Journal of Public Affairs Education 545Expressing concern.docx

Journal of Public Affairs Education 545
Expressing concern over the quality of public
administration research, researchers have long
studied how public affairs doctoral programs
prepare students to conduct research (e.g.,
Brewer, Facer, O’Toole, & Douglas, 1998;
Rethemeyer & Helbig, 2005; White, Adams,
& Forrester, 1996).1 Previous studies have
offered programmatic suggestions such as
structured research experiences (Brewer,
Douglas, Facer, & O’Toole, 1999), examined
the “importance” of the dissertation topic
(Cleary, 2000), promoted theory development
in dissertation research (White et al., 1996),
and recommended coursework in mathematics
(Rethemeyer & Helbig, 2005). Scholars also
acknowledge the importance of mentoring,
socialization, and professional identity dev-
elopment for doctoral students in public affairs
(Rethemeyer & Helbig, 2005; Schroeder,
O’Leary, Jones, & Poocharoen, 2004), and a
growing body of literature from other fields
examines doctoral students’ socialization ex
periences (e.g., Gardner, 2007, 2008, 2010;
Green 1991). Increased knowledge of public
affairs doctoral students’ professional identity
development is important because it can assist
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming:
Professional Identity Construction

Among Public Affairs
Doctoral Students
Amy E. Smith
University of Massachusetts Boston
Deneen M. Hatmaker
University of Connecticut
ABSTRACT
Public administration scholars have long examined how doctoral
students in public affairs are trained
to become researchers. Our study adds to this body of
knowledge by examining socialization and
professional identity construction processes among doctoral
students conducting public affairs
research. We develop a multilevel model of the organizational,
relational, and individual level
tactics through which they learn to become researchers. In
particular, our study offers insight into
the interactions between students and faculty that contribute to
their development, as well as into
students’ own proactivity. Our study uses interview data from
doctoral students in multiple
disciplines who are conducting research in public affairs. We
conclude with a discussion of our
model and recommendations for doctoral programs.
kEywORDS
doctoral students, professional identity, socialization, mentoring
JPAE 20 (4), 545–564

546 Journal of Public Affairs Education
faculty and programs in effectively preparing
students to be productive scholars. As such,
this study contributes toward understanding
how doctoral students interested in public
affairs develop their research professional
identity. It also offers insights and recom-
mendations for public affairs doctoral pro-
grams and faculty as they socialize students
into the research profession.
Our study adds to the existing knowledge
about the training of public affairs doctoral
students in several ways. This paper develops
a multilevel model of research professional id-
en tity development; we consider socialization
efforts at the organizational, relational, and
individual levels that contribute to different
facets of a scholar’s identity. Consistent with
prior research, this study confirms the cen-
trality of faculty relationships for PhD student
professional identity development and social-
ization. This study also emphasizes that devel-
oping a research professional identity requires
mentoring relationships with multiple faculty
rather than a one-to-one mentor-protégé
relationship. As called for by Green (1991,
p. 404), we offer insight into understanding
the actual behaviors that comprise the
mentoring relationships between faculty and
students. While existing research emphasizes
the importance of relationships and mentor ing
in the doctoral student socialization process,
it does not actually reveal the nature of the
interactions between public affairs doctoral

students and faculty. This paper goes beyond
existing research by identifying student-faculty
interactions that help students increase their
visibility, obtain hands-on research experience,
and bolster their research identity.
We also contribute to the call from Saks,
Gruman, and Cooper-Thomas (2011, p. 45)
for consideration of how newcomers execute
proactive behaviors. This paper identifies spec-
ific tactics such as positioning and emulation
of role models that doctoral students employ
to obtain faculty support and construct their
iden tity. It extends existing socialization re-
search by describing these proactive behaviors,
especially those in which students engage to
connect to faculty. In some cases, it appears
that students may be expending a great deal of
energy in strategizing about how to develop
connections, and then in actually doing so.
Our study is based on data from interviews
with doctoral students from a variety of
disciplines who participated in a professional
development forum and who are interested in
or are conducting research in public affairs. In
the next sections, we discuss the theoretical
background that frames our study—sociali-
zation and professional identity. We then
present our methods and data, followed by our
findings. We conclude with a discussion of our
model and recommendations for teaching and
mentoring public affairs doctoral students.
PROFESSIONAL SOCIALIZATION

Socialization involves developing the skills and
acquiring the knowledge associated with being
a member of an organization or profession, as
well as adopting the values, norms, and culture
of that profession or organization (Becker,
Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961; Van Maanen,
1977; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Weid -
man, Twale, & Stein, 2001). When newcomers
undergo this adaptation within the context
of a particular organization, it is considered
organizational socialization, while professional
socialization transcends different organiza-
tional contexts (Lankau & Scandura, 2007).
Professional socialization is “learning about the
broader set of expectations, skills, behaviors,
and performance demands associated with a
particular profession” (Lankau & Scandura,
2007, p. 97). It involves not only learning
about and developing one’s identity within the
profession, but doing so in the context of the
work that one needs to accomplish (Becker et
al., 1961; Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann,
2006). Tactics such as mentoring, orientation
sessions, training, and apprenticeships facili -
tate socialization; these methods are typically
formal efforts by the organization to socialize
newcomers (Jones, 1986; Louis, 1980; Miller
& Jablin, 1991; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
These tactics can be considered institution-
alized tactics—socialization methods in which
the organization controls the mechanisms
A . E . Smith & D . M . Hatmaker

(Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007; Jones,
1986; Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
However, such tactics only represent part of the
socialization process. Newcomers also engage
their own agency to obtain information and
knowledge related to becoming a member of an
organization or profession. This proactivity
enables them to fill in gaps left by insti tu-
tionalized tactics (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Mor-
rison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). For
example, newcomers may establish connec tions
to experienced members of an organization or
profession to obtain emotional support, tacit
information, and performance feedback they
may not otherwise have if they relied solely on
the organization’s tactics (Chao, 2007; Miller
& Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993; Ostroff &
Kozlowski, 1992; Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
These efforts can also help them to fit
in and understand behavioral and cultural
norms and expectations (Chao, 2007; Kim,
Cable, & Kim, 2005; Morrison, 1993).
PROFESSIONAL IDENTITy
Professional identity can be defined as “the
relatively stable and enduring constellation of
attributes, beliefs, values, motives, and exper-
iences in terms of which people define them-
selves in a professional role” (Ibarra, 1999,
pp. 764–765; Schein, 1978). An individual’s
professional identity signals to others that he
or she possesses unique, skilled, or scarce
abilities (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). As

Pratt et al. note, “Organizational membership
is an indicator of where you work (i.e. an
organization). Professionals, by contrast, are
often defined by what they do” (2006, p. 236,
emphasis in original).
Socialization can contribute to professional
identity construction in several ways. Activi -
ties such as formal and on-the-job training
can offer the skills, knowledge, abilities, and
cre dentials that define someone as being a
mem ber of a profession. Such tactics provide
newcomers with the tools they require to do
the work that defines a professional.
Socialization can also offer role models,
mentors, and opportunities for interaction
with experienced members of the profession.
These individuals can guide newcomers as
they make sense of what it means to be a
profes sional in a particular field.
Mentoring offers two primary types of func-
tions, career and psychosocial support, and
one of its core purposes is to develop profes -
sional identity (Dobrow & Higgins, 2005;
Hall & Burns, 2009; Kram, 1985). Although
trad itional mentoring is seen as a one-to-one
mentor-protégé relationship, more recent con-
ceptuali zations focus on multiple develop-
mental re lationships (Dobrow & Higgins,
2005; Ragins & Kram, 2007). Formal
development al relationships are those in which
the organization facilitates the connection
between the individual and mentor. Informal
develop mental relationships are those in which

the participants initiate the connection, and
they often develop between newcomers and the
experienced members who can help them to
adjust (Chao, 2007; Lankau & Scandura,
2007). Diverse networks of developmental
relationships can offer a variety of support,
information, and resources for professional
identity construction (Dobrow & Higgins,
2005). Mentors can also act as role models who
offer possible selves that professionals can “try
out” to see how well a particular identity fits
(Ibarra, 1999).
DOCTORAL STUDENT SOCIALIZATION AND
IDENTITy CONSTRUCTION
For doctoral students, socialization into the
profession includes the process of learning to
become an independent researcher (Gardner,
2007, 2008). The process of constructing this
identity involves the transition from being a
consumer of knowledge to a producer of
knowledge through original research, a process
that can be frustrating for students (Gardner,
2008). The socialization of doctoral students
has received attention within the higher
education, sociology, and organizations lit-
erature (e.g., Gardner, 2007, 2008, 2010;
Green, 1991; Rosen & Bates, 1967; Weidman
& Stein, 2003; Weidman et al., 2001).
Knowing, Doing, and Becoming: Professional identity
construction

