By Hazel Smith The Doctoral Identity Essential Questions What are some common reasons that individuals choose to seek a doctoral degree? What academic and professional dispositions should doctoral learners embrace and demonstrate? How are expectations for learners different at a master’s level than the doctoral level? In reviewing one’s weekly commitments, how much time and rigor will the dissertation journey require? What is the role of the scholar versus the practitioner? What is scholarly writing and what does this mean for the doctoral learner? Introduction Individuals embarking on a doctoral journey are novice researchers. Novice researchers encounter multiple academic demands couched in an intensive scholarly culture (Baker & Pifer, 2011). The ease with which doctoral learners adapt to these changes and demands is predictive of their completion rates. In essence, the doctoral journey is much more intense than prior academic programs. Therefore, learners can expect multiple personal, emotional, and academic challenges. This chapter focuses on developing and internalizing the doctoral identity that emerges from being a novice doctoral learner at the beginning of a program, to becoming an in�uential scholar who actively contributes to a specialized discipline upon graduation. Reasons for Pursuing a Doctorate According to Ivankova and Stick (2007), a con�uence of elements motivate learners to pursue a doctoral degree. For some, motivators may be intrinsic, such as the desire to acquire additional academic skills or to engage in the thrill of authentic research. The desire to deepen already acquired knowledge coupled with the drive to research unchartered areas in a given �eld underpins these intrinsic elements. Extrinsic reasons such as the desire to embark on a new career cause others to pursue a doctorate. According to Ivankova and Stick (2007), here are some of the common reasons for pursuing a doctorate: To increase earning potential To enhance professional self-esteem and con�dence To earn respect from peers and colleagues To expand scholarly writing skills couched in peer reviews and feedback To hone research and publishing expertise To acquire professional collaboration skills in higher education To improve interpersonal communication skills To �nd one’s purpose and thirst for knowledge To contribute original research to the knowledge based in one’s �eld of interest To demonstrate intellectual potential To achieve long-term professional goals. In sum, learners have many intrinsic and extrinsic reasons for pursuing a doctorate. While the reason differs for each individual, keeping the reason in focus helps retain momentum as the program moves along. Professional Dispositions of Doctoral Learners The College of Doctoral Studies (CDS) at Grand Canyon University (GCU) has laid out comprehensive dispositions, or characteristics, for learners to adopt as they embark on and undertake their doctoral deg ...

1. By Hazel Smith
The Doctoral Identity
Essential Questions
What are some common reasons that individuals choose to seek
a doctoral degree?
What academic and professional dispositions should doctoral
learners embrace and demonstrate?
How are expectations for learners different at a master’s level
than the doctoral level?
In reviewing one’s weekly commitments, how much time and
rigor will the dissertation journey require?
What is the role of the scholar versus the practitioner?
What is scholarly writing and what does this mean for the
doctoral learner?
Introduction
Individuals embarking on a doctoral journey are novice
researchers. Novice researchers encounter multiple
academic demands couched in an intensive scholarly culture
(Baker & Pifer, 2011). The ease with which
doctoral learners adapt to these changes and demands is
predictive of their completion rates. In essence, the

2. doctoral journey is much more intense than prior academic
programs. Therefore, learners can expect multiple
personal, emotional, and academic challenges. This chapter
focuses on developing and internalizing the
doctoral identity that emerges from being a novice doctoral
learner at the beginning of a program, to becoming
an in�uential scholar who actively contributes to a specialized
discipline upon graduation.
Reasons for Pursuing a Doctorate
According to Ivankova and Stick (2007), a con�uence of
elements motivate learners to pursue a doctoral
degree. For some, motivators may be intrinsic, such as the
desire to acquire additional academic skills or to
engage in the thrill of authentic research. The desire to deepen
already acquired knowledge coupled with the
drive to research unchartered areas in a given �eld underpins
these intrinsic elements. Extrinsic reasons such
as the desire to embark on a new career cause others to pursue a
doctorate. According to Ivankova and Stick
(2007), here are some of the common reasons for pursuing a
doctorate:
To increase earning potential
To enhance professional self-esteem and con�dence

3. To earn respect from peers and colleagues
To expand scholarly writing skills couched in peer reviews and
feedback
To hone research and publishing expertise
To acquire professional collaboration skills in higher education
To improve interpersonal communication skills
To �nd one’s purpose and thirst for knowledge
To contribute original research to the knowledge based in one’s
�eld of interest
To demonstrate intellectual potential
To achieve long-term professional goals.
In sum, learners have many intrinsic and extrinsic reasons for
pursuing a doctorate. While the reason differs
for each individual, keeping the reason in focus helps retain
momentum as the program moves along.
Professional Dispositions of Doctoral Learners
The College of Doctoral Studies (CDS) at Grand Canyon
University (GCU) has laid out comprehensive
dispositions, or characteristics, for learners to adopt as they
embark on and undertake their doctoral degree.

4. These dispositions guide incoming students to embrace a new
role, that of learner, which will evolve
throughout the doctoral process. Additionally, these
dispositions enhance attributes attained by learners as
noted below.
In a domain where collaboration necessitates differences of
opinions and unique, passionate perspectives,
interactions between learners, faculty, and committee members
must engender unequivocal respect for
others. For this reason, there are very clear and precise
expectations created for learners in the program. GCU
has crafted an expanded set of speci�c professional and
academic dispositions for learners.
Doctoral learners will:
1. Be dedicated scholar-practitioners enthusiastic about a �eld
of interest who choose a topic that is
familiar and current in the �eld. Committing to and prioritizing
a dissertation that may take from 3-7
years is the �nal goal in the program.
2. Become leaders in the disciplines and communities they
serve: the learner’s research necessitates
usefulness to others and exhibit expertise in a given area.
3. Commit to producing ethical and academically honest

5. scholarly research: entailing unbiased research
and all processes set up by the college adhered to and
participants in research protected. All ethical
codes readily accepted and practiced by the learner.
4. Be self-directed, self-motivated, and self-initiated in the
pursuit of knowledge being responsible for one’s
own learning: being in the driver’s seat the learner drives the
research with the guidance of the
dissertation committee. Confusion or dif�culty in the milestone
progress requires learners to seek help
from the doctoral program support team.
5. Engage in re�ective scholarly practice, asking questions of
both self and others: whether in content,
research or dissertation classes learners need to ask for
clari�cation and assistance to enhance the
learning experience.
6. Communicate effectively, actively and professionally with
peers, faculty, and college staff: scholarly
discussion and feedback is intense and can be misconstrued. The
college holds professors and learners
to a high standard of professionalism should this occur. Reach
out with respect to peers and faculty, ask
questions focused on the content, use of restraint in tone of

6. voice in writing and on phone/virtual call is
good practice. Disagreements must be resolved with a solution
in mind rather than a combative,
aggressive manner that settles nothing.
7. Be accountable for the quality and academic integrity of
one’s own scholarship and research agenda:
learners study many researchers and write scholarly articles.
Citing and referencing is the expectation
without which the learner is in jeopardy of academic
dishonesty. GCU has zero tolerance for plagiarism
and while initial errors are teaching opportunities, repeat
offenses may lead to expulsion from the
program.
8. Be receptive to the feedback, analysis, and constructive
critique from peers and faculty within the
scholarly community: receiving and implementing feedback is
the foundation of the doctoral program
and process. Be assured this type of exchange is present
throughout the program and will continue after
one has graduated when publishing scholarly research. View
provided feedback as gems from experts
who provide direction in dissertation writing and are seasoned
researchers.

7. 9. Demonstrate how to design, execute, and present
independent, academically rigorous research that adds
to the body of knowledge within the discipline, in other words,
learners will write a book on a subject
that has not been widely researched making them an expert in
that area of study. Learners will become
con�dent in writing and interpreting scholarly research.
10. Understand and expect the dissertation process to be
iterative: at the dissertation level there are four
dissertation artifacts, each one goes through multiple iterations
until the chair and dissertation
committee member provide approval.
Doctoral learners must learn to be �exible and adapt as they
engage in a high-level scholarly pursuit.
Authentic research requires persistence, but also openness to
feedback from multiple individuals, along with a
tolerance for ambiguity. The above statements outline the
attitudes and behaviors GCU expects doctoral
learners to embrace. Of particular importance is the ability to
accept feedback from multiple individuals in a
professional and courteous manner. For novice scholars and
researchers, this process can be very frustrating

8. as it differs from getting a grade on an assignment in a class to
receiving iterative rounds of advice and
feedback from multiple reviewers. Embrace this feedback as it
is a natural part of the research process and is
used in publication processes in the industry.
The Professional Counselor's Identity
By Mustafa Moyenda
The development of a professional counselor’s identity is
central to ethical practice (Corey,
Corey, & Callanan, 2010; Granello & Young, 2012). Gibson,
Dollarhide, and Moss (2010) de�ned
the process of professional identity development as the
“successful integration of personal
attributes and professional training in the context of a
professional community” (pp. 23-24).
It is fundamental that in doctoral counselor education and
supervision preparation
programs that a paradigm shift is realized as the counselor
practitioner begins to think like a
counselor educator, supervisor, researcher, and leader (Carlson,
Portman, & Bartlett 2006; Hall
& Burns, 2009).
Professional counseling is a distinct academic discipline that

9. has its roots in educational
and vocational guidance, later evolving toward counseling,
human development,
supervision, and clinical practice. Professional counselors share
a heritage of theories,
techniques and, to some extent, training with several other types
of mental health
professionals. These professionals include marriage and family
therapists, clinical social
workers, and counseling psychologists.
Gibson et al. (2010) described professional identity
development within counselor education
as both an intrapersonal and interpersonal process. They
asserted that the intrapersonal
process is an internalization of knowledge shared by faculty
members and supervisors (e.g.,
recognizing personal strengths, areas of growth in academic
roles). Further, they believed
the interpersonal process develops during immersion into the
norms of the professional
community Students actively identify with the counseling
profession by joining professional

