would like.” Social expectations accompany
life roles, and struggle can occur when expectations
of a multifaceted identity conflict. At times, we
experienced an internal struggle when attempting to
bridge these gaps or navigate the complexities of
our multiple identities.

Coffman et al. Community of Practice 34

Refinement of Identity

Other researchers have discussed the process of
identity creation or formation (Ashmore, et al., 2004;
Goldie, 2012). Building upon that sense of active
formation, we conceived refinement of identity as a
process wherein identity is explored and reflected upon
as a more fully realized identity takes shape. Similar to
the way a sculptor might take a piece of marble and
chip away at pieces that do not fit the final vision,
members of the CoP had been chipping away at our
sense that we could not be or are not yet scholars. The
participants kept waiting for a specific moment when
they would “feel” like the experts everyone said we
would be. If an additive metaphor is preferred, it is also
similar to the way that a sculptor might add clay to a
sculpture, continuously manipulating and changing the
piece until the sculpture is complete. In our
conceptualization of this theme, the process of
refinement is evolutionary in nature and has not come
to an end for any of the CoP participants. Refinement
indicates a sense of continuity as part of identity that it
is not completed at any particular point in time but
rather continues to grow and morph throughout our
lives. Refinement of identity is further complicated by
the multiple identities that we all possess as mentioned
earlier in the literature review. One CoP participant
elucidated, “As I add meaning to my role as a graduate
student I begin to see myself as a scholar which
influences my professional identity as an academic
advisor.” Each of our many identities is at a different
stage of development and is beautifully multifaceted.
The participant continued, “My identification in each of
these roles is at different levels of self-actualization as I
consider myself an emerging scholar and a practiced
academic advisor.”

The CoP began with the vision of “developing a
place to help other members of the community develop
their identities and expertise as scholars in the field of
adult education.” As the CoP has evolved as a
collective experience, so too have participants evolved.
“…as I have transitioned more into working on my
dissertation and research from my role as student and
graduate assistant, I am more able to see a future for
myself [as an] academic scholar.” The process has
helped us validate our own identities.

Validation

Participants characterized the CoP experience as
validating, “[W]hen I shared my research ideas with
the group, they provided supportive comments and
feedback. They helped me to more carefully think
through my work. This helped me to see my own
knowledge and curiosity as valid.” Through
participation in the CoP, a connection was made to

the larger field of Adult Education: “I had never seen
my ideas that way before – as being something fresh
and innovative.”

In this CoP the doctoral students found
opportunities and space to develop their voices and
identity as emerging scholars. Contributing to this is
that one member of the CoP, the course instructor, is an
established scholar within the field of adult education
and served as a role model and mentor to the students.
As graduate students, the other participants identified
the instructor as someone whose voice and opinion was
valued within the field of adult education, thus helping
us to feel comfortable taking on the role of emerging
scholars and expressing our own voices and opinions.
Others have also noted the value of this relationship
(Kasworm, 2010).

In addition, engaging in scholarly activities
resulted in an informed approach to work outside the
academic sphere. Newly acquired knowledge and skills
guided decision-making and practice. One participant
described, “I have gained program development and
assessment knowledge so I am not only reflecting and
refining my work but evaluating and considering new
ideas to improve advising service.” The CoP provided
an environment that nurtured the development of a
scholarly identity, as well as a space to reflect on how it
is realized in relation to other identities: “This CoP
allowed me to sort this out through our interactions, co-
creation of knowledge and reflection.”

Part of the challenge in adopting a new identity,
especially the identity of scholar, is that there is always
another script to complete and level that you need to
achieve before you arrive. Academia is rife with
milestones that are easy to conflate with clear changes
in identity: when doctoral students defend their
prospectuses they become doctoral candidates, when
they graduate they become “doctors,” when hired by an
institution of higher education they become faculty, and
when they become tenured they have fully “arrived.”
One participant elaborated on his future as a scholar, “I
am more able to see a future for myself … within a
community based organization because I think there is a
need within the community.” He continued, “There is a
need to bridge the communities of higher education and
community organizations together, but also as a
researcher to tell the stories in an empirical manner of
those, I serve.”