Some of this work examines socialization stages
that doctoral students progress through as they
become researchers (e.g., Gardner, 2008; Green,
1991; Weidman & Stein, 2003; Weidman et al.,
2001). For example, Gardner (2008) found
that the history and chemistry doctoral students
in her study were socialized through program-
matic processes such as course work; candidacy
examinations and the disserta tion; relationships
with peers, faculty, and other academic pro fes-
sionals; and personal learning. She noted that
they transition through phases of development
marked by the first year of coursework, the
time spent in coursework up to candidacy, and
then the disserta tion process.
Relationships with advisers and mentors can be
important for professional socialization and
identity development (Green, 1991; Hall &
Burns, 2009; Gardner, 2007, 2008; Schroeder
et al., 2004; Sweitzer, 2009). For example,
Green (1991) found that when advisors were
highly supportive of doctoral students, students
were more likely to be more committed to and
productive in their research. Gardner (2008)
found that in the early stages of their social-
ization, the history and chemistry doctoral
students in her study developed relationships
with faculty and peers on whom they relied
for guidance; but in the later stage of their
programs, the dissertation stage, the students
became less attached to peers and closer to
faculty. She also found that the students began
their transition to a more professional identity
from a student identity during the mid and

late socialization phases focused on approach-
ing candidacy and the dissertation (Gardner,
2008). In her study of business doctoral
students, Sweitzer (2009) found that the
influence of faculty-student developmental
relationships on professional identity varied
based on whether the faculty reinforced
institutional goals or focused more on
individual development.
DATA AND METHODS
This paper is based on interviews with 27
students who participated in a professional
development workshop for public affairs
doctoral students. The authors co-chaired this
workshop in two consecutive years, and
participants were recruited from both cohorts,
which comprised a total of 59 students. The
workshop was geared toward students interested
in pursuing an academic career and included
sessions on the academic job market, ethics in
publishing, and an interactive session between
faculty and students to provide input and
feedback on the students’ research. Study
participants were enrolled in doctoral programs
at 25 different universities in 6 countries
located in North America, South America, and
Europe; most participants were from North
America. Seventeen students were attending
programs in public administration, public
man agement, policy, philanthropy and non-
profit management, or political science. Ten
students were enrolled in management and/or
organizations (e.g., organizational behavior)
doctoral programs but were conducting re-

search in public affairs. Eighteen of the study
participants were women.
At the time of the interviews, seven students
had recently graduated. Most of the remaining
students had entered candidacy and/or were
working on their proposal or dissertation.
Nearly all participants were collaborating with
faculty on research projects in addition to
working on their own dissertation research.
Twenty-two participants had coauthored a
conference paper or journal article with a
faculty member. All students had attended at
least one academic conference, and nearly all
had presented at a conference.
The authors and one graduate assistant
collected data through semi-structured phone
interviews; the geographic dispersion of study
participants and resource constraints prohibit-
ed in-person data collection. Interviews lasted
about one hour and were audio-recorded.
The interviews were professionally transcribed.
The quality of the recording for one interview
prohibited transcription, and we relied on notes
taken during the interview.
Our interview questions focused on how par-
ticipants were learning to become academic
pro fessionals. Although our interviews covered

each of the three dimensions that comprise a
faculty or academic career—research, teaching,
and service—this paper focuses specifically on
their process of becoming a researcher. Similar
to Pratt et al. (2006) in their study of
professional identity construction among
medical residents, we asked participants what
being a researcher means to them. We also
asked them about how they are learning to do
research, covering topics such as working with
faculty, their coursework, and conference
presentations. We conducted interviews until
we had reached theoretical saturation, in which
no new or relevant data was emerging for our
categories (Strauss & Corbin, 2008), resulting
in a total of 27 interviews.
We employed a grounded theory approach
for our analysis in which we iteratively used
the literature and the data to inductively
and systematically generate our constructs
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). First, we read
through each transcript in its entirety. Then,
employing an open coding process (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998), we individually coded a
subset of the inter views by assigning labels to
sentences and paragraphs; this initial coding
focused on how participants defined being a
researcher and tactics and behaviors related to
learning to become a researcher. For inter-coder
reliability, we discussed our individual coding
and agreed on first-order codes. We used these
codes as a guideline for subsequent coding,
and added new codes as they emerged through
our analysis and discussion. We used the

litera ture to inform our analysis. For example,
Weidman and Stein (2003), Sweitzer (2009),
and the work by Gardner (2007, 2008) offered
insight into the importance of relationships
for doctoral stu dents. The organizational
socializa tion literature (e.g., Morrison, 1993;
Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992; Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979) guided our coding of institution-
alized socialization tactics and the students’
proactive efforts.
We then grouped codes into higher-level
categories and used axial coding to establish
connections between the categories (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998). Relating the categories to
each other revealed how students linked, for
example, formal research training, faculty-
student interactions (such as the support
offered through mentoring), and the conse-
quences of the training and interactions (the
students’ perceptions of their development).
Subsequent closer coding of the categories
revealed additional nuances that led us to our
multilevel model of socialization tactics at the
organizational, relational, and individual level.
Our coding also focused on students’ definitions
of what it means to be a researcher. (See
Appendix I for the structure of our codes and
categories, with data examples.) We used NVivo
software to manage the data and elec tronically
link transcript text to codes and categories.
THE PROTOTyPICAL RESEARCHER
In responding to our question about what it
means to be a researcher, nearly all participants

offered descriptions of what researchers do
(Pratt et al., 2006). Participants’ explanations
of what it means to be a researcher described
tasks and role expectations that typically are
associated with being a researcher—a proto-
typical research identity (cf. Sluss, Ployhart,
Cobb, & Ashforth, 2012; Sweitzer, 2009). As
one participant stated, a researcher is one “who
looks into whatever is going on in the real
world and tries to make sense of it.”
Students discussed several dimensions of the
prototypical research identity, as shown in Box
1. They indicated activities in which research-
ers engage and how they behave, covering
ethics, theory building, research dissemination
and publishing, and methodo logical rigor. A
few participants who discussed ethics did so in
terms of the nature of the research itself—as
one participant stated, “It’s advancing the field
ethically, honestly with academic rigor”—as
well as with respect to the treatment of research
participants. Many parti cipants described
being a researcher as predi cated upon using
rigorous research methods.
Most students viewed theory building as a
central part of a researcher’s role. They dis
cussed two types of theory building: the type
that adds incrementally to existing scholarship
construction

and the type that ventures into previously
unexplor ed areas. For example, one partici -
pant articulated the nuances between these two
types of contributions.
I see research as maybe one of two maybe
various components. I think one com-
ponent and I, and I actually heard this
at a conference—that there are some
researchers who are really great with
coming up with new questions, new
ways of looking at a phenomenon, new
ways of analyzing something and then
there are other researchers who con-
centrate on taking existing infor mation
and, and maybe challenging it or testing
assumptions and things like that.
Several participants also recognized that the
dissemination of findings is a researcher’s role.
These students discussed publishing as the
primary vehicle through which research results
would be shared with the academic and
practitioner community. Even early in their
careers, these students were keenly aware of the
central role that publishing plays in the career
of a researcher. For example, one participant
stated, “I’ve really been trained in the publish
or perish mindset.”
Another student articulated publishing’s cen
trality in building a reputation as a contributor
to a particular body of knowledge and in
gaining name recognition.

Being a researcher at a university, as far as
I’m concerned, means that you are able
to publish in top journals. So, being a
researcher means that you are a person
that devotes the whole time into trying
to publish in these top journals … kind
of building your own research line so it’s
not just publishing 1 or 2 good pieces in
good journals, but also trying to draw a
line, a research line, that people can
define that you are doing research in
this area. And when they think in some
area, they can think in your name, for
example, or they can think of some of
your work.
RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL IDENTITy
CONSTRUCTION
As they discussed how they are becoming a
researcher, our study participants described
multiple mechanisms. These components
represent a multilevel approach to becoming a
researcher; they represent activities at the
organizational, relational (interpersonal), and
BOX 1.
Participant Descriptions of a Researcher
“What Does it Mean to be a researcher?”
I think the researcher has to be someone who is actively
investigating questions that are relevant and haven’t
really been answered before, you know, trying to get their work
published and having to, you know, the
academic community to get, to start a dialog and to stand in

front of others and to really kind of, you know,
answer some tough questions.
I think being a researcher means being able to pose a
provocative, relevant question, and then go about
answering it. So to me, that’s what research is about.
One is sort of creation of knowledge in the areas that I’m
interested in and then dissemination of that knowledge
and so, you know, doing research that’s going to build on, on
the foundations we have right now in my area
and help to, you know, create better understanding of variety of
phenomena.
I believe a researcher is somebody who saturates themselves in
the knowledge of their field and then tries
to expand upon that knowledge.
individual level. We have categorized the tac -
tics into three main groups: institutionalized
socialization (organizational level), faculty men-
tor ing (relational level), and student proactivity
(individual level).
Institutionalized socialization is comprised of
the formal activities initiated by the student’s
department or school and geared toward formal
socialization into the profession. Faculty men-
toring consists of the activities that faculty
initiate to develop the students. Activities

falling into the category of student proactivity
are those in which the student initiates
relationships that facilitate his or her transition,
sometimes by strategically positioning them-
selves in order to connect with the “right”
person. In addition, a few students stated that a
certain amount of luck contributed to their
development, particularly with respect to the
relationships constructed with faculty; we
have labeled this phenomenon serendipity. In
the next sections, we discuss each of these
mechanisms in more detail, along with the
associated outcomes noted by the students.
Institutionalized Socialization Tactics
As discussed by the participants, a researcher’s
identity is rooted in inquiry, rigor, and the
application of research methods to study social
phenomena. Part of this identity is developed
through institutionalized mechanisms that are
established by departments, colleges, or uni-
versities to socialize students as researchers.
These institutionalized tactics were comprised
of three activities in which nearly every student
participated: research methods courses, formal
advising, and formal graduate assistantship
assignments. Nearly all students were required
to take at least two methods courses, and
most participants completed on average two
addi tional methods courses. All participants
completed at least one quantitative methods
course, and nearly all had a course covering
qualitative methods.
Departments also assigned students to faculty
for formal advising and for graduate assistant-