10. counseling organizations, whose primary mission is to advocate
for professional counselors
and to provide development, support, and/or recognition for
professional counselors across
the counselor education specialties.
Academic Expectations for Doctoral Learners
In addition to adopting professional dispositions, doctoral
learners will be required to engage in an intense
academic setting, embracing instruction that is different than
experienced at the undergraduate and master’s
levels. A hallmark difference of a doctoral program is the level
of academic performance required of learners.
Additionally, a sharp paradigm shift occurs for all learners
when embarking on a doctoral journey as they
become responsible for their own learning and delve into the
creation of new knowledge.
Differences Between Master’s Level and Doctoral Level Classes
Doctoral learners will immediately recognize differences in the
doctoral level classes from their master’s level
classes. The expectation for rigor and focus on research in
higher education thus far entailed attending class,
participating in class, completing assignments, receiving a
passing grade, and picking up a degree at
graduation. In contrast, a doctorate requires creation of new

11. knowledge that begins in the content classes and
evolves into a publishable research product, the dissertation, at
the end of the program. While grades are
important, the focus of the doctorate is the publication of
authentic research.
Experiencing the Shift to Doctoral Education
A doctoral learner re�ecting on the �rst course of a traditional
doctoral program recalled the
�rst week of the class. The learner noted that the assignment
was to read 10 empirical
articles and come ready to discuss them the next week. Each
time someone tried to answer
the question, the response was a stoic, “Nope." So, the class as
a group revised their
comments to begin with "I believe," "I think," or "In my
opinion." To these comments the
instructor noted, “Your beliefs, thoughts and opinions are great
at a cocktail party but in a
doctoral scholarly discussion, please begin with, according to
…" The learner notes that this
experience never left her. Indeed, it made a signi�cant
impression on her in distinguishing
casual conversation from a doctoral, scholarly discussion.

12. There are other differences between a master’s degree and
doctorate. For example, a master’s degree may take
1-3 years to complete, whereas a doctorate degree might take 3-
8 years or more to �nish, depending on the
commitment of the learner and the nature of the research
conducted. At the doctoral level, a dissertation could
take several years to write since it is an independent, original
piece of research that must be of publishable
quality. This necessitates ongoing, iterative feedback and
revisions until the dissertation is completed and the
appropriate signatures and approvals given. In essence, the
master’s level considers application and
enhancement of prior knowledge, while at the doctoral level, the
creation of new knowledge is the focus.
Structure of the GCU Doctoral Program
The doctoral program of studies at GCU includes three types of
classes: discipline content courses, research
courses, and dissertation courses. Each doctoral degree has
speci�c emphases, such as the organizational
development emphasis in the EdD program in organizational
leadership, or the cognition and instructio n
emphasis in the PhD program in general psychology. The core
content courses and the emphasis content

13. courses offer learners the opportunity to develop subject matter
expertise related to the degree. Similarly, the
research courses equip learners with knowledge of research
methods, research design, and data analysis
needed for the dissertation. The deliverables for content and
research classes are in the form of course
assignments and discussion forum posts. Completion of
assignments requires diligence and the use of quality
scholarly writing. GCU requires that learners always submit
their best work including grammatically correct
and properly structured and cited written products.
The culminating courses of the doctoral program are the
dissertation courses, where learners plan, conduct,
and present results of their own research projects. While
assignments required for a content or research class
might be completed weekly, the assignments for the dissertation
courses are ongoing and iterative. Therefore,
it is not a given that the doctoral artifact is ready for approval
at one point in a course, or even during a course.
For example, it may take a learner 1-2 classes to �ne-tune a
proposal and receive approval to move forward. In
dissertation classes, the grade earned represents the diligent
efforts of the learner who worked

14. conscientiously with the guidance of the chair to make
substantive progress.
As noted in this section, there are unique differences between
the requirements of master’s and doctoral level
programs. Both degrees are couched in critical thinking,
effective communication, and global awareness.
However, the processes used at the doctoral level require higher
levels of cognitive thought such as synthesis,
evaluation, and creation of knowledge. Table 8.1 highlights the
key differences in cognitive thought of the two
levels of education.
Table 8.1
Master’s Versus Doctoral Thinking
Professional and Scholarly Writing
A key priority, and academic expectation for doctoral learners
is to produce professional and scholarly writing
in preparation for success on class assignments and for the
dissertation study. Scholarly writing is academic
writing that is used in scienti�c research and the publication of
professional articles, dissertations, and
Master's Level Doctoral Level

15. Critical Thinking Introduction of theories behind
skills
Theory application to new and
complex situations
Demonstrate theory and concept
comprehension within a specific
discipline
Complex cognitive thinking
within a specific discipline
Application of theories to basic
situations; problem solving
Ability to theorize, research, and
provide support for a unique
hypothesis
Build upon and develop in-depth
knowledge of field
Synthesis of existing knowledge
and create new knowledge to
add in a field
Identifies influence of context
and questions assumptions
Presents information integrated
without personal bias
Integrates ideas in a
comprehensive process of
judgment and justification
Clearly justifies own view while

16. respecting views of others
Effective Communication Thesis and/or main claim is
clear, forecasting development
of the argument
Argument is solid, showing
logical progressions. Firm
control of the technique of
argumentation is evident
Type, quantity, and/or quality of
evidence fully support the claims
with authoritative evidence
presented
The argument presents a
persuasive claim in a unique
and compelling manner
Effective style and vocabulary
exhibited align to audience and
purpose
Language used in unique and
creative ways, reflective of
purpose, discipline, and scope
Global Awareness,
Perspectives, and Ethics
Explains the cause and impact
of differing behaviors in relation
to setting
Interprets the nuances and
subtleties of behaviors as they

17. relate to the dynamics of context
Discovers underlying historical
patterns and relationships, and
applies that to current
scholarship.
Predicts potential outcomes
from historical occurrences
Integrates historical theory in an
innovative way
textbooks in higher education. This type of writing does not
appear in the general written media such as
newspapers, magazines, �ction, and poetry.
Scholarly writing involves learning how to use the researcher’s
voice. The most obvious difference is the use of
discipline-speci�c vocabulary often unfamiliar to the general
populace. The next characteristic is that the
purpose of the writing is to present research without bias. The
audience is other scientists in the �eld or
scholars. So the writing must re�ect higher order thinking skills
of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, which
are integral components of research. Thus, reading scholarly
writing can be intimidating for the new
researcher. Novice researchers best assuage this intimidation by
the voracious reading of scholarly materials.

18. Reading scholarly writing is the �rst step to producing
scholarly writing.
At the doctoral level, learners must also differentiate between
opinion-based writing and research-based
writing. In the former, the writer’s motivatio n revolves around
personal thoughts, beliefs, and feelings. The
intent is to persuade the reader to adopt the writer's way of
thinking. For those desirous of producing
believable opinion-based writing, the tendency is to select
statistics or research that singularly support one
point of view. Thus, even though research utilized and
referenced provides seeming credibility, the writing is
still biased and opinion-based. This type of publication seen in
blogs and magazines, which caters to the
opinion of the day.
In research-based writing, the motivation is to present unbiased
research to the audience without the intent to
persuade. The foundation of the writing of this type of
document is grounded in research and a thorough
review of the literature that bridges seminal research with
current trends. The scienti�c method used to
collect, analyze, and report the data presents the results without
an attempt to persuade, but to inform.

19. The identi�cation of scholarly materials and the differentiation
between non-academic writing and scholarly
writing is often a challenge. Experts in academic or professional
�elds write scholarly or peer-reviewed
articles in a format acceptable to the discipline in which the
article resides. Table 8.2 identi�es some common
attributes of scholarly articles.
Table 8.2
What Is a Scholarly Article?
Academic Systems and Support
In addition to cognitive expectations for doctoral classes,
learners must also adopt practical skills related to
navigation of technology systems and other technological tools
to facilitate the success of their journeys.
Learners have the opportunity to become fully pro�cient in the
use of the learning management system that
houses all doctoral classes. Services counselors are also
assigned to each learner to provide guidance in
navigating the learning management system.
Communication and Contact Information
During classes, learners and professors engage in classroom

20. discussions, assignments, and participation
requirements for which timely responses and interaction is
expected. In the learning management system,
learners are required to post contact information, including their
GCU e-mail address and their preferred
phone number. Learners should respond to their instructor’s
questions within 24-48 hours of the post. To
warrant timely collaboration appointments, learners are
encouraged to review the of�ce hours of the
instructor and to contact the instructor during those times.
Learners and instructors demonstrate mutual
respect by initiating and observing appointments in a timely
manner.
In addition to collaboration, GCU has established clear
communication, participation, and engagement polices
that all learners must follow. These include regular participation
in the class discussion forums and
committing to submit all assignments by their respective due
dates. Instructors regularly contact learners to
provide support, guidance, and resources, thus making updated
contact information necessary.
Technology
Purpose Presentation of original research will be added to the
scholarly

21. knowledge base
Foundation Utilization of seminal works and current research
and literary
publications
Correct employment of citations, footnotes, and
bibliographies/references
Writers Experts and researchers in the field
Experienced and strongly present in the discipline or area of
expertise
Language Employs discipline-specific terminology expected to
be
understood by readers/researchers in the discipline.
Format Include abstract, literature review, research
methodology, results,
conclusion, and bibliography/references.
Explain data using graphs and charts that augment clarity of
results.
Peer Review Reviewed, evaluated, and approved by other
experts in the field
An excellent way for learners to meet assignment obligations is
to have a functional knowledge of Microsoft
Word. Mastery of this tool allows learners to submit scholarly
written assignments. Some of the key skills

22. learners must master include using Track Changes and the
spelling and grammar functi ons, addressing
embedded feedback in bubble comments, and maintaining
version control. Understanding the use of Track
Changes and version control safeguards from confusion and
frustration for making revisions and
incorporating feedback into documents. Many user-friendly
videos available online are invaluable in this
preparation. Learners should take the initiative to investigate
these resources.
The APA Manual
Every doctoral learner should purchase an APA manual and
refer to it while working. The APA manual is not a
textbook, but rather it is a manual on how to write scholarly
documents. Learners should focus on Chapters 4-
7:
Chapter 4: Mechanics of Style (capitalization, numbers,
quotation marks, symbols, etc.)
Chapter 5: Displaying Results (format/layout of tables and
�gures—charts, etc.)
Chapter 6: Crediting Sources (citing in-text, quotations, names
in references; plagiarism)
Chapter 7: Reference Examples (online and print sources)