Struggle

An experience of struggle was a very strong theme,
as it flowed throughout all of the findings. Bridging the
gap between multiple identities, experiencing the
process of identity refinement, and seeking validation
are not endeavors that effortlessly transpire by
following a step-by-step guide for achievement.

Coffman et al. Community of Practice 35

Alternately, navigating these processes resulted in
struggle as the participants situated a new scholarly
identity within our multifaceted identities. “So I am left
to wrestle with the question of how will what I have
learned in the academic space be useful in the non-
academic space.” This struggle became the disorienting
dilemma that initiated the transformative learning
process. “My challenge as I see it is to both keep up the
scholarly momentum while simultaneously figuring out
what will be my next steps career-wise. I’m seeking a
balance that works well for me and a melding of the
paths.” The need for balance revealed the disorienting
dilemma as the participants experienced a disruption in
their current perspectives. The CoP provided a space
for the participants to reflect on the struggle that
resulted from integrating the role of scholar into their
existing identity.

Discussion

The concept of “scholar” is often conflated with

the title of professor. For doctoral students/graduates
who are practitioners outside of an institution of higher
education, this adds a challenging dimension to the
development of a scholarly identity. Indeed, institutions
of higher education may be enforcing barriers to
practitioner-scholars through structures that reinforce
the role of the institution as the keeper of all practices
academic. This can then be enforced through the social
network of those associated with the institution as a
regulatory power. “One way regulatory power works is
by categorizing people in terms through which they
come to understand themselves. Individuals become
subjected to the rules and norms engendered by
knowledge about these identities” (Goldie, 2012, p.
e642). In other words, it can become difficult for
anyone to consider the identity of scholar outside of …

Get rights and content

•

•

•

•

•

Previous Next

The Internet and Higher Education
Volume 42, July 2019, Pages 44-52

The role of an online first-year seminar in higher education doctoral students’
scholarly development

Crystal E. Garcia , Christina W. Yao

Show more

Outline

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.002

Highlights

Doctoral student socialization can be challenging for first year students.

Socialization may be complicated by the isolation of online education.

Integration into an online doctoral program depended heavily on interactions.

Instructors were key to fostering an environment of collaboration and
communication.

Important elements of learning included understanding norms and developing
skills.

Abstract
In this study, we explored higher education doctoral students’ perceptions of their socialization, development, and preparation in
an online foundational course for all incoming doctoral students in a higher education program at a public research university in
the Midwest. Framed by Weidman, Twale, and Stein’s (2001) graduate socialization framework and Anderson’s (2008) model of
online learning, the findings of this qualitative case study shed light on ways online students developed their scholarly identity
while gaining knowledge of the skills and habits necessary for navigating their doctoral program. Implications for practice and
future research in online education and the socialization and development of graduate students are discussed.

Keywords

Doctoral education; Scholarly development; Online education; Socialization

a b

Share Cite

View P

Download full

1. Introduction

Doctoral programs are opportunities for socialization into an academic discipline, particularly as a way to prepare graduates for
successful academic careers (Austin & McDaniels, 2006; Tierney, 1997). Socialization in graduate education is “the processes
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. 5). Yet at the same time, students in education
doctoral programs often experience a culture clash between their experiences as practitioners (e.g., teachers, administrators) and
the scholarly expectations of academia (Labaree, 2003). The identity shift experienced by doctoral students is compounded by the
prevalence of online learning in graduate education. Fully online graduate students often experience lower sense of community
than students in traditional face-to-face and hybrid courses (Rovai & Jordan, 2004), which could lead to program dissatisfaction
and attrition. Thus, it is imperative to better understand how education doctoral students make sense of their identity and role
within their new online scholarly community in order to better support their scholarly identity development. Specifically, we seek
to answer the question, “how do higher education doctoral students develop their scholarly identity within an online doctoral
seminar course?”

The imperative of understanding the online context is driven by the continuous growth of online education. Since the early
2000’s, online learning in higher education has made substantial gains in terms of enrollment. In terms of the percentage of
students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, the percentage of total institutional enrollment in online courses
grew from 9.6% in 2002 to 32% in fall of 2011 (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Using 2014 federal enrollment data, Allen, Seaman,
Poulin, and Straut (2016) reported that over 2.8 million college students—14% of all higher education enrollment—were solely
enrolled in online courses while over 2.9 million were taking some courses online, representing another 14% of postsecondary
enrollment. According to the study, graduate online learning made up a significant portion of overall distance education with over
960,000 enrolled (Allen et al., 2016). In fact, because of the growth in online education, “professional and graduate programs
have been targeted for growth” (McClintock, Benoit, & Mageean, 2013, p. 2), particularly because online graduate education may
support working adults who “require flexible access to education” (McClintock et al., 2013, p. 3).