ships. Twenty-four participants had assistant-
ships during graduate school; of that number,
16 held research assistantships. Nearly all
part icipants with an assistantship described
the relationship as one that grew in responsi-
bility over time. In the next section on
faculty men toring and on-the-job training,
we discuss in more detail the relationships
between faculty and students in the context of
these assignments.
Several participants described their methods
courses and research assistantships as strongly
complementary. Research assistantships pro-
vid ed a venue where the students could apply
the techniques and skills learned in the meth-
ods courses, as one participant articulated.
So in those courses, we looked at every-
thing from textbooks on how to do
research and the practice both on the
quantitative and qualitative way of doing
it with social science to cases and
examples where research has been … but
I really think it was strongly, strongly
augmented by my experience with my
advisor, as I’ve worked two research
projects with her, so the two research
design classes are great starting points
but it all exists in this hypothetical
situation and that’s not the way the
world operates and you learn so much
through the process of doing it.
Participants built foundational knowledge

through classroom training, but the on-the-job
experiences working with faculty members
enabled the students to apply the knowledge
gained in the classroom to actual research pro-
jects. In the next section, we discuss the on-the-
job training related to honing research skills as
well as other dimensions of faculty mentoring.
Faculty Mentoring
It’s something … I think that if a top
professor can devote some time with a
PhD student, I think that’s, in my opin
ion, that’s probably the key of a successful
PhD, is having someone with experience
construction
and with success and that this person
devotes time to you. In this case, if I send
him a paper, doesn’t matter the week,
doesn’t matter the time, he will read it
and comment on it and we will have a
meeting and he will go point by point.
And really for me, that makes a differ-
ence, more than the courses and more
than everything.
The above quote from one of our students
speaks to the centrality of faculty’s role in
shaping the students’ professional identity as a
researcher. In particular, this student recognized

that faculty availability and willingness to
provide detailed feedback is a cornerstone of a
doctoral student’s success. All of the students
in our study described how their relationships
and interactions with faculty offered either
instrumental or social support or both. Many
of the students discussed the underlying trust
in these relationships, and nearly all talked
about supportive ties to faculty other than the
formally assigned advisor. These informal re-
lationships offer advice and guidance beyond
the “bureaucratic” processes of being a doctoral
student, and can emerge “organically” or as a
result of a “natural” affinity in a particular topic
area, as two students described.
I mean mentoring and advising I see as
very differently. Advising is much more
physical, filling out the paperwork that
needs to be done through the university
bureaucracy, which is important to get
that all done. Otherwise, you can’t pro
gress. But I think of mentoring as much
more informal and almost something
that has to happen organically; at least it
has been in my experience.
I mean, yeah, I have an advisor, one
that’s obviously a little bit more formal
but the other ones I think like any, pro-
bably in any setting, it’s … there’s people
that you connect with more naturally
than others and so I would definitely say
that there’s three other pro fessors that it’s
more of the informal relationship. You

know, I trust them and if I know I have
questions, I’ll make sure that I’m shoot
ing them an e-mail.
Such mentoring by faculty contributes toward
developing the students’ sense of themselves as
researchers, offering them confidence as well
as the skills needed to be a researcher. Most
students referred to the faculty with whom they
work closely as mentors even if the faculty were
not assigned as formal mentors or advisors.
This mentoring consists of on-the-job training,
emotional labor, and visibility enhancement.
on-the-job training. Nearly all of the students
discussed learning how to conduct research
through on-the-job training while working
with faculty. For some participants, colla-
borating with faculty began with being given
responsibility for a relatively small portion of
a research project, with the parts growing
incrementally over time along with increased
responsibility. The following two participants
describe their increasing responsib ilities as they
learned more about how to conduct research
through their work with faculty.
I have one project that I would say is
probably like a classic PhD student
project whereby my supervisor and his
colleague developed the research study
initially and then I became involved as a
research assistant right at the stage where
they were designing the questionnaire
and so I had some input there, did a
bunch of the data collection, and now

have been on the, I am the third author
on a manuscript that’s under review …
yeah, it’s sort of classic, you know,
learning the ropes and helping to do bits
and pieces, so that’s one project.
Well, it changed over the course of, as I
grew. Initially, it was mostly involved in
writing the methods part of course, as I
was the main one doing the data analysis.
So writing the methods, but also
brainstorming with the ideas. And then
also just kind of in reviewing and adding
to the manuscript that my advisor was
taking the lead on. But over time too, I
came to play more of a role in the theory
development. And though I was never
the one doing the lead writing, I was
contributing as much as my advisor on
the theory development and writing.
Some students likened their initial experiences
to being “thrown into the fire” and conducting
research with a faculty member immediately
upon entering graduate school.
And so I actually dove sort of head first
into this project, you know, the first day
of starting grad school . . . And it ended

up being a multimethod study. We did a
series of focus groups and then I designed
and implemented a survey. So it was a,
you know, a pretty hands on, thrown in
the fire introduction to, to research.
Bolstering identity. Several students discussed
how faculty interactions served to bolster their
professional identity. For example, several
students in our study noted that interactions
with faculty helped them to gain self-confidence
and enhance their own sense of efficacy as a
researcher. Several students indicated that one
outcome of responsibility growing increment-
ally is increased confidence. One participant
reflected that as faculty-student collaboration
progressed, confidence increased, and she
became more of a peer to the faculty researcher
rather than just a student.
I don’t think … I think it’s just something
that kind of happened naturally because
as my foundation grew, I had a lot more
to offer. And so I just … And whereas, in
my first couple of years, I was very
hesitant, lacked the confidence to kind
of push my ideas out there, that changed
the more I learned, the more that I
gained confidence, and it became more
of a peer relationship rather than kind
of advisor/student.
Although on-the-job training assists the stud-
ents in developing their research skills, faculty
do not just focus on the technical aspects of
training in the mentoring relationships. The

research profession can be challenging on sev-
eral fronts, and faculty mentors also offer the
psychosocial support that is a part of men toring
and that can assist students in overcoming
emotional hurdles. A few students explained
how this psychosocial support helped them
weather the emotional peaks and valleys asso-
ciated with the successes and failures of learning
to do (and actually doing) research, and helped
them to overcome stumbling blocks they may
have faced.
For example, in the next quotation, one student
described the self-doubt that accompanies
many students as they begin their professional
development, and how the faculty support is
both reassuring and a reaffirmation of their
identity as a researcher. At the same time, the
student noted that the faculty recommended
that she learn to develop the tough skin often
required to persevere in this profession.
… she was very supportive and reassuring
and, you know, but also not afraid to say
you need to be able to do this so you
might not enjoy it but toughen up, you’ll
get through it, I have total faith in
you … we come into this with enough
self-doubt, I think, that having that, that
moral support, saying that you can do
this is, helps keep us in it, helps keep, get
us through it.
Another student used the analogy of learning
to ride a bike to articulate how his advisor en-
abled him to gain independence while still being

there “to pick him up” from research “spills.”
And I just feel it’s a huge advantage to
have had that opportunity to, to see it in
theory, to see it in practice, and I tend to
use an analogy with several of the stages
as we’ve moved through different parts of
a research project to my research assist-
antship of kind of having training wheels
construction
on a bike and then moving to my advisor,
sort of walking along or running along
behind the bike, making sure that I’m
not going to take a big spill to getting me
ready to do it on my own, which I think
is the ideal; and if you just throw them
out there without that experience, it’s
really easy to take a tumble and not be
sure you want to get back up on the bike.
Increasing visibility. For researchers, profes-
sional identity is also rooted in their reputa tion
and connections to other researchers. One
component of the developmental relation -
ships that emerged from our analysis was
that faculty offered opportunities for students
to become more visible to other academics
within the profession . Many study partici-
pants explain ed how faculty connected them to

researchers from other institutions and invited
them to join panels at professional confer -
ences. One participant described how being
asked to parti cipate in a panel led to writing a
book chapter.
One of the things that [my advisor] did,
for example, that is a lovely thing for a
mentor to do, is she would ask to be part
of the panel for the next [management]
conference and she asked me if I wanted
to be part of that panel and then that put
me in touch with the, the person who is
leading the panel or co-leading the panel
who, after I submitted my paper for that
purpose, asked me if I wanted to write a
chapter in a book she was editing.2
Balancing. A few students in our study ex-
plained how faculty offered guidance that went
beyond the framework of the profession; they
identified support from faculty that focused
on the challenges of balancing life outside of
work with work demands (work-life balance).
Although life as an academic researcher can
offer many benefits in terms of autonomy and
lifestyle, particularly through the dissertation
and tenure years, it can also be quite a
demanding profession.
For example, students and newly minted PhDs
can find it difficult to determine how much
time to spend on different activities that are
expected of academic professionals. Similarly,
Gardner (2007, 2008) found that balancing
duties and issues of time were challenges for