23. There are also free tutorials online that explain the use of the
APA manual.
Comfort with Scholarly Journals
In all classes at the doctoral level, learners will be required to
read and use authoritative scienti�c sources. To
become a strong scholar, the learner requires the skills to
differentiate scholarly journals from other types of
material. Reading scholarly writing can be intimidating for the
new researcher. Novice researchers best
assuage this intimidation by the voracious reading of scholarly
materials. Reading scholarly writing is the �rst
step to producing scholarly writing and becoming an expert on
the dissertation topic.
Plagiarism Checks
Learners also submit their assignments to LopesWrite for
plagiarism checks. If passages written by other
authors do not receive credit with citations and references, this
translates into plagiarism. Thus, another
essential concept to embrace and apply is the use of the
similarity score index. Faculty take the �rst instance
of oversight in citing/referencing as a teaching opportunity;
however, continued cases of using research
materials without attributing credit to researchers’ results in a
code of conduct violation. GCU takes academic

24. dishonesty very seriously, thus the similarity score/similarity
index computed by the LopesWrite review
software should remain below 15% and should be observed as a
benchmark for assignments requiring
submission to the LopesWrite system.
On-Time Submission
Professors will provide feedback on participation, discussion
questions, and assignments in LoudCloud, the
learning management system. They provide feedback on weekly
questions and overall quality of participation
in class. All submission due dates for the discussion questions
are strictly observed and viewed as an integral
part of the process. When an instructor requests an assignment
revision, the learner’s role is to address these
revisions and ensure each revision has the correct research
support. The expectation from all professors is for
learners to seriously examine and apply the suggestions and
feedback provided. Feeling hurt or insulted by
the feedback and requested revisions does not serve the learner
well. Learners must develop and attitude of
appreciating meaningful feedback as this enhances progression
in the process and helps develop scholarly
skills.

25. Careful Reading of Assignment Instructions and Review of
Rubrics
Learners position themselves for success by carefully reading
the instructions and rubrics speci�cally
designed for each assignment with a keen understanding of
concepts in a given course. Professors use rubrics
to provide consistency in grading, and learners utilize these in
grasping the expectations of each assignment.
Rubrics describe the allocation of points and the awarding of
grades and offer guidance for assignment
completion by establishing clear expectations for the learner.
When reviewing assignment instructions and
rubrics, learners should make note of confusing points and areas
that are dif�cult to grasp in order to address
these points with the professor well ahead of time. This allows
the learner to avoid feeling unduly pressured
just before the due date of the assignment. Learners must take
ownership of asking for clari�cation and
examples to comprehend new concepts rather than feeling
silently defeated by not approaching the instructor
in an open and professional manner. These are dispositions that
GCU expects doctoral learners to exercise in

26. their academic pursuits.
Emotional Expectations for Doctoral Learners
The doctoral learner’s journey is a challenging one. Countless
doctoral graduates will attest to having
underestimated the rigor of doctoral work even with strong
guidance provided prior to entering the program.
The doctoral program and dissertation writing process often
evokes a spectrum of emotions in the doctoral
learner. While emotions are a part of daily life and, it is safe to
say, no one can complete a day without
experiencing myriad emotions, the doctoral journey provides
learners with a unique spectral experience of
emotions including anxiety, frustration, despondency, elation,
joy, and satisfaction. Unfortunately, each learner
must experience his/her own emotional spectrum and devise
individualized strategies to cope and grow.
Learners working on a doctorate will experience the full gamut
of emotions. As the �rst entry-level classes
begin, it becomes clear that reading assignments take up
massive amounts of time. To add to limited time, the
content is high level and challenging to comprehend, the
assignments laborious and thought provoking, and
the fear of asking questions monumental. This phase of the
emotional spectrum requires learners to acclimate

27. to the overall expectations of class including learning how to
interact in a doctoral forum, learning the jargon
of the discipline, and �nding their place in the program.
Learners will experience anxiety with what is
expected, frustrations with not grasping complex concepts, and
perhaps disappointments when grades do not
appear to align with effort and expectation.
As learners become comfortable with classwork, the
expectations become clearer, interacting with peers and
professors is not as intimidating, and grades are improving.
Feelings of satisfaction and elation may
accompany a comment made by a professor on the well-written
assignment. The seemingly elusive “A” grade
has found its place on the transcript. Experiences like these
provide learners with the necessary momentum
needed to continue in the program. The elation phase can easily
transition into a stomach-churning drop and
then back up again with each skill learned, each revision made,
and each milestone achieved. Completing the
doctoral program is not an event; it is a journey. This journey is
full of ongoing dif�culties and victories, and
learners who comprehend and embrace this fact face less angst
in the process.
The doctoral journey is not only emotionally challenging, but

28. also is cognitively challenging in a number of
ways including striving for success in content classes followed
by writing the dissertation. In examining the
doctoral journey of distance learners, Silinda and Brubacher
(2016) noted �ve overarching stressors that add to
the challenge of completing a doctoral program. These are
relationship stressors, time management/workload,
health problems (of self or others), �nancial problems, and
academic stressors. As expected, the academic
stressors were the strongest predictors of stress in the doctoral
program. Learners need to remember this
journey is about becoming a better researcher, not about
becoming smarter. Accumulating facts is not the goal;
the goal is to accumulate and internalize research and writing
skills. A proactive way to address emotional
stressor is to join a support/study group within the program.
Here learners have the opportunity to collaborate
and learn from peers, to share ideas and exchange information
on resources, and to commiserate when the
journey becomes overwhelming. This is also an excellent way to
network for future success. Relationships
initiated at the learner level will continue as graduates �nd
their places in the �eld.
A prevalent experience faced by many doctoral learners

29. identi�es as the imposter syndrome. Clance and Imes
(1978) identi�ed the imposter syndrome, which presents as the
“imposter experience” by these authors.
Learners riddled with the imposter experience maintain thoughts
such as, “I will never be able to �nish this
program,” “I am not smart enough,” “I got into the program by
pure luck” and so on. This self-doubt contributes
to a lack of motivation to continue to forge ahead. For a
doctoral learner to manage this type of angst,
Corkindale (2008) provided some suggestions on how to
conquer self-sabotaging doubts as noted below:
Immediately acknowledge and recognize these feelings as they
emerge
Give yourself a pep-talk by reassuring yourself everyone has
feelings of doubt.
Dialogue about these feelings with peers in the program. This
will eliminate the sense of isolation and
bring a relief that others share your thoughts.
Recognize that the program is meant to be dif�cult, thus it is
normal to feel this way.
If there is failure at a milestone, use is as a learning
opportunity.

30. Keep your self-talk positive by rewarding yourself for every
small success.
To get back on track, think ahead to when your program will be
completed and remind yourself of why
you started in the �rst place.
Seek help from advisors, counselors, and instructors who can
fully relate to your experience.
Table 8.3 presents ideas for which each learner needs to prepare
before embarking on the doctoral journey.
Table 8.3
Strategies to Handle Stress
Learners should review all class assignments in the syllabus
review before the beginning of class, reading the
directions for each assignment carefully. Learners should
understand the expectations well ahead of time and
ask questions well in advance of when the assignment is due.
Waiting until the week the assignment is due
will result in poor scholarly quality and re�ect in the grade
earned. To address discussion questions, it is best
to begin by reading them carefully and then going to the
literature on the topic to gain a broad understanding
Stressor

31. Solution
Not enough time to read/write Create a realistic schedule.
Too many demands by family/friends Share your goal/timelines
with them. Ask for their
support and understanding.
Struggling with finding research material Contact GCU librarian
or Student Services
counselor for resources.
Frustration with poor scholarly writing skills There are many
resources including the GCU
Writing Center, online resources such as OWL at
Purdue, and even your local community college.
Utilize the resources that best fit your needs,
lifestyle, and schedule.
Documents requiring seemingly endless revisions Read and
learn about the iterative process to

32. understand why there are so many revisions
necessary. Use version control to avoid circularity
in revisions.
Changes of instructors/chairs At universities, professors come
and go. Keep in
mind you may not have the same chair throughout
your entire dissertation process.
Conflicting feedback from committee members Ask for a video
conference to help the committee
come into agreement.
Not enough feedback on deliverables Inform committee member
of needs. Do not just
guess or wait.
Afraid to ask questions The committee members expect you to
ask or they
will assume you know. Take the initiative to ask.
Writer’s block The individual success plan you developed with
your chair is designed to help you retain ongoing
momentum. Make sure you follow it religiously. If
there is trouble with writer’s block, ask for help

33. from your chair.
Help in any area GCU provides excellent resources for doctoral
learners. Take advantage of them through your
Student Services counselor.
of the issues surrounding the topic at hand. To craft a
meaningful response to the discussion prompt, the
learner must read several articles and consider their inputs as a
whole (the ideas synthesized). Adopting these
strategies, along with academic practices and professional
dispositions will prepare the doctoral learner for
interacting with the dissertation committee.
The Dissertation Committee: The Members and Their Roles
Along with the differences in master’s level versus doctoral
level courses, doctoral scholars must work with a
multiple stakeholders including peer-reviewers and members of
the dissertation committee. In the doctoral

34. program, a dissertation committee convenes to direct a learner
through the dissertation process. The doctoral
dissertation committee guides the learner by providing different
perspectives, different points of view, and
expertise toward scholarly research. The dissertation committee
is comprised of three individuals: The
dissertation chair, the methodologist, and a content expert. Each
member embodies a speci�c role in the
committee and provides topic-speci�c guidance.
Dissertation Chair
The dissertation chair leads and directs the learner through the
dissertation journey including:
Knowing and adhering to all dissertation policies, procedures,
and expectations.
Guiding the learner in developing and completing all doctoral
artifacts.