With the changing nature of doctoral education, particularly in online contexts, the imperative to socialize and train the newest
generation of scholars has gained attention across various stakeholders. Outcomes of doctoral education include graduates who
seek employment as faculty, administrators, policy makers, and researchers, yet much of doctoral socialization tends to lead
towards faculty preparation. Thus, stakeholders such as the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) also emphasize
the importance of preparing scholar-practitioners (Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, 2018). For example, CPED has
gained popularity in recent years as a consortium of member institutions that are focused on practitioner preparation in
education doctorate (EdD) programs. CPED, which includes many online program partners, emphasizes “the application of
appropriate and specific practices, the generation of new knowledge, and for the stewardship of the profession” (Carnegie Project
on the Education Doctorate, 2018). Overall, doctoral socialization and scholarly development must include multiple contexts and
outcomes, including professional aspirations and the online context. As a result, university administrators and faculty must take
into consideration how they can better support all graduate students and their scholarly development within online contexts.

2. Literature review

2.1. Doctoral socialization into scholarly identity

Doctoral programs are “designed to prepare a student to become a scholar: that is, to discover, integrate, and apply knowledge, as
well as to communicate and disseminate it” (Council of Graduate Schools, 2005, p. 1). Yet some students report insufficient
socialization into academia, particularly those seeking academic careers (Austin, 2002). As a result, careful attention has been
given in more recent years to the scholarly development of doctoral students, particularly in relation to the socialization processes
for research and scholarship and the development of research self-efficacy (Author, 2018). Researcher development, a component
of academic preparation, is a multidimensional process in the development of doctoral students (Evans, 2011).

Learning to conduct research is key in all academic disciplines. Research is a “transformative activity where a state of knowledge
is advanced” (Williams & Ormond, 2010, p. 1), and for doctoral students, research training culminates in the production of a
dissertation at the end of the doctoral journey. Because the dissertation is of critical importance, research training throughout
students’ academic experience is key, particularly because research training is both the process and the outcome of conducting

View P

Download full

research (Evans, 2011). In addition, developing writing skills is imperative in helping doctoral students transition to the
expectations of scholarly writing (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000). Caffarella and Barnett found that critiques from faculty and their
peers, through face-to-face and continuous feedback, were most helpful in doctoral students becoming stronger and more
confident scholarly writers. Faculty supervisors are especially important in “inducting students into their discipline’s writing
practices” (Cotterall, 2011, p. 423). As a result, faculty must embrace their role in scaffolding both research and writing training in
the overall scholarly development of doctoral students.

Without sufficient training, students may experience difficulty in the research and writing expectations of their program of
studies, possibly leading to student departure from their academic program. As a result, the doctoral socialization process into the
demands of research and scholarship is critical in doctoral students’ decision to persist or depart from their studies, as concluded
by Gardner’s (2008) study on the influence of socialization on chemistry and history graduate students. Therefore, consideration
of the early socialization of new scholars is critical for the transition to successful doctoral education.

Despite overall commitment to doctoral student success, doctoral programs vary in their approach to recruiting and retaining
doctoral students, and as such, socialization processes vary between programs, disciplines, and institutional priorities. For
example, Gardner (2008) found that student experiences in graduate education vary depending on a variety of factors, including
discipline, student background, and life situations. As a result, students may experience challenges in their doctoral program
when they have difficulty “fitting the mold” (Gardner, 2008, p. 126). Challenges in doctoral programs are especially pronounced
for part-time students, who have to balance multiple roles including full time work and personal responsibilities (Gardner &
Gopaul, 2012). The socialization experiences of part-time doctoral students may include feelings of disconnection and “missing
out on” (Gardner & Gopaul, 2012, p. 72) the full academic experience. One may extend the notion of part-time students to
distance students, who may also have difficulty fitting the mold of traditional graduate education.