the history and chemistry students in her
study. In the next quote, one participant
described both the nature of the advisor
relationship in terms of emotional closeness
and formality, as well as the advisor’s advice on
balancing the competing priorities faced by
academic researchers.
I have a very close relationship with my
advisor. And because of our close rela-
tion ship that’s developed kind of beyond
just work life and personal as well, there’s
a relationship there, he’s helped me in
kind of all aspects and how to balance it.
And I feel that he’s looked after me and
offered advice on how not to get too
overwhelmed, how to kind of limit how
much time I spend on different projects
or teaching different things that I’m
required to do. …So, and in some ways,
it’s been very formal, and in some ways,
it’s been more personal and informal.
Student Proactivity
Learning to become a researcher also involves
individual agency on the student’s part. All
participants explained how they took initiative
to connect with and learn from faculty. They
emulated faculty advisors and mentors and
positioned themselves in ways that enabled
them to establish relationships with particular
faculty that they deemed instrumental for their
own advancement and research.
Participants used phrases like “personal initi
ative” and “I was the driver” to convey their

proactivity. One participant remarked, “It’s there
for the taking, but you have to be able to take
the initiative.” These participant com ments
suggest that the connections with faculty
through assistantships and advisor assignments
are necessary, but not sufficient, for the learning
process. Rather, formal assignments allocated
by the department are first steps. It is then up
to students to be proactive in recognizing their
needs and strategically developing and initiating
relationships to fulfill those academic and
emotional support needs.
Emulating faculty. Many students viewed
faculty as role models, and they discussed
emu lating faculty. For students, advisors are
their first examples of what it means to be a
researcher and how research is actually done.
Because faculty advisors are role models, they
are heavily influential in the process of learning
to be come a researcher. One participant said of
her advisor, “I kind of want to be her when I
grow up.” As described in the quotes from two
participants, doctoral students imitate faculty
that they perceive as successful researchers.
I’m very grateful for her and I think
that’s, that’s probably one of the things,
one of the most tactical ways that I’ve

learned how to be a researcher and how
to be an academic and I really see her as
someone that I can follow, follow in
those footsteps.
…that would be the metaphor, you know,
the master has developed his craft to, you
know, to a degree that he is respected
among the community within that trade
and, you know, you enter as a mentee,
you know, to, to understand how to dev-
e lop the craft, how to be come an expert
yourself but first by mimick ing, not
necessarily mimicking but just by, yeah,
mimicking, you know, the same routines
and approaches that your mentor takes.
Positioning. Nearly all students engaged in
activities to position themselves to be noticed
by faculty and to initiate working relationships
with them. We identified three specific posi-
tioning strategies in our coding: (a) reaching
out, (b) initiating research projects and then
engaging faculty in them, and (c) reputation
building. In reaching out to faculty, students
strategically identified faculty and developed
and executed a plan for initiating a connection
to that person. For example, one participant
described positioning himself to initiate con-
tacts with several faculty members, each of
whom offered expertise in differing areas of
interest or need.
I just knocked on her door. I explained
a little what was my background and

what I wanted to do and we started
working quite soon together. …I wanted
to work with someone that was actually
an expert on quantitative methods
because I think it’s important. So, I got
in touch with this other professor from
the quanti tative department…then the
first year, I attended also the [withheld]
conference. I wanted to inter act with a
public [administration] faculty member
and the first one on my list was [name
withheld]. So, I just bumped into him at
the conference and I explained what was
my thesis about and where I was from,
these kinds of things and we started
work, little by little, together and as we
were working more, the relationship was
a bit closer.
In another example, a student sought out a
faculty member by directly asking her to be the
student’s advisor.
So I was attending a course with her, and
this was a brilliant course. It really open-
ed up my mind to lots of research ques-
tions and ideas, and I realized I really
wanted to be with her. … And then I re
quested her if she’d be willing to be my
supervisor because I was looking for a
change in supervisor, and she said yes
right away.
In another case, a student described how he
would reach out to those faculty whose work he
admired, with whom he might have a natural

connection or whose work is compelling.
construction
Well, there are some other researchers
and professors that I have more affinity
and more dialogue possibilities, so those
ones I would choose for advice, or peo -
ple that I have a special admiration on
their work. So I know they have a work
that is particular interesting or they have
deve loped a way that was really nice,
so I would go for them. I would look
for them.
Another way that participants positioned
themselves to connect with faculty was by
initiating their own research projects and
asking faculty to participate. These projects
included research outside of assignments
from faculty supervisors, as one partici-
pant described.
So I identified a, a gap in the literature
and what I thought was kind of inter-
esting for an experiment in this case, a
controlled experiment, and so I designed
that and then brought in another student
and, well, the fellow who was running
the course that I, where I identified this
as a, as a project, so the faculty member

and that faculty member has, is like is the
third author on this work and so he
operated it as a, well, much as you would
expect a third author, author to operate.
He gave input to drafts and gave input to
questionnaires and study design but it
was mostly run by me.
Several students also focused on reputation
building as a means to position themselves such
that they could be noticed by or initiate a
connection to faculty. Students indicated that
projection of their skills, abilities, and know-
ledge assisted them in building a reputation
within their department or area of expertise
and then initiating a relationship with faculty.
Students built their reputation in various ways:
by doing well in their coursework, presenting at
conferences, collaboration, and voicing inter est
in particular areas of research.
In one example, a student described a confer-
ence presentation and her reputation among
other faculty as key factors in her ability to
secure a postdoctoral fellowship and collabor-
ative research projects with a faculty member
at another institution.
I think the reason I earned [my fellowship]
was they, that he saw me present, my new
advisor at [my new school], saw me pre-
sent at [a conference] and was impressed
with the quality of the research I was
doing and then he also knew colleagues
of mine at [my former job] and learned
further about some of the data collection

methodology and knew my persistence
was, how should I say, he said it was im-
pressive so he and I have a lot of research
projects already planned.
In sum, these comments by participants sug-
gest that student proactivity is an important
element in the process of learning to become
a researcher. In particular, formal tactics init-
iated by the organization, such as classroom
training and the assignment of advisors and
assistantships, begin the process of learning
to become a researcher, but they alone are not
sufficient. Developmental relationships with
faculty are a primary element in the socializa-
tion and identity development process, and
students played an active role in developing
these relationships.
Serendipity
In the course of coding the interviews, we
noticed that a few students mentioned one
other element that does not fit neatly into our
multilevel categories: luck. In particular, they
discussed the role that luck or good fortune
played in making their connections to faculty.
In this sense, the students seemed to indicate
that although they recognized that they can
steer their development, for example by
establishing connections and doing well in
coursework, to some extent the socialization
process was eased or facilitated when the
department or program happened to assign

them to a faculty who turned out to be a good
fit. By starting off with the “right person,”
they believed they were able to focus more on
activities that contributed directly toward their
own development rather than expending
energy on searching for the “right” advisor or
mentor. For example, some students talked
about how they were lucky to be assigned
to their advisor, or to a particular project, as
these two participants articulated.
But in terms of actually getting the ex-
per ience and translating that to like class-
room learning, I think, I think I have it
because luckily I was assigned to a great
project and a great advisor.
I, I, like I said, I know I just kind of won
the lottery with this one with who I was
placed in that she’s tenured, that she’s
recently enough into this that she’s still
very aware of how do you the job market,
how do you balance it all.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
We found a great deal of consensus among our
participants regarding what it means to be a
researcher, the advantages they gain from fac-
ulty mentoring and relationships, and the effort
they put into developing their identity. From
our findings, we have constructed a model of
the relationship between the multi level com-

ponents and the doctoral students’ notion of
and construction of a research professional
iden t ity. This model is shown in Figure 1.
The model includes the categories of activities
at each level—organizational, relational, and
individual—as well as the professional identity
dimensions related to these activities and the
definition of what it means to be an acad -
emic researcher as noted by the students in
our study. As shown by our findings, the stu-
dents’ departments and programs engaged in
institutionalized socialization tactics through
coursework and by assigning students to advi-
sors and research assistantships. These tactics
helped students to develop research skills and
expertise in research methods as well as know-
ledge about a particular area of research. By
exposing students to different faculty mem bers,
these tactics also facilitated students’ connec-
tions to and relationships with faculty mentors,
as shown by the dotted line in the model from
the organizational level activities to the rela-
tional level activities.
Two other factors also influenced students’ abil
ities to establish developmental relation ships
with faculty: student proactivity and seren di-
pity. Students’ proactive behaviors help ed them
to connect with key faculty for mentoring
beyond their assistantships and formal advisors,
as represented by the dotted line in our model
from the individual level to relational level acti-
vities. In addition, several students had noted
that they felt lucky to be assigned to the advisor

they had. We included serendipity in our model
with dotted lines to both the institutionalized
socialization and the faculty mentoring because
it seems to be a moderating factor for both, at
least from the students’ perspective.
The relational level of socialization may be the
most central to the students’ professional
identity development. At this level, the activities
and tactics were focused on the interactions
between students and faculty, and were often
distinguished by students’ descriptions of trust
in the faculty and consideration of the faculty
as a mentor. These activities comprised both
the instrumental and psychosocial support
thatboth formal and informal mentoring can
pro vide, and students often referred to faculty
as their mentors. Not all faculty viewed as
mentors by the students were assigned as formal
advisors. Some were informal mentors with
whom the students established relationships on
their own, or who may have taken an interest in
a particular student and initiated an informal
mentoring relationship.
Insights for Faculty and Doctoral
Program Administrators
In this section, we offer insights and suggestions
to faculty and doctoral programs that are
construction

training public affairs researchers. Before dis-
cussing our recommendations, we present a few
caveats and limitations.3 First, the students in
this study self-selected to participate in a
professional development workshop. As such,
this group may have higher levels of proactivity
and motivation for professional development
than do public affairs doctoral students as a
whole. Although we leave it to future research
to explore identity development among stu-
dents while measuring proactivity levels, here
we take into account this possibility by offer -
ing insights for engaging students who may not
be as proactive or have as much motivation
to develop.
Second, our study focuses on the professional
identity development and socialization that
begins when the student enters a doctoral pro-
gram and does not consider prior profes sional
FIGURE 1.
Research Professional Identity Construction
Relational Level:
Faculty Mentoring
On-the-job training
Bolstering identity
Increasing visibility
Balancing