35. Assisting the learner in setting realistic, achievable goals for
completion of the dissertation.
Submitting the research package to the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) and peer review for approval.
Providing guidance in data collection.
Preparing the learner for the proposal and dissertation defenses.
Collaborating with all other committee members.
Leading the proposal and dissertation defenses.
The methodologist is assigned to the dissertation committee by
CDS and brings research expertise to the study
expertise in methodology and design, this includes:
Focusing on Chapter 3 of the proposal regarding methodology
and design.
Reviewing dissertation Chapters 4 and 5, where results are
presented, analyzed, and interpreted.

36. Ensuring there is methodological alignment in all doctoral
artifacts and providing substantive feedback
to achieve this alignment.
Advising the learner from the proposal to the dissertation
defense.
Following feedback and timeline guidelines established by CDS.
Assisting with preparing the learner for proposal and
dissertation defense.
Collaborating with other committee members.
Being present for proposal and dissertation defense.
The third member of the dissertation committee is the content
expert, chosen by the learner either from
his/her own network of connections or from an inventory of
approved content experts provided by GCU. The
content expert must have a terminal degree and expertise in the

37. topical area of the learner’s dissertation study.
The content expert’s main role includes:
Applying his/her expertise to the literature review, which is
Chapter 2 at the proposal stage.
Providing expertise for sound basis of the problem statement
and the need for research in the given
�eld/topic
Evaluating and providing feedback until approval is received by
committee for dissertation
The fourth member of the committee is the learner. As noted
above, the learner’s role is to seek guidance from
the committee and certify all revisions and feedback
incorporated in the doctoral artifact move toward
approval of dissertation milestones.

38. Interpersonal Relationships and Communication in the Doctoral
Program
All faculty and learners in CDS adhere to a high professional
standard in interpersonal communication and
relationships as expected at an institution of higher education.
The primary goal of courteous communication
is to enhance scholarly exchange and growth, heightened
learning and a critical-thinking environment,
commitment to self-re�ection, and positive collaboration with
all learners and faculty. However, one of the
most common pitfalls doctoral learners confront is assuming
that their faculty members and dissertation
chair/committee know the learner’s individual needs. As part of
becoming an independent scholar, learners
must take initiative and accountability for their academic
progress. This requires reaching out for help and
guidance when needed. Yet, as noted in the dispositions section

39. of this chapter, CDS expects all learners to
reach out in a professional and courteous manner. Learners
should advocate for themselves and their needs,
but they must do so respectfully. Figure 8.1 outlines a process
encouraged by CDS for preferred communication
strategies.
A responsible doctoral learner takes ownership for his/her
progress. Concepts that are challenging and
dif�cult to internalize present an opportunity to seek guidance
from faculty members, and eventually, the
dissertation chair. Once feedback is given, the revisions and
changes must be made and supported with
scholarly/research support. The rigors of the doctoral
curriculum cannot see a learner fall behind without
suffering negative results. Two of the most dif�cult procedures
for doctoral learners to grasp and embrace are

40. the peer review and iterative feedback.
Understanding the Nature of Peer Review and the Iterative
Process
A key aspect of research and scholarly writing is an intricate,
methodical peer-review process. A peer review
is a process conducted by learned researchers within a
community of scholars who review manuscripts with
a rigorous, scienti�c approach to assess the value of the
research, to advance scienti�c knowledge, and to
establish and maintain a high quality of academic work. Peer
reviews are a standard practice in scholarly
writing and research. The key objectives of the peer review are
to ensure academic integrity and responsibility
to the academic community (see Figure 8.2). In the dissertation
journey, the dissertation proposal requires
several cycles of peer review. Approvals of the proposal by the
Peer Review Team and the Institutional Review

41. Board give the green light for the data to be collected. Once the
data are collected, analyzed, and presented in
written form as the dissertation, the dissertation will be peer
reviewed also and approved by the dissertation
committee and the Peer Review Team before being forwarded to
the college dean for signatures.
Figure 8.1
Communication Strategies with Faculty Members
Figure 8.2
Necessity of Peer Review
It is essential that learners develop a fundamental understanding
of why a peer-review process exists in
research. The overarching function is to improve the scienti �c
quality of the dissertation. The dissertation

42. must meet all scholarly standards of the publishing institution
or entity. This process provides assurance to
readers the research has been refereed by experts in the �eld,
and necessity if the scienti�c process is to be
trusted. Further, the peer-review process veri�es the integrity,
quality, and value of the research. At GCU,
scholars knowledgeable in the dissertation process and
methodologies conduct the peer-review process, but
they are not part of the committee that has guided the learner.
The Iterative Process
Entrenched in the peer-review process is the distinct and unique
cycle of iterative analysis of research. In
writing a doctoral dissertation, the iterative process refers to the
many cycles of review and revision for each
doctoral artifact conducted by the dissertation committee and
learner until the product meets all �nal

43. conditions. Five ways to succeed in the review cycles are:
Be open to feedback and develop a “thick skin." Revisions are
not a personal attack, but suggestions on
what needs to be changed/addressed.
Review feedback with the committee. Ask questions and ask for
examples when unsure.
Respond to all the feedback. Support all revisions with research
citations and references.
Do not revise the document while it is being reviewed. Making
unnecessary changes is
counterproductive to milestone progression.
Hustle while you wait. Keep reading. Catch up on the literature
pertinent to the topic. Check the
references and in-text citations to verify all the necessary
information was included and is current.

44. Develop word processing skills such as learning to use the
Microsoft Word style tool.
Preparation for the Rigors and Time Needed for Classes and
Dissertation Research
Pursuing a doctorate as an adult learner who has a family and a
full-time job requires a well thought-out time
commitment. Before the journey begins, the potential doctoral
learner needs to examine this commitment
regarding time, effort, perseverance, and �nancial support
ensuring major changes in life events are on the
calendar. Big changes such as moving, job changes, or any
controllable life-altering decisions ought to be
postponed. These will cause undue additional stress. Clearly,
life happens, but it is not advisable to plan major
life changes during this time.
Secure Support Through the Dissertation Process
Doctoral learners often bene�t from soliciting support from

45. family, friends, or hired help to meet obligations
unaddressed due to the academic priorities and responsibilities.
Learners often need to secure assistance from
friends and family to support the work, life, and academic
balance. For example, an individual might consider
Objectives of the Peer Review Process
hiring babysitters, or house/grounds keepers to take over
responsibilities, thus allowing time to focus on
doctoral studies. In many cases, �nancial obligations and
constraints limit hiring helpers. Therefore, this is
the time when family, relatives, or friends can help.
Have a Plan for Time Management and Organization Skills
Doctoral study typically takes at least 20 hours per week. The
journey requires reading high-content empirical

46. journal articles, textbooks, and dissertations; regularly
attending and participating in classes; ensuring all
assignments are submitted on time; taking feedback from
instructors; and maintaining an updated Individual
Success Plan (ISP) at the dissertation level. A commitment to
less time than this is often predictive of a
problematic dissertation journey.
Be Honest
One of the quickest ways to lose sight of realistic goals is not
being honest about the efforts and skill sets
possessed by oneself. The truest mirror of these skills is
re�ective in the feedback provided by instructors. The
committee members and review teams provide direct and in-
depth feedback. Debating with instructors or
committee members over processes or feedback negatively
affects a learner’s progress. As a dissertation

47. instructor stated, “At this stage the learners don’t know what
they don’t know.” Learners do well to let those
who know lead. Clearly, questions and collaborative discussion
are encouraged and desirable at a scholarly
level. However, these interactions must remain professional,
and learners must adopt a stance of knowing
humility when communicating with committee members.
Set Realistic Goals and Performance Expectations
In writing academic goals, learners must ensure they are
representative of current scholarly skills. A master’s
degree earned 15 years ago will require honing comprehension
and analytical skills necessary for reading and
writing in a scholarly manner. Learners must not underestimate
the rigor of these skills at the doctoral level.
The quality of work that earned superior marks at the master’s
level may not suf�ce at the doctoral level. It is

48. important to build in time for supplementing these skills along
with completing class assignments. At the
doctoral level, merely �xating on points earned in classes does
not serve learners well since the emphasis is
on the quality of doctoral artifacts and the overall progression
toward reaching the dissertation milestones
including elements of research, analysis, synthesis, and
perfecting scholarly writing skills.
Know What is Wanted
The doctoral learner must be clear on the focus of the �eld of
study before entering the doctoral program.
Within a given �eld, learners make note of the areas that evoke
passion and then align these areas with the
degree program. For example, a learner enrolled in the
organizational leadership program was passionate
about rites and rituals of religious worship in ancient cultures.
This is understandably interesting, but it has

49. nothing to do with organizational leadership. It is well worth
doing some homework to identify at least �ve
areas of specialty since the next 3-7 years will be devoted to
studying in one of these areas and will likely
frame the rest of life beyond the doctoral program. In
considering a discipline, it is critical to think about the
theory of the subject and the practical implications of
researching it in order to be clear on the theoretical
versus practical implications of this degree to the researcher and
the profession.
Learners should seek out professionals in the �eld of interest
by reading professional journal articles written
by speci�c researchers; writing instructors in universities in the
area of interest, and, if possible, meeting with
them regarding the �eld of interest. Doctoral learners must
follow how the �eld is evolving and study the

50. current trends in the �eld. They should review the university
website and become acquainted with the culture
and atmosphere of the program of interest and, where possible,
identify others already working on a doctorate
to gain a perspective on how to prepare for a program and what
to expect.
Academic Preparation—Becoming an Independent Learner
Incoming doctoral learners can prepare for the journey in many
ways. While some learners continue into the
doctoral program directly from a master’s program, others have
not been in academe for many years. Their
absence from higher education for an extended period can leave
them underprepared for the program.
Let Go of the Grade
At the doctoral level learners worry about grades earned.