2.2. Online learning in graduate education

While online education offers many benefits including flexibility for adult learners (McClintock et al., 2013), the literature has also
documented some of the difficulties instructors face in online education including the need for additional preparation time
necessary for online teaching, demands to respond quickly to student emails, and the need for training and familiarity with the
online environment (see Coyner & McCann, 2004; Lyons, 2004). Yet perhaps one of the most pervasive challenges of distance
education—particularly in relation to student socialization—stems from a lack of personal contact between the instructor and
students (Coyner & McCann, 2004; Hockridge, 2013; McClintock et al., 2013; Swaggerty & Broemmel, 2017). Findings from Zhao,
Lei, Yan, Lai, and Tan’s (2005) meta-analytical study of the literature on online education asserted that “interaction is key to
effective distance education” (p. 1861) and that including face-to-face and online components in online educational settings more
effectively supported online learning. Similarly, Means, Toyama, Murphy, and Baki’s (2013) meta-analysis comparing the
effectiveness of online and blended learning formats also found that blended learning resulted in higher levels of student learning
outcomes than solely online formats. This was also reflected in Baran, Correia, and Thompson’s (2013) qualitative examination of
effective practices of exemplary teachers in online environments. The results of the study showed that effective instructors
implemented a number of strategies to combat challenges inherent in online instruction such as a lack of instructor/student
interaction and decreased instructor presence or visibility within the course.

Given the unique nature of online education as distinct from face-to-face classroom settings, a substantial portion of the recent
literature on student experiences in distance or online education in college settings focuses on student learning, satisfaction, and
sense of community. While the work focused on a sense of community explicitly examines the role of interactions with others,
much of the research focused on online learning and satisfaction also have ties to peer and faculty interactions, which underscores
the significance of these interactions in relation to students’ learning experiences. This was illuminated in the statement by
McClintock et al. (2013) that, in addition to questions regarding the quality of online programs, institutional personnel must also
consider implications associated with distance education such as “how to maintain a ‘community of scholars,’ and how best to
deal with other facets of graduate learning and experience more commonly addressed in an exclusively on-campus environment”
(p. 3).

Some research has examined ways instructors have attempted to increase a sense of community in online environments. Choi
(2016) examined graduate student experiences with asynchronous online learning by exploring the effect of metacognitive and
cognitive learning strategies on online student learning satisfaction. The results of a multiple regression analysis showed that peer
learning was a positive predictor of learner satisfaction. Papadima-Sophocleous and Loizides (2016) investigated the use of
particular tools and technological platforms to enhance online learning experiences and found that the use of both synchronous
and asynchronous tools enhanced learning for graduate students enrolled in a computer-assisted language learning master’s

View P

Download full

program. Students reported satisfaction with the weekly tutorials implemented in the program in terms of motivation and the
opportunity to ask questions in contrast to learning in isolation. Likewise, Lebaron and Miller (2005) found that students
appreciated the opportunity to engage with their peers in an online environment through online jigsaw role playing. In another
qualitative case study exploring the experiences of graduate student learners in an online reading education course, Swaggerty
and Broemmel (2017) found that students reflected on two essential aspects that aided their learning, among those was
interactions with others. Notably the interactions noted most often by participants were synchronous forms of contact.

While online education offers the benefit of convenience and increased access, concerns persist regarding how to keep students
engaged and connected to their peers, faculty, and institution as a whole. Accordingly, some literature has examined ways
students experience and develop a sense of community in online learning environments. For instance, Byrd’s (2016) qualitative,
phenomenological study explored the experiences of 12 doctoral students in online degree programs in family therapy and
professional counseling in terms of influences that shaped their sense of community. Importantly, the researcher found that being
part of a cohort was a crucial component of this experience and provided support to students as they moved through the program
together with their peers and learned to collaborate with one another.