Serendipity
Components of
a Research
Professional Identity
Research skills
Method expertise
Area expertise/knowledge
Visibility
Reputation
Independence
Self-confidence
Ethics
Organizational Level:
Institutionalized
Socialization
Classroom training
Advisors
Research assistantships
Individual Level:
Student Proactivity
Emulating faculty
Positioning
experience or individual characteristics. We do
not have the data to consider these additional
factors. Although our study follows the social-

ization literature in viewing sociali zation as
beginning once a newcomer crosses the thresh-
old of an organization or profession (e.g., Louis,
1980), these factors certainly can influence the
process; we recognize this as a limitation that
should be addressed in future research.
A final caveat, as noted in our data and methods
section: Our study is based on data from
students who indicated an interest in pursuing
an academic career. Therefore, the following
insights focus primarily on this training.
Programs should consider offering a re quir-
ed professional development seminar for
doctoral students. Students discussed both
the value of connecting with varied faculty for
a range of support and the strategies they used
to develop these connections. One way that
doctoral programs may alleviate some of this
effort is to offer and require a seminar on
doctoral research and professional development;
for some programs, this requirement may be an
addition to the curriculum.
For example, the doctoral program in Public
Administration and Policy at the University at
Albany, State University of New York requires a
one-credit professional development seminar
through the first two years of the doctoral
program.4 The seminar meets every other week
and covers core topics such as the academic job
market, publishing in academic journals, teach-
ing at the college level, developing collaborative
working relationships with faculty members,
selecting an area of specialization, organizing a

dissertation committee, and participating in
conferences. Multiple faculty members teach
and present during the seminar, and students
are required to make one conference-style pre-
sentation while registered for this course series.
Such a seminar could also educate students
about the culture of the academic research pro-
fession, beginning to socialize them to research
norms. And although our study focused on aca-
demic research preparation, the seminar could
also cover nonacademic professional paths.
A professional development seminar offers a
venue for both skill development and consist-
ent messaging to the students. Students have
the opportunity to showcase themselves and
develop writing and presentation skills. They
can present their own work to faculty and peers
and receive feedback. A professional develop-
ment seminar offers a good venue for doctoral
students to practice conference presentations
and/or academic job talks. It also can assist
students with their writing skills by providing
feedback on drafts of manuscripts.
Because not all students may realize at the
beginning stages of their career that success can
depend on the diversity of connections they
develop, this seminar could also emphasize the
importance of developing relationships with
multiple faculty from within and outside the
students’ department or university. Not all stu
dents may recognize the value of assistantship
work, and the seminar could also reinforce why
this work is important. Highlighting how work-

ing with faculty builds a reputation, results in
publications, and improves research skills may
motivate students to take assistant ships serious-
ly. Overall, a seminar should offer a consistent
message to all doctoral students regard ing
professional development and can provide
them with materials they can refer to later.
Such a seminar serves multiple purposes from
the perspective of relational socialization and
identity development. It enables students to
connect to faculty outside of the classroom or a
course in more informal ways and exposes them
to a broader range of faculty than they might
otherwise encounter. They can also simply
learn more about what different faculty
members do. These factors can reduce the
reliance on serendipity that some students
discussed. These seminars also offer another
reputation-building opportunity for students,
and they may present different aspects of
themselves and their interests to faculty. A
construction
required professional development seminar
serves to ensure that those students who may
not be getting a great deal of advice or support
in some areas, or know how to seek advice or
support, receive at least some general guidance
and advice in proscribed areas.

Faculty mentors can emphasize and facil-
itate multiple developmental relation ships
for doctoral students. The importance of de-
vel oping ties to multiple faculty should be
com municated in the formal seminar, but the
fac ulty mentor also needs to reinforce and
augment the message. Although the seminar
can aptly convey general activities for pro fes-
sional development, the reality for doc toral
students is that learning to become a productive
researcher is a very individualized process.
These specialized needs—such as ex per tise in a
substantive area or analytic method, or advice
on balancing professional demands with raising
a family—may not always be ful filled by a
student’s primary advisor or mentor.
All of our participants discussed various ways
that they initiated ties to faculty that provided
them with access to different mentors and role
models who served different purposes. But, as
we acknowledge earlier, not all students may
be as comfortable with this proactive approach,
or even recognize the professional and personal
need for or advantages in developing connec-
tions to multiple faculty. Faculty mentors should
emphasize the value of multiple developmental
relationships and assist students in both ident-
ifying and connecting to faculty who might be
instrumental. They can encourage students to
engage in activities that can increase visibility
and enhance network and professional identity
development. Such activities might include
attending professional development seminars
offered by professional associations, chairing

conference paper sessions, or acting as a
discussant for a conference panel session. This
facilitation can reduce students’ need to expend
energy strategizing on how to meet or “cold
call” key people.
Programs can offer incentives and oppor -
tun ities for professional development acti-
vities beyond program requirements and
milestones. Programs can require students to
com plete an annual progress report that goes
beyond reporting completion of program
requirements (e.g., credits, required courses,
comprehensive exams, etc.). Such a report can
also ask for information on participation in
conference presentations, professional develop-
ment seminars connected to the student’s
subfield, and joint research projects with faculty
and other students. To further encourage stu-
dent participation in such activities programs
can provide financial support for conference
presentations, offer paper contests, and reward
coauthorship.5 An annual progress report and
additional incentives signal to students what
activities are important in the research pro-
fession and allow a program or advisor to ident-
ify areas where students need more development
or guidance.
Programs should formally recognize and
value mentoring, especially informal devel-
opmental relationships. Whether or not
departments or programs formally recognize
and reward faculty who offer developmental
support, especially outside of formal advisor-
advisee relationships, may influence the quality

of such support and whether it is given at all.
We recognize that many faculty, without
prompting, offer both instrumental and
psycho social support to doctoral students on
both a formal and informal basis. But our data
suggest that this support is not always
consistent, so some students feel lucky when
they are paired with or are able to connect to a
faculty member who offers it. With many
competing priorities across research, teaching,
and service expectations, faculty, especially those
in the tenure track, may be less willing to offer
support through informal developmental rela-
tionships if they believe it is not appreciated by
the department or formally recognized. Yet our
data supports the need for such ties be tween
faculty and students. Offering recog nition for
in formal mentoring, particularly for new
faculty, may help ensure that students receive
consist ent, continued, and widespread support
(cf. Saks et al., 2011; Hatmaker & Park, 2013).
Overall, our suggestions for programs and
faculty mentors are complementary. The
implementation of each of them in concert
with each other likely provides a greater benefit
for students’ professional identity development
than just one dimension on its own. Enacting
the suggestions described here may provide a

more efficient relationship-building process for
students and offer them a diversity of high-
quality developmental relationships. Future re-
search could also examine how peer relation-
ships contribute to professional identity de vel -
op ment, gender differences in socialization,
and identity development as well as take into
consideration students’ prior professional ex
per ience and other characteristics to lend addi-
tional insights for faculty and public affairs
doctoral programs.
ACkNOwLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Linda Hodge for her en-
thusiasm for our project and her invaluable
contribution to our data collection.
NOTES
1 Following Rethemeyer and Helbig (2005), we use
the term public affairs to encompass public affairs,
public administration, public management, public
policy, and nonprofit management.
2 To protect the confidentiality of our participants,
we have replaced any names of individuals, organi-
zations, or institutions with a generic term in
brackets in quotations.
3 We thank our anonymous reviewers for noting these
limitations and drawing them to our attention.
4 We thank Dr. Karl Rethemeyer for the information
about the seminar for public administration and
policy doctoral students offered by the University at

Albany, State University of New York.
5 We thank one of our anonymous reviewers for
making these suggestions.
REFERENCES
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H.
(2007). Socialization in organizational contexts.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 22, 1–69.
Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A.
L. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in medical
school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brewer, G. A., Douglas, J. W., Facer, R. L., & O’Toole,
L. J. (1999). Determinants of graduate research
pro ductivity in doctoral programs in public
administration. Public Administration Review,
59 (5), 373–382.
Brewer, G. A., Facer, R. L., O’Toole, L.J., & Douglas,
J. W. (1998). The state of doctoral education in
pub lic administration: Developments in the field’s
re search preparation. Journal of Public Affairs Edu-
cation, 4(2), 123–135.
Chao, G. T. (2007). Mentoring and organizational
socialization: Networks for work adjustment. In
B. R. Ragins and K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook
of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice
(pp. 179–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cleary, R. E. (2000). The public administration
doctoral dissertation reexamined: An evaluation

of the dissertations of 1998. Public Administration
Review, 60(5), 446–455.
construction
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2007). Mentoring
as a forum for personal learning in organizations. In
B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook
of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice
(pp. 95–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making:
What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
organizational settings. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 25(2), 226–251.
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information
seeking during organizational entry: Influences,
tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of
Management Review, 16(1), 92–120.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information-
seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and
outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3),
557–589.
Ostroff, C., & Koslowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organiza-
tional socialization as a learning process: The role
of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology,
45 (4), 849–874.

Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B.
(2006). Constructing professional identity: The
role of work and identity learning cycles in the
cust omization of identity among medical residents.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 235–262.
Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (2007). The roots and
meaning of mentoring. In B. R. Ragins and K. E.
Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work:
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–15). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rethemeyer, R. K., & Helbig, N. C. (2005). By the
numbers: Assessing the nature of quantitative
preparation in public policy, public administration,
and public affairs doctoral education. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 179–191.
Rosen, B. C., & Bates, A. P. (1967). The structure of
socialization in graduate school. Sociological Inquiry,
37(1), 71–84.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Socialization
tactics and newcomer information acquisition.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
5(1), 48–61.
Saks, A. M., Gruman, J. A., & Cooper-Thomas, H.
(2011). The neglected role of proactive behavior
and outcomes in newcomer socialization. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79 (1), 36–46.
Dobrow, S. R., & Higgins, M. C. (2005). Develop-
mental networks and professional identity: A
long itudinal study. Career Dynamics International,
10(6/7), 567–583.

Gardner, S. K. (2007). “I heard it through the grape
vine”: Doctoral student socialization in chem istry
and history. Higher Education, 54(5), 723–740.
———. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too
little?” The process of becoming an independent
researcher in doctoral education. Journal of Higher
Education, 79(3), 326–350.
———. (2010). Contrasting the socialization
experiences of doctoral students in high- and low-
completing departments: A qualitative analysis of
disciplinary contexts at one institution. Journal of
Higher Education, 81(1), 61–81.
Green, S. G. (1991). Professional entry and the advi-
ser relationship: Socialization, commitment, and
pro ductivity. Group & Organization Studies, 16(4),
387–407.
Hall, L. A., & Burns, L. D. (2009). Identity
development and mentoring in doctoral education.
Harvard Education Review, 79 (1), 49–70.
Hatmaker, D. M., & Park, H. H. (2013). Who are all
these people? Longitudinal changes in new employee
social networks within a state agency. American
Review of Public Administration . Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/0275074013481843
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting
with image and identity in professional adaptation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy,

and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262–279.
Kim, T.-.Y, Cable, D. M., & Kim, S.-P. (2005).
Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and
person-organization fit. Journal of Applied Psych-
ology, 90(2), 232–241.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental
relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL:
Scott Foresman.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching
individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Schroeder, L., O’Leary, R., Jones, D., & Poocharoen,
O. (2004). Routes to scholarly success in public
administration: Is there a right path? Public
Administration Review, 64 (1), 92–105.
Sluss, D. M., Ployhart, R. E., Cobb, M. G., & Ashforth,
B. E. (2012). Generalizing newcomer’s relational
and organizational identifications: Processes and
prototypicality. Academy of Management Journal,
55(4), 949–975.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sweitzer, V. B. (2009). Towards a theory of doctoral
student professional identity development: A devel-
op mental networks approach. Journal of Higher
Education, 80(1), 1–33.
Van Maanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organizations:
Notes on the meaning of careers and socialization.
In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Organizational Careers: Some
New Perspectives (pp. 15–45). New York: Wiley.
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational
communities: Culture and control in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 287–365.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward
a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M.
Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior
(Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). New York: Wiley.
Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization
of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in
Higher Education, 44(6), 641–656.
Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001).
Socialization of graduate and professional students in
higher education: A perilous passage? (ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report, Vol. 28, No. 3). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Educa -
tion Series.
White, J. D., Adams, G. B., & Forrester, J. P. (1996).
Knowledge and theory development in public
administration: The role of doctoral education
and research. Public Administration Review, 56(5),
441–452.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Amy E. Smith is an assistant professor in the
McCormack Graduate School of Policy and
Global Studies at the University of Massachu-
setts Boston. She received her PhD in Public
Administration and Policy from the University
at Albany, State University of New York. Her
current research interests in public management
include women in leadership in public organ-
izations, social relations in government, and
teaching and mentoring in graduate education
in public affairs. Dr. Smith is also a member of
the editorial board at the journal, Public Per-
formance & Management Review.
Deneen M. Hatmaker is an associate professor
in the Depart ment of Public Policy at the Uni-
versity of Connecticut. She holds a PhD in
Public Administration and Policy from the Uni-
ver sity at Albany, State University of New York.
Her research interests include social net works,
gender dynamics in work and organ izations,
identity construction, and relational leadership.
Dr. Hatmaker is also a member of the Board of
Editors at the Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory.
construction
APPENDIX I

Coding for Identity Development with Additional Data
Examples
Level Category Activity Data Examples
Organizational Organizational
Socialization
Tactics
(Institutional-
ized Tactics)
Classroom
training
I mean I just feel like I had 100 methods class-
es, and I understand it. I think there’s multiple
techniques for data analysis, qualitatively and
quantitatively. I have no question that I’m
comfortable doing it.
Formal as-
signments
So, I think it is important to have someone right
away when you’re a PhD student like a deer
in the headlights, that you can have someone
you know that formally is there to advise you.
Relational Faculty
Mentoring
On-the-job
training

I also really enjoy the collaborative element
with faculty, just because in any situation that
I’ve been, even collaborating on a conference
paper to a journal article or book chapter with
a faculty member, I end up learning so much
and so those are probably the two things that
I really love about Grad school.
Increasing
visibility
One of the things that I appreciate the most
is being looked out for in various situations
like conferences and stuff because they’re
really intimidating, at least to me.…So, you
know, [my two advisors] have both made
points of introducing me.
Bolstering
identity
The first person I usually go to with that is actu-
ally my advisor, who is very open to questions,
doesn’t act like it’s a stupid question, doesn’t
say, oh, well you should know that, very recep-
tive to kind of pointing me into the right place
to go. …
Balancing And I think the other key is having conversa-
tions about, moving conversations to not just
what are you working on but the larger pic-
ture issues for both career-wise and just sort
of work-life-balance-wise.
Individual Student
Proactivity

Emulation I share with her my fears about data analysis and
she’s even said “I didn’t really get good at it until
I did my thesis,” which was enlightening to me
because I see what she does now and I’m like,
you know, it’s something to look up to and ad-
mire. So that gives me hope.
Positioning So right now, I’m kind of going through this
process of feeling people out for who might
make good committee members for me. And
so I’ve been setting up a lot of meetings with
different faculty to try to get that sense.
Copyright of Journal of Public Affairs Education is the property
of Network of Schools of
Public Policy, Affairs, & Administration and its content may
not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Module 1 - Case
Introduction to Negotiation and Bargaining I
Assignment Overview
Prepare! Prepare! Prepare!
Our module has focused on the preparation phase, leading to
negotiations. Within these preparations, an important part, nay,
crucial part, is identifying the interests and deciding on the
positions to be taken.

The background material page, and the supplementary articles,
provided to you, have all emphasized this issue.
The following article sheds a light on the general aspects of
negotiations, looks into interest based negotiations, and then
presents a case study.
Leventhal, L. (2006). Implementing Interest-Based Negotiation:
Conditions for Success with Evidence from Kaiser Permanente.
Dispute Resolution Journal. New York: Aug-Oct 2006. Vol. 61,
Iss. 3; p. 50.
Abstract
This article explores the theory behind interest-based
negotiation and its application to the labor-management
relationship. It examines the critical factors for the successful
implementation of interest-based negotiation, and then looks at
whether these factors are present at Kaiser Permanente. Interest-
based negotiation is also called "interest-based bargaining" and
"mutual gains bargaining." The process focuses "on
understanding and building on interests" and uses "problem-
solving tools" to avoid "positional conflicts and achieve better
outcomes." Collective bargaining negotiations can involve a
wide spectrum of issues, including wages, hours, job security,
safety, health, employee benefits and work design. To use
interest-based bargaining successfully, certain conditions
should be present. Most important is a respectful working
relationship between labor and management. An essential
condition is an agreement to engage in interest-based
bargaining. The following are conditions supporting interest-
based negotiations:
1. identifying interests and positions,
2. relationship building,
3. positive working relationships,
4. internal coalition-building,
5. training in interest-based negotiations, and
6. changing the corporate culture.
Case Assignment
After carefully reading through the article, please answer (in

about 3 full text pages), the following question:
1. What are the respective interests of the two sides in the
Kaiser Permanente conflict?
2. Explain, why it is an interest, and not a position.
3. Identify and discuss the possible Entering and Leaving points
within the negotiation range, as they pertain to the two sides in
this conflict.
Assignment Expectations
1. Please do NOT summarize the article (no need to point out
how many people work at KP), but focus on the case
question(s)!
2. Present the interests, positions, EPs, and LPs one be one,
define them, and explain each one.
3. If you feel that the article does not provide you with all the
details, you can make personal assumptions, to complete the
picture.
Gardner / Conceptualizing Success in Doctoral Education 383
The Review of Higher Education
Spring 2009, Volume 32, No. 3, pp. 383–406
Copyright © 2009 Association for the Study of Higher
Education
All Rights Reserved (ISSN 0162-5748)
Conceptualizing Success in
Doctoral Education:
Perspectives of Faculty
in Seven Disciplines
Susan K. Gardner
The term “success” in higher education has been used widely to
describe

multiple outcomes including models to better understand how
students
can succeed (e.g., Girves & Wemmerus, 1988; Padilla, Trevino,
Gonzalez, &
Trevino, 1997), the practices best suited for success (e.g., Frost,
1991; Wil-
liams, 2002), the influence of particular variables upon success
over time
(e.g., Burton & Wang, 2005; Decker, 1973; Fordham & Ogbu,
1986), and
even the relationship between specific variables and success
(e.g., Hirschberg
& Itkin, 1978; Nettles, 1990; Wilson & Hardgrave, 1995).
Indeed, a search
of the 2006 conference program of the Association for the Study
of Higher
Education identified more than 20 different papers and sessions
that utilized
the term “success.”
In doctoral education, the study of success is also prevalent. To
be sure,
understanding doctoral student success is particularly important
as only
50% of those students who enter doctoral education actually
complete the
degree (e.g., Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Nettles &
Millett, 2006).
SUSAN K. GARDNER is Assistant Professor of Higher
Education at the University of
Maine. She gratefully acknowledges the support of the Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation for
funding this study. Address queries to her at 5749 Merrill Hall,
University of Maine, Orono,
ME 04469-5749; telephone (207) 581-3122; fax: (207) 581-