51. Instructors often have learners engage them in
lengthy discussions about a point lost here or there. To say that
grades do not matter is inaccurate because
they do. However, the focus of doctoral study is more on the
quality of writing and the alignment of the
research artifacts than on a letter or point grade. Learners can
view grades as a baseline guide for their
academic performance; however the primary focus is on
addressing feedback provided by the professor
ensuring current research support. A good course grade does not
necessarily equate to a successful
dissertation. This structure places an onus on professors to offer
meaningful feedback thus making the
doctoral journey a collaborative effort aimed at developing
doctoral learners into researchers capable of
contributing to the scholarly community. In CDS, grading is
based on participation, progression in the

52. dissertation milestones in addition to participation and course
work. Course grade and scholarly writing are
not necessarily related.
Balance Being a Learner Versus Being a Scholar
Doctoral study requires learners to read scholarly work and
write scholarly papers. However, the learner must
also transition into becoming an independent scholar. This
entails adding to the knowledge and literature
base in a given �eld. Adding to the literature base requires
much independent research in the �eld that will
utilize analysis and synthesis skills at the highest level.
Doctoral faculty members will provide guidance in
curricula and processes, and they will provide mentorship and
coaching. Nonetheless, the doctoral learner is
the one who must make the contribution of new information to
the �eld by taking the initiative to scour

53. existing information and identify a gap in the research.
Transitioning from learner to scholar requires facing dif�cult
obstacles because the research idea is original.
Negotiating a clear gap, a problem statement, and thus a
research question requires guidance from the
dissertation committee though it is ultimately the basis of the
learners’ dissertation research. The learner is
ultimately in control and responsible for adhering to the
dissertation timeframe limitations providing timely
revisions and changes with research support as requested by the
dissertation committee. As scholars, learners
are proactive in their own dissertation progression by taking
responsibility to seek assistance or clari�cation.
Committee chairs are tasked with ensuring conferencing and
meetings include a learner-initiated agenda that
addresses all their questions, concerns, and strategies needed

54. for progression. The learner as scholar takes
responsibility to be able to defend and support with research
each progression milestone thus taking
ownership of the dissertation research.
Integrating Being a Practitioner and Being a Scholar
One of the most dif�cult tasks for doctoral scholars is to be
able to integrate being a practitioner with being a
scholar. Practical application of scholarly knowledge in
advanced education is the goal at the doctoral
program level. A practitioner is someone who is actively
engaged in a discipline, skilled job, or profession such
as medicine, psychology, or education. A scholar is someone
who has specialized in a speci�c area of
research/study. This individual is an academic who has engaged
in advanced study in a �eld. The learner
must integrate the two acquiring the skills to become a scholar -

55. practitioner.
At GCU, the Boyer model de�nes the integration of scholar and
practitioner. Boyer (1996) focused on four
different categories in an effort to rede�ne scholarship:
Discovery: Includes creating knowledge through traditional
research.
Integration: Applying and utilizing knowledge across
disciplines.
Application: Addressing social problems through the application
of research.
Teaching: Applying scholarship rigor to the practice of
teaching.
You have never written a
dissertation before, let those who

56. have lead you.
Table 8.4 illustrates how degrees in CDS favor either theory or
practice in scholar-practitioner integration.
Learners who enter the doctoral program from leadership
backgrounds may tend to struggle to transition into
the role of the scholar that requires learning research beginning
from rudimentary to advanced levels. The
move from giving directions and taking the lead to taking
directions and following a lead requires some
adjustment. One such learner complained of feeling nervous
because of the sense of being completely
dependent on the chair. Another learner noted feeling awkward
when told of errors in information presented
in an assignment. This mindset affects the learner’s progression.
A simple way to explain this to learners is
that they simply "don’t know what they don’t know." Allowing
the committee to lead is a de�nite shift from a

57. leadership role to a collaborative scholar role. Developing
"thick skin" and keeping an open mind to hearing
feedback is key.
Many GCU doctoral learners are highly skilled practitioners,
who hold high-level positions in the workplace.
However, when in class and in the doctoral program, they are
novice researchers. As such, they need to be prepared to set
aside “practitioner” in favor of “scholar” and be prepared to
seek and hear the advice and feedback of those who are
skilled, seasoned researchers and academics. Learners must
remember their goal to graduate is shared by the doctoral
faculty.
Conclusion

58. A student is someone enrolled in a school engaged in learning,
but a scholar is a person with a high academic
level of profound knowledge in a given �eld. At the doctoral
level this means creating a new identity of a
research scholar. A research scholar masters the research
process in order to become an independent
researcher and an actively contributing member of the research
community.
Check for Understanding
Table 8.4
Theory and Practice Focus of GCU Doctoral Degrees
Criteria
Practitioner Degrees (EdD, DBA,
DNP)
Theoretical Degrees (PhD)
Research Methodology Mild Interest Strong Interest

59. Statistical Preparation Moderate Extensive
Common Dissertation Focus Experience-Based Theory-Based
Common Research Focus Use-Inspired Exploration-Inspired
Nature of Question How? Why?
Intention Interpretation Discovery
1. What is an iterative process?
2. Why are peer reviews necessary in scholarly writing?
3. Who makes up a dissertation committee? What are their
roles?
4. To what extent does GCU provide support for doctoral
learners?
5. What is a scholar-practitioner?

60. Glossary
Code of Conduct Violation: An infraction of the expectations
for academic integrity that leads to disciplinary
action.
Critical Thinking: An engaged examination of component
characteristics of a problem or question, taking
acquired knowledge and new knowledge in to account in order
to develop an informed, coherent and clear
position.
Dissertation Milestones: The primary steps in the dissertation
journey.
Extrinsic: Originating from the outside or externally.
Imposter Syndrome: A sense of unworthiness or self-doubt
causing a doctoral learner to believe he or she is an
imposter rather than truly a doctoral candidate who belongs in
the doctoral program.

61. Individual Success Plan (ISP): A detailed project plan
developed by the learner de�ning the activities and
deliverables for each class. The learner uses the Milestone
Table, created by using the Milestone Guide, as well
as Learner Expectations to de�ne these activities and
deliverables. This template is found in each of the
dissertation courses.
Institutional Review Board (IRB): The Institutional Review
Board is a university-wide board that conducts an
ethics review of all research proposals, based on national
standards suggested by the Belmont Report.
Intrinsic: Belonging naturally or internally.
Iterative: Employing a repeated cycle of actions.
Iterative Process: A process that employs a repeated cycle of
actions. In the dissertation process, this is

62. exempli�ed by the cycle of writing, reviewing, and revising.
LopesWrite: A system used by GCU to ensure all written
submission are authentic and properly cited and
referenced.
Methodology: The study of techniques for conducting research.
Novice Researcher: An individual embarking on a research
project for the �rst time.
Answers
1. A repeated cycle of feedback and revisions in writing
doctoral artifacts.
2. The peer-review process is part of the scienti�c community’s
effort to publish ethical,
scholarly-written research. Peer-reviewed research assures
quality control.
3. The dissertation committee comprises a chair who leads and
directs the dissertation, a

63. methodologist who provides guidance on methodology and
design, and a content expert
who provides expertise on the literature review.
4. There are resources and support provided for every step of
the doctoral journey at GCU.
5. An individual who does not simply acquire knowledge, but is
also able to apply it.
Plagiarism: Using the words of other researchers and/or authors
without giving credit thus claiming the ideas
as one's own.
Services Counselors: Individuals at GCU employed to guide
doctoral learners through the dissertation process.
Track Changes: A function in Microsoft Of�ce used to provide
and receive feedback.

64. Version Control: Identifying each unique submission to retain a
record of revisions made.
References
Baker, V. L., & Pifer, M. J. (2011). The role of relationships in
the transition from doctoral student to independent
scholar. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(1), 5-17.
Boyer, E. L. (1996). From scholarship reconsidered to
scholarship assessed. Quest, 48(2), 129-139.
Carlson, L. A., Portman, T. A., & Bartlett, J. R. (2006). Self-
management of career development: Intentionally for
counselor educators in training. Journal of Humanistic
Counseling, Education and Development, 45, 126–
137.
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenome non
in high achieving women: Dynamics and
therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and
Practice. 15(3): 241–247.

65. doi:10.1037/h0086006
Corkindale, G (2008, May 8). Overcoming Imposter Syndrome.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2008/05/overcoming-imposter-syndrome.
Corey, G., Corey, M. S., & Callanan, P. (2010). Issues and
ethics in the helping professions (8th ed.). Paci�c Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gibson, D. M., Dollarhide, C. T., & Moss, J. M. (2010).
Professional identity development: A grounded theory of
transformational tasks of new counselors. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 50, 21–38.
Granello, D. H., & Young, M. E (2012). Counseling today:
Foundations of professional identity. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, L. A., & Burns, L. D. (2009). Identity development and

66. mentoring in doctoral education. Harvard
Educational Review, 79, 49–70.
Ivankova, N., & Stick, S. (2007). Student persistence in a
distributed doctoral program in Educational leadership
in higher education: A mixed methods study. Research in
Higher Education, 48, 93-135. doi: 10.1007/s11162-
006-9025-4
McElwee, Rory O'Brien; Yurak, Tricia J. (2010). The
phenomenology of the impostor phenomenon. Individual
Differences Research,8(3), 184–197.
Silinda, F., & Brubacher, M. (2016). Distance learning
postgraduate student stress while writing a dissertation
thesis. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance, 31(1).
Copyright © Grand Canyon University 2020

67. Volume 12, 2017
Accepted by Editor Holly Sawyer │Received: October 16,
2016│ Revised: February 23, March 29, 2017 │
Accepted: April 26, 2017.
Cite as: Emmioğlu, E., McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2017).
Doctoral students’ experıences of feelıng (or
not) lıke an academıc. International Journal of Doctoral
Studies, 12, 73-90. Retrieved from
http://www.informingscience.org/Publications/3727
(CC BY-NC 4.0) This article is licensed to you under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
License. When you copy and redistribute this paper in full or in
part, you need to provide proper attribution to it to ensure
that others can later locate this work (and to ensure that others
do not accuse you of plagiarism). You may (and we encour-
age you to) adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any non-commercial purposes. This license does not
permit you to use this material for commercial purposes.
DOCTORAL STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES OF FEELING

68. (OR NOT) LIKE AN ACADEMIC
Esma Emmioğlu* Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tokat, Turkey
[email protected]
Lynn McAlpine
Cheryl Amundsen
University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
[email protected][email protected]
* Corresponding author
ABSTRACT
Aim/Purpose This paper examined the balance and meaning of
two types of experiences in
the day-to-day activity of doctoral students that draw them into
academia and
that move them away from academia: ‘feeling like an academic
and belonging to
an academic community;’ and ‘not feeling like an academic and
feeling excluded
from an academic community.’