However, not all experiences with platforms intended to engage students in collaborative work results in intended consequences.
Phirangee’s (2006) work underscores the notion that negative aspects of a seemingly beneficial online learning tool may also
exist. Challenges with peer interactions were explored and findings demonstrated that online peer interaction can negatively
affect sense of belonging for graduate students in online learning environments (Phirangee, 2006). Lack of community and low
sense of belonging were the most common complaints in other studies related to online learning (Rovai & Jordan, 2004; Song,
Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004; Vonderwell, 2003). In addition, online students reported that one major disadvantage of online
learning was that distance learning made it difficult to establish a “one-on-one relationship” (Vonderwell, 2003, p. 83) with their
instructors. The online context made it difficult to establish deeper connections and that students may not “benefit from the
professors’ expertise in the online course” (Stodel, Thompson, & MacDonald, 2006, p. 9). Results of these studies shed light on
several patterns that negatively affected students’ sense of community in an online course. Peer interactions and instructor
presence are important components of online education, yet successfully building a strong learning community prove to be
difficult.

3. Theoretical frameworks

Our study is framed by two distinct yet complementary frameworks: Weidman et al.’s (2001) graduate socialization framework
and Anderson’s (2008) model of online learning. Weidman et al. provided the lens for examining graduate student socialization
through multiple components, including outside communities, background of students, and professional communities. More
importantly, Weidman et al.’s framework “illustrates the nonlinear, dynamic nature of professional socialization and the elements
that promote identity with and commitment to professional roles” (p. 37), which we believe accurately reflects the continuously
shifting nature of doctoral education.

At the core, the framework centers on the university and graduate program, including the importance of institutional culture,
socialization processes, and socialization elements such as knowledge acquisition and involvement. For the purpose of this study,
we focus on the socialization processes, which include interaction, integration, and learning. Interaction includes both peer and
faculty interaction. In our study, we also include the interactions with the course Graduate Assistant (GA) in this component and
recognize that the GA takes a liminal space that floats between serving as a peer and a course instructor. Integration emphasizes
students’ involvement in the activities of their academic program and professional fields as well as their sense of fit with their
program. Learning includes students’ investment in “developing the capacities necessary to become professional practitioners in
their chosen areas” (Weidman et al., 2001, p. 38). All three of these socialization components fall within the purview of the
academic program, specifically with faculty setting the norms for teaching and research. Although other factors such as previous
educational training, family influence, and job responsibilities affect doctoral student socialization, we focus specifically on the
socialization processes as they fall within the scope of our study.

We noted that one limitation of Weidman et al.’s (2001) framework is that it seemingly adheres to traditional graduate
socialization experiences; that is, it implies that graduate socialization occurs in a face-to-face graduate program. Thus, we use
Anderson’s (2008) model of online learning as a complementary framework to situate and contextualize graduate student
socialization in an online course. The model centers on the three main components in online learning: the learners, the
instructors, and the content. Focusing on the interactions between the human actors and the content, the model takes into
consideration the pacing of online teaching, independent study, and learning resources. In addition, peer interactions are a

View P

Download full

critical component, particularly because this online community “binds learners in time, and thus forces regular sessions” (p. 61).
Most importantly, this model acknowledges how the community environments “are particularly rich and allow for the learning of
social skills, collaboration, and the development of personal relationships among participants” (p. 61). As a result, the online
learning environment is learner-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered, and community-centered that results in
effective learning for all members of the learning community (Anderson, 2008).

The two complementary frameworks (Anderson, 2008; Weidman et al., 2001) helped us examine our research question. We used
aspects of the socialization processes as outlined by Weidman et al. (2001)—interaction, integration, and learning—in conjunction
with the learners, instructors, and content as identified in Anderson’s (2008) model to better understand how graduate student
socialization is mediated within an online environment. We contribute to the two frameworks by taking into consideration factors
related to distance education and online learning that may contribute to or detract from graduate student socialization,
specifically in the areas of interaction, integration, and learning.

4. Methods

This work was drawn from a larger qualitative Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) project that examined a required
fully online course for all incoming doctoral students in a higher education program at one public research university in the
Midwest. SoTL research enables instructors to study their own instructional practices and ways these practices affect student
learning. As Kathleen McKinney (2006) described, SoTL is “systematic reflection and study on teaching and learning made
public” (p. 38). Thus, the course was taught by the second author, who was assisted in the course by the first author. The fully
online course was intended to assist new students with developing their scholarly identity while gaining knowledge of the skills
and habits necessary for navigating their doctoral program. In addition, the foundations of educational inquiry as well as personal
development related to research were addressed, including the development of critical thinking and analytical skills. Thus, the
intersection of course learning outcomes, early development of first-year doctoral students, and contextual factors of online
learning indicated a need to assess the teaching and learning processes of this foundational course.