3120; email: [email protected]
maine.edu.
384 The Review of higheR educaTion SprinG 2009
To this end, scholars have sought to understand how factors
such as advis-
ing (e.g., Baird, 1972; Schroeder & Mynatt, 1993), student
characteristics
(e.g., Cook & Swanson, 1978; Nettles, 1990), and particular
measures such
as grades and test scores (e.g., Burton & Wang, 2005; Girves &
Wemmerus,
1988; Lannholm & Schrader, 1951) influence the concept of
success in doc-
toral education. In each of these cases, “success” can mean
anything from
year-to-year persistence and high grade point averages to degree
completion.
Therefore, although multiple scholars have studied the concept
of success
from nearly every imaginable angle, its definition remains
elusive. What is
success? How does one differentiate a successful student from
one who is
unsuccessful? Does the definition of success vary by
disciplinary culture?
Without a coherent view of what it means to be successful in
doctoral
education, the measurements and outcomes expected of students
remain
ambiguous. This study sought to understand the concept of
success as de-

fined by 38 faculty members in seven disciplines at one
research-extensive
institution through in-depth interviews about their experiences
in doc-
toral education. The paper begins with a brief overview of
relevant extant
literature and the conceptual framework guiding the study. I
then provide
a description of the methods used, summarize the findings, and
provide
implications for future policy, practice, and research.
SucceSS in Doctoral eDucation
To better understand conceptualizations of success in doctoral
education,
a comprehensive understanding of the dimensions of the term is
needed. In
the study of doctoral education, the concept of success has been
used widely
to explain several outcomes including retention, academic
achievement,
completion or graduation, and professional socialization. I
briefly discuss
each of these topics below in relation to success in doctoral
education.
Throughout the doctoral education experience, students are
measured
according to several outcomes as indicators of their success.
Beginning with
coursework, students are assessed in their academic
achievement, resulting
in the standard measure of grade point average (GPA). GPA is a
common
variable used to analyze student success in undergraduate

education (Pas-
carella & Terenzini, 1991/2005); however, for doctoral
education, GPA is
generally not widely used in studies of success. Doctoral
student achievement
in coursework is typically expected to remain high, therefore
making it dif-
ficult to measure differences (Girves & Wemmerus, 1988;
Nettles & Millett,
2006), although some differences have been measured among
underrepre-
sented populations (Nettles, 1990; Nettles & Millett, 2006).
Furthermore,
coursework may last only for several semesters for many
students, thereby
providing an inaccurate long-term measure of student success.
Exceptions
are studies based upon predictor variables, such as the Graduate
Record Ex-
amination (GRE), and their relationship to grades in particular
coursework
(Feeley, Williams, & Wise, 2005; House, 1999).
Retention is another widely used indicator of success in
doctoral edu-
cation. Also described as persistence (Lovitts, 2001), retention
“refers to a
student’s continued enrollment” (Isaac, 1993, p. 15), a
definition similar to
that used to measure undergraduate student success (Pascarella
& Terenzini,

1991/2005). In this way, retention is related to doctoral student
success,
accounting for the students who persist from year to year in the
graduate
program. Previous studies have cited varying retention rates.
Golde (1998)
and Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) have documented that, of all
the students
who will leave their doctoral programs, about one third leave
after the first
year, another third before candidacy, and a final third during the
disserta-
tion phase, a finding also confirmed by Nerad and Miller
(1996). Reasons
for retention (or its lack) among doctoral students are generally
related to
issues of integration into the program or department (Girves &
Wemmerus,
1988; Lovitts, 2001; Tinto, 1993), feelings of psychological and
cognitive
inadequacy (Golde, 1998; Katz & Hartnett, 1976), lack of
financial support
(Abedi & Benkin, 1987; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Girves &
Wemmerus,
1988), and dissatisfaction with the program or department
(Girves & Wem-
merus, 1988; Lovitts, 2001; Perrucci & Hu, 1995).
Degree completion is another obvious indicator of doctoral
student
success. Completion rates in doctoral education, as previously
stated, have
been cited as averaging 50% (Bair & Haworth, 2005; Bowen &
Rudenstine,
1992; Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Nettles & Millett,
2006). Different

disciplines, however, have varying rates. Those in the fields of
science, tech-
nology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) generally
complete at higher
rates than those in the social sciences or humanities (Bair &
Haworth, 2005;
Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Council of Graduate Schools, 2004;
Nettles &
Millett, 2006). Moreover, degree completion and its relation to
such socio-
demographic variables as gender and race vary (Bair &
Haworth, 2005;
Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Council of Graduate Schools, 2004;
Nettles
& Millett, 2006). Similar to influences upon retention, it is
apparent that
many different variables influence degree completion (Lovitts,
2001) and
time-to-degree rates certainly vary by both discipline (Bowen &
Rudenstine,
1992) and by socio-demographic status (Bair & Haworth, 2005;
Ferrer de
Valero, 2001).
Finally, competencies related to the professional realm are also
mentioned
in the literature in regard to doctoral student success. The
individual enrolled
in doctoral education is, of course, also a burgeoning
professional (Golde,
1998), learning the skills, knowledge, habits of mind, values,
and attitudes of
his or her chosen field (Soto Antony, 2002; Weidman, Twale, &
Stein, 2001).
Therefore, while quantifiable measures such as GPA, test
scores, retention,

and graduation rates may indicate success, professional and
attitudinal
competencies, such as a student’s disposition toward the subject
matter or
professional development, are also desirable but are typically
more qualita-
tive measures of success (Hagedorn & Nora, 1996).
Undergirding all of these conceptualizations of success is the
involvement
of faculty members in the doctoral program and with the
doctoral student
(Austin, 2002; Clark & Corcoran, 1986; Lovitts, 2001;
Weidman & Stein, 2003;
Wulff & Austin, 2004). They serve as teachers, advisors,
committee members,
mentors, role models, and future colleagues. Despite their
important role,
however, no known studies have sought to determine how
faculty members
in doctoral education would define success. In other words, if
faculty play
such an integral role in the multitude of success outcomes for
doctoral stu-
dents, how they conceptualize success is key to understanding
how to best
structure programs, services, and experiences for this success.
conceptual Framework
An important caveat must be made, however: The doctoral

education
experience is not monolithic. Doctoral education is experienced
differently
within and among different disciplines. Disciplines have their
own particular
qualities, cultures, codes of conduct, values, and distinctive
intellectual tasks
(Austin, 2002; Becher, 1981) that ultimately influence the
experiences of the
faculty, staff, and, most especially, the students within their
walls. Therefore,
while studies of the undergraduate experience as related to
success often
occur at the institutional level (e.g., Tinto, 1993), the discipline
and the de-
partment become the central focus of the doctoral experience,
rather than
the larger institution (Berelson, 1960; Bowen & Rudenstine,
1992; Golde,
2005; Nerad & Miller, 1996).
Much of the common understanding about disciplinary
differences
and categorizations is based on Biglan’s (1973a) work, which
identified
the cultural and social structures of academic disciplines,
resulting in their
classifications as hard/soft, pure/applied, and life/nonlife
systems. While
not the first research conducted on disciplinary differences (see
Braxton
& Hargens, 1996 for a comprehensive discussion), Biglan’s
work is a testa-
ment to the concept that studies of academic cultures and
contexts cannot
be generalized across disciplines.