69. Background As students navigate doctoral work, they are
learning what is entailed in being
an academic by engaging with their peers and more experienced
academics
within their community. They are also personally and directly
experiencing the
rewards as well as the challenges related to doing academic
work.
Methodology This study used a qualitative methodology; and
daily activity logs as a data col-
lection method. The data was collected from 57 PhD students in
the social
sciences and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics) fields
at two universities in the UK and two in Canada.
Contribution The current study moves beyond the earlier studies
by elaborating on how aca-
demic activities contribute/hinder doctoral students’ sense of
being an academ-
ic.
Findings The participants of the study generally focused on
disciplinary/scholarly rather

70. than institutional/service aspects of academic work, aside from
teaching, and
regarded a wide range of activities as having more positive
than negative mean-
ings. The findings related to both extrinsic and intrinsic factors
that play im-
portant roles in students’ experiences of feeling (or not) like
academics are
elaborated in the study.
Recommendations
for Practitioners
Supervisors should encourage their students to develop their
own support net-
works and to participate in a wide range of academic activities
as much as pos-
sible. Supervisors should encourage students to self-assess and
to state the ac-
tivities they feel they need to develop proficiency in.
Doctoral Students’ Experiences of Feeling (or not) Like an
Academic

71. 74
Future Research More research is needed to examine the role of
teaching in doctoral students’
lives and to examine the cross cultural and cross disciplinary
differences in doc-
toral students’ experiences.
Keywords doctoral education, academic culture, workplace
learning, doctoral students’
academic activities
INTRODUCTION
Doctoral students have experiences that affirm or strengthen
their feelings of seeing themselves as
academics as well as experiences that result in not feeling like
an academic. The affirming experienc-
es, from our perspective, provide a sense of progress since
doctoral work is emulating academic work
wherein doctoral students themselves increasingly feel drawn
into an academic community. Such
feelings are representative of experiencing a positive academic
climate, which is seen to be influential

72. in doctoral success (McAlpine & Norton, 2006; Solem,
Hopwood, & Schlemper, 2011; Solem, Lee, &
Schlemper, 2009). When individuals feel themselves as valued,
needed, and involved they also feel
they belong to a community. Sense of belonging is seen as an
important element in maintaining and
sustaining one’s relationships with others and acknowledged as
a basic human need (Hagerty, Wil-
liams, Coyne, & Early, 1996). It is defined as “the experience of
personal involvement in a system or
environment so that persons feel themselves to be an integral
part of that system or environment”
(Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer, Patusky, Bouwsema, & Collier, 1992, p.
177). Based on this definition, doctor-
al students’ sense of belonging to the academia is closely
related to feeling as an integral part of the
academia and, therefore, feeling themselves to be academics.
Throughout their education, doctoral
students will have positive experiences that make them feel as
an insider of an academic community,
which might make them feel like academics. However, doctoral
education can also be a bumpy road;
experiences that disrupt or reduce students’ feeling like an
academic or belonging to an academic
community are also to be expected and, on the positive side,

73. may develop resilience and provide use-
ful insights into academic work and academia as a workplace.
However, if there are too many chal-
lenging or negative experiences, these may lead individuals to
disengage (McAlpine & Amundsen,
2011).
Billet (2002) defines the workplace as an environment in which
individuals learn key elements of
their practice. Workplace learning takes place by participating
in everyday work activities or guided
learning strategies, and, therefore according to Billet (2002),
there is no separation between engaging
with work and learning. In this study, we think of academia as
a ‘workplace’, doctoral studies as ‘aca-
demic work’, and engaging with academic work as ‘workplace
learning’. Our aim was to understand
students’ experiences of learning and engaging with academic
work that prompted feeling or not
feeling like an academic/belonging or not belonging to an
academic community and their explana-
tions of these feelings.
Qualitative studies of doctoral experience often draw on
retrospective recall of earlier events (e.g.,

74. Cotterall, 2015; Lepp, Remmik, Karm, & Leijen, 2013;
O’Meara, Knudsen, & Jones, 2013). However,
in this study, we wanted to capture the influence of day-to-day
experiences over time. In an earlier
study (McAlpine, Jazvac-Martek, & Hopwood, 2009) on which
this study builds, we reported the use
of weekly activity logs to capture the day-to-day challenges
and difficulties as well as the significant
experiences reported in 84 logs completed by 23 education
doctoral students in two institutions in
Canada. In this analysis, we focus on log questions related to
feeling like an academic or not feeling
like an academic/belonging or not belonging to an academic
community. The results demonstrate the
formative role of cumulative day-to-day activities in
contributing to positive experiences of belong-
ing and feeling like an academic; generally, many reported
activities lying outside the formal aspects
of the doctorate. Yet, at the same time students reported
tensions in the very sorts of activities they
often found significant and positive in feeling like an academic
or belonging to an academic commu-
nity. Solem et al. (2011) used a modification of our weekly
activity log to analyzed 285 logs from 53

75. Emmioğlu, McAlpine, & Amundsen
75
Master’s and PhD geography students in 9 institutions in the
U.S. Again, it was often the informal
activities not directly related to their programs that students
reported engendered a sense of belong-
ing, though such events could also create anxiety. This analysis,
in comparison to previous studies,
drew on a much larger pool of weekly activity logs, a broader
range of disciplines, and logs from two
universities in Canada and two in the UK. Our goal was to see
the extent to which the findings in the
previous studies were challenged, corroborated, or modified. In
this study, we investigated the fol-
lowing research questions:
• What kind of activities do doctoral students report make
them:
o feel like an academic and feel they belong to an academic
community?
o not feel like an academic and feel excluded from an academic

76. community?
• How do doctoral students explain why these activities make
them:
o feel like academics and feel they belong to an academic
community?
o not feel like academics and feel excluded from an academic
community?
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
“To know is also to feel one’s own knowing - to realize and
identify oneself as a knower.”
(Neumann, 2006, p.383)
As stated by Green (2005) “doctoral education is as much about
identity formation as it is about
knowledge production” (p.153). Since Green made this
statement, there has been an abundance of
research on doctoral student identity (e.g., Barnacle &
Mewburn, 2010; Cotterall, 2015; Holley, 2009;
McAlpine, 2012; McAlpine & Amundsen, 2009) and academic
identities (e.g., Churchman & King,
2009; Harris, 2005; McLean, 2012; Smith, 2010; Watson, 2011).
However, there has been little atten-
tion paid to how everyday experiences may strengthen or reduce

77. students’ feelings of feeling like an
academic or belonging to an academic community. We frame
this analysis through the notion of
workplace learning.
The workplace learning literature derives from social
constructivist and cognitive learning theories. In
his early work, Billet (1996) compared these two perspectives
and discussed how social and personal
aspects of learning complement each other in explaining
workplace learning. He stated that these two
perspectives could not provide a basis for explaining workplace
learning on their own, but they to-
gether provide the basis for understanding workplace learning.
The social worlds of individuals pro-
vide norms, practices, and purposes for learning and the
personal worlds provide individuals’ cogni-
tive experiences such as what people know and how they make
sense of their experiences (Billet,
2009). Based on this view, Billet’s later work (i.e., 2001, 2006,
2010) mainly focused on three themes
to explain the mechanism of workplace learning: workplace
affordances, subjectivity, and agency.
Workplace affordances, which are the guidance and the

78. readiness of the workplace to afford oppor-
tunities for individuals to participate in work activities, are
documented as the key determinants of
the quality of workplace learning (Billet, 2001). From the
perspective of doctoral students, this could
be understood as a more positive or more negative academic
climate (Solem et al., 2011). However, it
is recognized that the affordances of the workplace alone
cannot guarantee rich learning outcomes, it
is also necessary to account for whether and how individuals
decide to engage with workplace activi-
ties. This directs us to the other themes in Billet’s framework:
subjectivity and agency. Subjectivity is
defined as the “personally premised construction and projection
of conceptions, procedures and
sense of self as directed by individuals’ agency and
intentionality” (Billet, 2010, p. 4).
The concept of agency does not have a universally agreed upon
definition. However, the meaning of
agency has often been associated with “active striving, taking
initiatives, or having an influence on
one’s own life situation” (Etelapelto, Vahasantanen, Hokka, &
Paloniemi, 2013, p. 46). From Billett’s
perspective (Billet, 2006; Billet & Somerville, 2004), there is a

79. close, reciprocal and interdependent
relationship between individuals’ sense of identity and their
learning, and this relationship is based on
Doctoral Students’ Experiences of Feeling (or not) Like an
Academic
76
the intensity of individual agency (e.g., intentionality,
subjectivity, identity) and the intensity of social
agency (e.g., using the kinds of affordances that are provided).
Empirical studies support the assumptions of the workplace
learning perspective when applied to the
context of doctoral education. For example, workplace
affordances such as a support network (i.e.,
support provided by supervisors, peers) are related to a stronger
sense of belonging and academic
self concept. Being praised by supervisors or other academics
or receiving recognition and approval
at a public conference may influence a doctoral student’s self-
validation of themselves as academ-