For the purposes of this particular work, we conducted a qualitative case study (Yin, 2014). Data collection included multiple
components, including class assignments and participant interviews. A content analysis was conducted of written assignments in
the course, including discussion board posts, reflexivity briefs, and other written papers. We recognized the limitations a SoTL
project may carry in terms of the extent to which students felt they could honestly critique their course experience. We minimized
this limitation in two primary ways. First, in order to avoid conflict of interest during the course, we waited until the completion of
the semester to inform students about the opportunity to participate in the study and to conduct participant interviews. We also
chose to have the first author conduct all interviews since she was completing her last year as a PhD student and would not
encounter the students again in a similar role. Furthermore, we reasoned that students may have felt more comfortable discussing
their experiences honestly with an individual they recognized as more of a peer than as the primary instructor for the course.

4.1. Data sources

Selection of participants was a result of purposeful sampling, which is used when “the investigator wants to discover, understand,
and gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96).
Recruitment emails were sent to all enrolled students in one foundational doctoral course (15 total) at the conclusion of the
course, all of whom successfully completed the course. Given the small size of our participant pool and the fact that these
individuals were in the same course, we chose not to fully disaggregate the participants’ demographic information as we felt they
would be easily identifiable. Twelve students agreed to participate in the study, the majority of which represented a new entering
cohort of students; two of the students were in their third semester in the doctoral program, two were in their second, and the rest
were in their first semester. Two of the students were pursuing an EdD and ten were working on a PhD in Higher Education.
Seven of the participants identified as women and three participants identified as Students of Color. Two of the students planned
to pursue a faculty position after graduation, nine sought administrative roles, and one student did not report their future career
goals.

Each participant chose their own pseudonym to be used throughout this study. In doing so, we disrupt the “act of power”
(Guenther, 2009, p. 412) inherent in researchers choosing participant names; therefore, in an effort to share this power, we asked
participants to select their own pseudonyms and have honored them within this paper.

Using semi-structured interviews provided the opportunity to ask follow-up or clarifying questions related to participants’ specific
and unique experiences in their course (Glesne, 2010). Each interview lasted approximately 60 min and with the exception of one

View P

Download full

face-to-face, all were conducted virtually on Skype. Interviewing participants was the most appropriate mode of inquiry because it
helped us learn about their experiences and allowed for their lived experiences to emerge (Charmaz, 1996). In addition, we asked
students for permission to analyze de-identified course assignments and discussions drawn from the online discussion board. As a
result of conducting interviews and reviewing course assignments, we were able to collect rich data, which has increased the
trustworthiness of the data collected (Glesne, 2010).

4.2. Data analysis

When coding, we made categories that were based on the research questions and conceptual framework from which we
interpreted emerging themes (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). We utilized deductive coding, which includes a “start list” (Miles,
Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013, p. 81) based on this study’s interview protocol. First cycle coding included searching for broad
categories based on the start list, and then discussion the themes that emerged from the participants’ interviews and course
documents. Themes were coded by identifying appropriate phrases that related to our themes. Both written content and interview
transcripts were coded for themes. Notably, we did not analyze discussion board posts and assignments in light of peer
interactions, but rather examined these to understand the extent to which students grasped the material and communicated a
sense of development in their understanding of their roles as doctoral students. Thus, we did not examine discussion posts from
students that did not choose to participate in this study.

After concluding first cycle coding, we moved on to second cycle coding as a way to reduce the number of themes and categories
(Miles et al., 2013). We organized the first cycle codes by clustering them under common themes or patterns that emerged from
the interviews. With continuous reflection and discussion, we defined and refined the codes into categories that we believed to be
representative of participant experiences.

We recognize that this current study is analyzed and interpreted based on our roles as the primary researchers; thus, we employed
triangulation as a way to ensure credibility of our findings. We utilized two types of Denzin’s (1978) approaches to triangulation:
multiple methods and multiple investigators. The use of interviews as well as course assignments provided multiple methods, as
we used interviews and document analysis. In addition, investigator triangulation was used when multiple …