Work done by Becher (1981) expounded on the understanding of
dis-
ciplinary differences. The disciplinary groupings developed by
Becher and
Trowler (2001) included the (a) pure sciences, akin to Biglan’s
hard-pure
grouping; (b) the humanities, similar to Biglan’s hard-applied
disciplines;
(c) technologies, much like the hard-applied disciplines in
Biglan’s model;
and (d) applied social sciences, like Biglan’s soft-applied areas.
Becher also
contributed to the common understanding of “rural” and “urban”
fields,
further explaining the social structures within disciplinary
cultures. Whereas
in rural fields, many researchers will focus upon relatively few
research prob-
lems, urban researchers are generally fewer in number with
more problems
to be investigated.
These disciplinary groupings and organizational systems allow
for a bet-
ter understanding of the contrasting identities and
characteristics of par-
ticular fields of study. Becher (1981) commented, “Disciplines
are cultural
phenomena: they are embodied in collections of like-minded
people, each

with their own codes of conduct, sets of values, and distinctive
intellectual
tasks” (p. 109). These cultures within disciplines, therefore,
greatly influence
the faculty and, consequently, the doctoral students within the
departments
(Golde, 2005).
For example, Biglan (1973b) described differences among
disciplines
resulting in discernible paradigmatic assumptions, concern with
practi-
cal application, and concern with life systems. In addition, he
studied the
variation of social connectedness within disciplines, or the
measure of “the
informal relations among colleagues” (p. 204). He found, in
particular, that
social connectedness was important among the sciences since
much of the
research is conducted in team-based lab settings. Another
measure of dis-
ciplinary culture for Biglan was that of commitment to teaching,
research,
administration, and service. Biglan remarked, “What evidence
exists indi-
cates that the emphasis on, and significance of, teaching differs
in physical
and social science fields. Scholars in social sciences emphasize
educating the
whole student and evidence a more personal commitment to
students than
do those in physical sciences” (p. 205).
Finally, Biglan measured scholarly output as a characteristic of
disciplin-

ary differences, including the quantity and quality of
publications produced.
Biglan demonstrated that faculty in hard areas, such as those in
the sciences,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, are generally rated
higher in
social connectedness for both their research and teaching
activities, while
those in the soft areas (e.g., humanities and social sciences)
generally work
more in isolation but indicate a higher commitment to teaching.
Biglan’s
explanation for these differences was based on the paradigmatic
assumptions
particular to the disciplines, in which the single paradigm of the
hard sciences
allows for more collaboration while the multiple paradigms of
the soft social
sciences may impede common understandings and frameworks.
Further differentiation from Biglan (1973b) and Becher and
Trowler
(2001) included the distinction of pure versus applied
disciplinary cultures.
Pure fields are those in which results are focused on discovery,
explanation,
understanding, and interpretation—for example, physics in the
hard sciences
and history in the soft sciences. Applied fields, on the other
hand, are those
in which research results in products, techniques, protocols, or
procedures,
such as engineering in the hard sciences and education in the
soft sciences.
This pure/applied distinction allows for a better understanding
of the type

of training graduate students receive in these disciplines,
particularly in re-
gard to social connectedness, as well as the methods and modes
of research
conducted within the discipline (Biglan, 1973b). Moreover, a
higher com-
mitment to application is indicative of more social
connectedness in service
activities and more applicable publications such as research
reports.
Finally, Biglan (1973b) distinguished between life and nonlife
disciplines.
Disciplinary areas focused on life systems, such as the study of
botany and
agriculture in the hard sciences and psychology and education
in the soft
sciences, are those which are also more socially connected.
These faculty
members are generally more interested in collaborative teaching
activities
and graduate training in these areas is characterized by a more
team-oriented
approach to advising. Nonlife disciplines, including computer
science and
engineering in the hard sciences and communications and
economics in
the soft sciences, generally have faculty members who spend
more time on
teaching activities but who more independently work and advise
graduate

students (Biglan, 1973b).
While both Biglan’s (1973a, 1973b) and Becher’s (1981)
models are widely
used, neither has been widely tested beyond their initial
conceptualization;
and many would argue that not all of the components of the
Biglan model
can be validated (Braxton & Hargens, 1996). My study therefore
uses a
conceptualization encapsulating the four general areas of
disciplinary clas-
sification that are shared by both Biglan’s and Becher’s models,
including the
classifications of (a) pure sciences or hard-pure disciplines, (b)
humanities
or soft-pure disciplines, (c) technologies or hard-applied
disciplines, and
(d) applied social sciences or soft-applied disciplines. This
conceptualization
therefore uses disciplinary culture and context as a guiding
framework to
understand how success is defined in doctoral education in the
seven dif-
ferent disciplines studied.
reSearch methoDS
This study was guided by the question: How does disciplinary
context
and culture influence understandings of success in doctoral
education? I
interviewed 38 faculty members actively involved in doctoral
education in
seven departments at one institution. I chose the seven
disciplines for two

reasons. First, it was important to examine doctoral education
from mul-
tiple disciplinary perspectives representing disciplinary
diversity (Becher &
Trowler, 2001; Biglan, 1973a). Second, a previous study had
determined that
these seven disciplines represented both the highest and lowest
completion
rates over a 20-year period at their institution.
The seven disciplines were English, communication,
psychology, math-
ematics, oceanography, electrical and computer engineering,
and computer
science. Departments in the soft-applied fields (e.g., educational
fields) had
mid-range completion rates or a large number of part-time
students and
were excluded from this study. Therefore, not only were
disciplinary context
and culture important in understanding conceptualizations of
success by the
faculty members working in them, but the specific context of
completion and
attrition in these departments was also significant. Participants
in the study
by department and completion rate are further described in
Table 1.
The institution at which this study was conducted is classified
as a

research-extensive (McCormick, 2001) institution or a research
university
with very high research productivity (Carnegie Foundation,
2005). Located
in the southern United States, this institution annually enrolls
more than
30,000 students, including over 4,000 graduate and professional
students.
In relation to its peers, this institution is ranked as a third-tier
institution
among national universities, although many of its individual
programs and
colleges are rated in the very top (U.S. News and World Report,
2007).
I interviewed the 38 faculty members for the study in the winter
and spring
of 2007. I first contacted each department’s chairperson,
received permission
to conduct the study, then used the institution’s graduate school
records to
identify the individuals who most often served as
chair/committee member
on doctoral student committees. Thus, the interviewees had been
in the
department the longest and worked with the most students. I
considered
them representative of faculty who worked most intensively
with doctoral
students, and whose students had actually completed their
programs. This
sampling method is similar to that of Lovitts (2001) in her
examination of
doctoral student attrition and allowed for a deeper examination
of the exist-
ing cultures. Many of these departments generally did not allow

untenured
faculty members to chair doctoral committees. The interviewees
chaired a
mean 8.9 dissertations and had served 18.5 mean years at the
institution.
Table 1 provides further details of faculty members in each
department.
I next contacted the prospective interviewees by email. Given
the fact that
I was granted access through the Graduate School and had the
cooperation
of the department chairs, all individuals eventually agreed to be
interviewed.
I conducted in-person interviews using a loosely structured
protocol that
allowed participants to diverge from the main topics and to
further explore
concepts and ideas. (See Appendix.) Questions focused on the
faculty mem-
ber’s experiences as advisors to doctoral students and
specifically asked them
to identify the characteristics of students whom they considered
successful
and unsuccessful. The audio-taped interviews lasted for
approximately 45
to 60 minutes and were transcribed verbatim.
I analyzed the data through the constant comparative method, “a
research
design for multi-data sources, which is like analytic induction
in that the
formal analysis begins early in the study and is nearly
completed by the
end of data collection” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p. 66).
According to Glaser

(1978), the steps of this method are: (a) Begin collecting data;
(b) Find key
N
u
m
b
er
7
4
5
6
7
3
6

fa
cu
lt
y
in
te
rv
ie
w
ed
C
o
m
p
le
ti
o
n
7
6
.5

%
7
2
.7
%
7
0
.2
%
5
6
.4
%
3
7
.6
%
3
8

.4
%
1
7
.6
%
ra
te
M
ea
n
9
.7
1
4
.3
9
.5

1
1
.3
8
.3
3
.0
6
.3
d
is
se
rt
at
io
n
s
ch
ai

re
d
M
ea
n
1
5
.6
2
3
.8
1
6
.8
2
2
.8
2
5

.9
9
.3
1
5
.6
ye
ar
s
at
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
t
a
b
l

e
1
p
a
r
t
ic
ip
a
n
t
S
b
y
D
iS
c
ip
l
in
e
, c
o
m

p
l
e
t
io
n
r
a
t
e
, a
n
D
e
x
p
e
r
ie
n
c
e

C
om
m
u
n
ic
at
io
n
O
ce
an
og
ra
p
h
y
P

sy
ch
ol
og
y
E
n
gl
is
h
M
at
h
em
at
ic
s
C
om

p
S
ci
en
ce
E
n
gi
n
ee
ri
n
g
issues, events, or activities in the data that become main
categories for focus;
(c) Collect data that provide many incidents of the categories of
focus; (d)
Write about the categories explored, keeping in mind past
incidents while
searching for new; (d) Work with the data and emerging model
to discover
relationships; and (e) Sample, code, and write with the core
categories in

mind.
The steps of the constant comparative method occur
simultaneously
during data collection until categories are saturated and writing
begins. I
used Glaser’s steps in data analysis, which allowed themes to
emerge from
the data and provided a means for compressing large amounts of
data into
meaningful units for analysis. As stated earlier, I also used
concepts of dis-
ciplinary culture and organization (Becher, 1981; Becher &
Trowler, 2001;
Biglan, 1973a) in analysis to better understand the dimensions
along which
disciplinary responses varied. The departments, defined by their
Biglan
classification, are listed in Table 2.
I assured trustworthiness of the data collected and its
subsequent analy-
sis through peer debriefing (Maxwell, 1996), having a colleague
analyze
the transcripts and verify the themes. I also triangulated the
data sources
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Maxwell, 1996) since my study was a
part of a
larger study in which numerous departmental administrators and
doctoral
students were interviewed. After the larger study was completed
in the fall of
2007, the reports for each department were distributed and
verified by each
department; faculty members who had been interviewed
provided member

Journal of Public Affairs Education 545Expressing concern.docx

Journal of Public Affairs Education 545Expressing concern.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Journal of Public Affairs Education 545Expressing concern.docx

Similar to Journal of Public Affairs Education 545Expressing concern.docx (20)

More from aryan532920

More from aryan532920 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Journal of Public Affairs Education 545Expressing concern.docx