80. ics/researchers (i.e., Curtin, Stewart, & Ostrove, 2013; Mantai,
2015). Dialogue and collaboration
with others provides reassurance for doctoral students (Foot,
Crowe, Andrus Tollafield, & Allan,
2014), adds to the perception of a positive learning
environment, and is related to students’ persis-
tence in studying (Pyhältö, Stubb, & Lonka, 2009) and personal
commitment (Martinsuo & Tur-
kulainen, 2011).
Thus both personal factors, appreciation of the value of
academic work and individual commitment,
and external social factors, such as an institution’s readiness to
provide support and feedback as well
as challenges, are important for understanding how doctoral
students learn to do academic work,
begin to feel like academics, and feel they belong to an
academic community.
METHOD
PART ICIPAN TS
This study draws from a longitudinal research program that
began in 2006-07. Volunteer participants
from two universities in Canada and two in the UK were

81. recruited through e-mails and a snowballing
procedure and were followed for a 3-5 year period using
multiple data collection methods. University
Research Ethics Board approval was gathered from each
university before the data collection. Initially
data was collected in the social sciences and beginning in 2010,
also from the STEM (Science, Tech-
nology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. Overtime,
individuals in the roles of doctoral student,
postdoc and pre-tenure faculty have participated, often moving
from one role to another and from
one institution to another during their participation in the
research. This analysis drew on a sub-set
of the broader dataset resulting in 457 logs from 57 (35 female
and 22 male) doctoral students from
two universities in Canada and two in the UK (Table 1).
Table 1. Distribution of participants and logs by country and
field
CANADA UK TOTAL
Social sciences 16 students
154 logs

82. 16 students
117 logs
32 students
271 logs
STEM 8 students
67 logs
17 students
119 logs
25 students
186 logs
Total 24 students
221 logs

83. 33 students
236 logs
57 students
457 logs
R ESEARCH DESIGN & DATA COLLECTION
This study used a qualitative research design as we aimed to
understand doctoral students’ experienc-
es from a naturalistic perspective and to capture the meanings
of doctoral students’ experiences by
analyzing the data inductively (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). The
logs (open-ended, short answer, and tick
off) are submitted by participants via e-mail four to six times
each year. Participants are asked to de-
scribe their activities during one week, with the suggestion that
they use the present or previous week
after receiving the log as a reference. While the logs are
structured and take about 15 minutes to
Emmioğlu, McAlpine, & Amundsen

84. 77
complete, they allow a degree of flexibility in terms of the
kinds of experiences that participants
discuss and the ways that they represent these experiences
textually (Alexander, Harris-Huemmert, &
McAlpine, 2013).
In this study, we looked specifically at the responses to two
questions posed on every activity log.
Each question included two parts, a description of the
experience and the meaning it held for the
student:
• If there was a significant event or experience in which you
felt like an academic or felt that
you belonged to an academic community, please tell us about it.
Why was this event or expe-
rience important?
• If there was a significant event or experience in which you
did not feel like an academic or
felt that you were excluded from or not part of an academic
community, please tell us about

85. it. Why did this experience make you feel this way?
This binary representation of [not] feeling like an academic or
[not] belonging to an academic com-
munity was chosen since we were seeking to understand what
day-to-day events might have pivotal
positive and negative meaning. In order to provide the reader
with a better idea of an individual’s
experiences, we included only the participants who had
provided two or more logs and from these
participants, we selected those with responses to at least one of
the questions above. The resulting
data involved 457 activity logs provided by 57 students.
DATA ANALYSIS
The unit of analysis, as noted above, in the current study was
the experiences reported, not the indi-
vidual. However, we do report some overall individual findings
(e.g., number of students who re-
ported positive only experiences). The analysis was facilitated
by using MAXQDA, a qualitative data
analysis software. In order to describe the meaning of our
participants’ responses to these two ques-
tions, we used a qualitative content analysis method, which is
defined as “a method for describing the

86. meaning of qualitative material in a systematic way” (Schreier,
2012, p. 1). The details of the analysis
method are described below.
1. We gathered students’ responses to the first part of each of
the two questions under two
main themes: “feeling like an academic/belonging to an
academic community” and “not
feeling like an academic/excluded from the academic
community”.
2. We listed doctoral students’ activities that made them feel
like academics/belonging to an ac-
ademic community under main theme 1: feeling like an
academic.
3. We listed doctoral students’ activities that made them not
feel like academics under main
theme 2: not feeling like an academic-excluded from the
academic community.
4. We used the coding frame developed in the McAlpine et al.
(2009) study and used in another
study (Solem et al., 2011) to categorize the activities. The
coding scheme was a good fit for

87. this analysis and we wanted to be able to compare the findings.
We first tried out this coding
frame by analyzing the logs of four participants (46 logs). In
this coding scheme, doctoral
students’ activities are categorized into two groups: doctoral -
specific activities and general
academic activities. Doctoral-specific activities are experienced
only by doctoral students by
virtue of being a student in a doctoral program (e.g.,
coursework). General academic activi-
ties are engaged in by any academic, including doctoral students
(e.g., conference presenta-
tion). These two categories were further divided into three
groups with regard to the formal-
ity of the activity: formal, semi-formal, and informal activities.
Formal activities are visible el-
ements of academic work; they are structured and documented
activities one might put on a
CV (e.g., submitting a journal article, teaching). Semi-formal
activities are also planned, pub-
lic, and structured but are not associated with particular
benchmarks for the individuals in-
volved (e.g., meeting academics, attending conferences).
Informal activities are unstructured

88. Doctoral Students’ Experiences of Feeling (or not) Like an
Academic
78
and undocumented, and they are not public or visible to the
extent of formal and semi-
formal activities (e.g., conversations with peers, reading).
5. We modified McAlpine et al.’s (2009) coding frame by
adding new codes after analyzing the
logs of 24 more participants (265 logs).
6. After we reached a 100% agreement with the coding scheme,
the first author of the study
analyzed the rest of the participants’ logs (29 participants, 146
logs) and somewhat revised
the coding scheme again (see final coding scheme in Table 2,
activities printed with bold are
added to the coding framework of McAlpine et al., 2009).
Table 2. Coding scheme of doctoral students’ academic
activities

89. Doctoral Specific
Formal Semi-Formal Informal
teaching often as a teach-
ing assistant
or thesis
-
stitutional process
-
cation
(e.g., working as an RA)

90. for research)
oral defense
members
seminar/conference
other doctoral specific
reading & writing
related tasks
General Academic
Formal Semi-Formal Informal

91. -
cation
ntation
in academic activities
paper
for joint writing)
-
nar/workshop
-conference presentation
attendance
-academics

92. limited to reading &
writing)
academics
academics
non-academics
academic papers

93. 7. To analyze the second part of each of the two questions
explaining why the reported event
or experience was significant, we reviewed and clustered the
log responses related to a) posi-
tive experiences and b) negative experiences, in order to
develop a parsimonious coding
scheme that represented the perceived meaning of these
activities (Table 3).
Emmioğlu, McAlpine, & Amundsen
79
Table 3. Coding scheme of the meanings of positive and
negative experiences
Meanings of Positive Experiences Meanings of Negative
Experiences
Self-recognition Lack of self-recognition

94. Recognition by others Lack of recognition by others
Making a contribution Not making a contribution
Helpful for learning things Not spending time on academic work
Advancing career profile Lack of progress
Institutional barriers
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
COM PARISON OF DIFFEREN T T YPES OF ACADEM IC
ACTIVITIES AN D POSIT IVE AN D
N EGATIVE EXPERIEN CES
Two key findings stand out in comparing the frequency of type
of academic activities (See Table 4).
First, general academic activities were more frequently repor ted
than doctoral specific academic activ-
ities, whether positive or negative. Second, except for doctoral
specific experiences that lead to posi-
tive feelings, semi-formal and informal academic activities were
more frequently reported than for-
mal academic activities, both positive and negative. Both

95. findings support the two earlier log studies
(McAlpine et al., 2009; Solem et al., 2011).
Table 4. Frequency of the each type of positive and negative
experiences by activity
Formal Semi-formal Informal Total
Positive Experi-
ences leading to
Feeling like an
Academic
Doctoral
specific 72 58 38
356
General
academic
43 72 73
Negative Expe-
riences leading
to not Feeling
like an Academic

96. Doctoral
specific
2 3 6
25 General
academic 2 6 6
A closer look at the difference between experiences that
engendered positive or negative emotions,
shows that of the 381 experiences reported in total, positive
experiences leading to feeling like an
academic or belonging to an academic community were reported
356 (93%) times. In contrast, nega-
tive experiences leading to not feeling like an academic or
being excluded from (or not part of) an
academic community were reported only 25 (7%) times. That is,
the positive experiences were re-
ported about 14 times more frequently than the negative
experiences, indicating that our participants
were more likely to have experiences leading to positive
feelings on a regular basis than negative,
although still experiencing the ups and downs of the academic

97. world.
Table 5 provides a finer grained analysis of the number of
students and logs reporting the academic
activities by different types of experiences. For instance, even
though overall general academic activi-
ties were more frequently reported than doctoral specific
academic activities, it is notable that the
doctoral specific formal activity of teaching as a teaching
assistant was the most frequently reported
positive log experience of all, supporting Bieber and Worley’s
(2006) assertion of the importance of
teaching as an academic activity for doctoral students.
Doctoral Students’ Experiences of Feeling (or not) Like an
Academic
80
Participants also reported frequently meeting informally with
academics other than their supervisors
and, though less frequently, also meeting with peers and non-
academics. Collectively, these interac-

98. tions demonstrate extensive informal networks of support
(Austin, 2002; McAlpine & Amundsen,
2011; Sweitzer, 2009).
Table 5. Activities by positive and negative experiences
Type of
Activity
Only Positive Experiences (frequency of
the experience/ students/ log s)
Both Positive a nd Neg a tive Experiences
(frequency of the experience/ students/
log s)
D
oc
to
ra
l s
pe

99. ci
fic
Fo
rm
al
Teaching as a TA (43/14/20) Coursework (positive: 5/5/5,
negative:1/1/1)
Submitting funding application (3/1/1) Submitting a dissertation
or thesis (positive:
9/8/9, negative:1/1/1)
Being invited to an institutional process
(9/4/4)
Attending an interview (3/1/1)
Se
m

100. i-F
or
m
al
Meeting with peers (e.g., for research)
(12/4/5)
Meeting with committee members (7/3/3)
Attending someone else’s oral defense
(6/4/4)
Meeting with supervisor(s) (positive:
15/11/15, negative:1/1/1)
Research related activities (e.g., working as an
RA) (positive: 16/9/16, negative:1/1/1)
Organizing a student seminar/conference
(positive: 2/1/2, negative:1/1/1)
In
fo
rm
al

101. Comprehensive exam related tasks (9/6/9) Writing
dissertation/thesis (positive: 11/5/11,
negative:4/3/4)
Other doctoral specific reading & writing
(10/6/10, negative:1/1/1)
Conversations with peers (positive: 8/8/8,
negative:1/1/1)
G
en
er
al
A
ca
de
m
ic

102. Fo
rm
al
Submitting a journal article (17/13/17) Job offer/submitting
application (positive:
12/8/12, negative: 1/1/1)
Submitting a conference paper (3/3/3) Conference presentation
(positive: 6/5/6,
negative: 1/1/1)
Being invited to engage in academic activities
(4/3/4)
Winning a prize (1/1/1)
Se
m
i-F

103. or
m
al
Meeting non-academics (6/5/6)
Acting as a consultant (4/4/4)
Conference organization (1/1/1)
Meeting with academics (e.g., for joint writing)
(positive: 21/17/21, negative: 3/3/3)
Attending a seminar/workshop (positive:
17/13/17, negative:1/1/1)
Conference attendance (positive: 11/11/11,
negative:1/ 1/1)
Non-conference presentation (positive:
12/10/12, negative:1/1/1)
In
fo
rm
al

104. Writing (17/11/17)
Conversations with academics (10/8/10)
Conversations with non-academics (3/3/3)
Reviewing work (2/2/2)
Reading literature (positive: 12/11/12, nega-
tive: 1/1/1)
Doing research (not limited to reading &
writing) (positive: 12/7/12, negative: 2/2/2)
Social gatherings with academics (positive:
10/10/10, negative:1/1/1)
Job application work (positive:6/4/6, nega-
tive: 1/1/1)
Getting rejections (positive: 1/1/1, negative:
1/1/1)
We found that most of the participants (n=46, 75%) reported
only positive experiences that made
them feel like academics and did not report any negative
experiences; whereas 10 (16%) students

105. Emmioğlu, McAlpine, & Amundsen
81
reported both positive and negative experiences. Only one
student reported a negative experience
that made her not feel like an academic, but no positive
experience.
A further point can be drawn from examining the types of
activities in Table 5. The activities in the
‘only positive’ category and the activities in ‘both positive +
negative’ category include all five aca-
demic activities: doctoral specific, general academic, formal,
semi-formal, and informal. This finding
suggests that students’ perceptions of the experiences are
independent of the type of academic ac-
tivity. While some academic activities (i.e., coursework,
meeting with academics, getting rejections)
were reported as leading to both positive and negative
experiences, other activities were reported to
lead only to positive experiences (i.e., teaching, meeting with
peers, submitting a journal article), no one

106. activity was reported as leading to only a negative experience.
We cannot know, but suspect if the pool of logs
were larger, more activities might have been reported as both
positive and negative. These results
support the earlier studies (Solem et al., 2011) that activities
leading to feeling excluded from the
academic community could also be perceived as positive.
T H E EXPLANATION S FOR TH E EXPERIEN CES BEIN G
POSITIVE AN D N EGATIVE
In the second part of each of the two questions, students were
asked to explain why the event or
experience they reported had the emotional meaning it had. As
regards a positive emotional interpre-
tation, the five reasons (see Table 3) can be characterized in the
following manner. Students felt posi-
tively when they:
• were actively engaged and felt like they were learning and
making a contribution such as
when working on a publication or teaching
• were recognized by important others (i.e., supervisors, other
academics, peers, non-
academics); they felt affirmed and respected as scholars which

107. led to feelings confidence and
self-recognition
• felt what they were learning and their experiences of
participation advanced their career pro-
file and hopes
Not surprisingly, perhaps, the six explanations for the negative
emotions (see Table 3) roughly coun-
ter-balanced those for the positive emotional responses.
Students felt negatively when they:
• were not spending time on academic work leading to a feeling
they were not making pro-
gress and, in the longer term, not making an academic
contribution
• felt unrecognized by important others (i.e., journal editors,
academics, peers) often leading to
a lack of confidence or self-recognition and feelings of not
making a contribution
• felt they lacked knowledge compared to other academics and
peers leading to feeling incom-
petent compared to these others.

108. • came up against institutional barriers (e.g., getting a rejection
of a paper or grant proposal)
which, in some cases, led to a feeling that one’s work was not
valued, or at a more local level,
coming up against bureaucratic rules that delayed progress
toward graduation.
Another way of looking at the link between experience and
positive or negative meaning can be seen
in Table 6 which presents the distribution of all activities by
the reasons for the emotional response.
Five activities (teaching, submitting a journal article,
conversations with peers, meeting with academ-
ics, and writing) drew forth all five positive meanings. Another
12 drew forth four of the five positive
meanings.
Interestingly, there appeared to be some prioritizing of
different activities. For instance, some logs
reported organizing a student seminar/conference, submitting or
working on a job application, or
participating in gatherings with academics as producing
negative meanings, e.g., distracters, because
spending time on these meant a lack of progress on their

109. doctoral work. Since these activities are
generally useful, future research might explore the frequency
with which students are faced with this
kind of decision-making.
T
ab
le
6
. T
he
im
po
rt
an
ce
o

110. f
an
d
th
e
re
as
on
s
fo
r
th
e
po
si
ti

111. ve
a
nd
n
eg
at
iv
e
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
s
by
a
ct

112. iv
it
ie
s
D
oc
to
ra
l S
pe
ci
fi
c
A
ct

113. iv
it
ie
s
T
he
I
m
po
rt
an
ce
o
f t
he
P

114. os
it
iv
e
E
xp
er
ie
nc
es
T
he
R
ea
so
ns

115. fo
r
th
e
N
eg
at
iv
e
E
xp
er
ie
nc
es

116. G
en
er
al
A
ca
de
m
ic
A
ct
iv
it
ie
s

117. T
he
I
m
po
rt
an
ce
o
f t
he
P
os
i-
ti
ve
E

118. xp
er
ie
nc
es
T
he
R
ea
so
ns
fo
r
th
e

119. N
eg
at
iv
e
E
xp
er
ie
nc
es
T
ea
ch
in

120. g
Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
,
R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
o

121. th
er
s,
M
ak
in
g
a
co
nt
rib
ut
io
n,
H
el

122. pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
, A
dv
an
ci
ng

123. c
ar
ee
r
pr
of
ile
-
Su
bm
it
ti
ng
a
jo

124. ur
na
l
ar
ti
cl
e
Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og

125. ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs
, M
ak
in
g
a
co
nt
rib

126. ut
io
n,
H
el
pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs

127. ,
A
dv
an
ci
ng
c
ar
ee
r
pr
of
ile
-
B
ei

128. ng
in
vi
te
d
to
a
n
in
st
i-
tu
ti
on
al
p

129. ro
ce
ss
M
ak
in
g
a
co
nt
rib
ut
io
n,
H
el

130. pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
,
Se
lf-
re
co

131. gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs
-
be

132. in
g
in
vi
te
d
to
e
n-
ga
ge
in
a
ca
de
m

133. ic
ac
ti
vi
ti
es
Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec

134. og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs
-
Su
bm
it
ti
ng
fu

135. nd
in
g
ap
pl
ic
at
io
n
Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on

136. , R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs
-
su
bm
it
ti

137. ng
a
c
on
fe
r-
en
ce
p
ap
er
M
ak
in
g
a

138. co
nt
rib
ut
io
n
-
A
tt
en
di
ng
a
n
in

139. te
rv
ie
w
Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio

140. n
by
ot
he
rs
w
in
ni
ng
a
p
ri
ze

141. Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot

142. he
rs
-
M
ee
ti
ng
w
it
h
pe
er
s
(e
.g
.,

143. fo
r
re
se
ar
ch
)
M
ak
in
g
a
co
nt
rib
ut
io

144. n
H
el
pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
Se

145. lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs

146. -
m
ee
ti
ng
n
on
-
ac
ad
em
ic
s
Se
lf-

147. re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs
, M

148. ak
in
g
a
co
nt
rib
ut
io
n,
H
el
pf
ul
f
or

149. le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
-
C
om
pr
eh
en
si
ve

150. e
xa
m
re
la
te
d
ta
sk
s
A
dv
an
ci
ng
c

151. ar
ee
r
pr
of
ile
H
el
pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni

152. ng
th
in
gs
Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio

153. n
by
ot
he
rs
-
ac
ti
ng
a
s
a
co
ns
ul

154. ta
nt
Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n

155. by
ot
he
rs
, M
ak
in
g
a
co
nt
rib
ut
io
n,

156. H
el
pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
-
M
ee

157. ti
ng
w
it
h
co
m
m
it
te
e
m
em
be
rs

158. Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he

159. rs
-
co
nv
er
sa
ti
on
s
w
it
h
ac
ad
em
ic

160. s
H
el
pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
,
Se

161. lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs

162. -
A
tt
en
di
ng
s
om
eo
ne
e
ls
e’
s
or

163. al
d
ef
en
se
M
ak
in
g
a
co
nt
rib
ut
io
n,

164. H
el
pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
-
co

165. nv
er
sa
ti
on
s
w
it
h
no
n-
ac
ad
em
ic
s

166. Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he

167. rs
, M
ak
in
g
a
co
nt
rib
ut
io
n,
H
el
pf
ul

168. f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
-
Su
bm
it
ti
ng

169. a
d
is
se
rt
at
io
n
or
th
es
is
A
dv
an

170. ci
ng
c
ar
ee
r
pr
of
ile
Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on

171. , R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs
In
st
itu
tio

172. na
l b
ar
rie
rs
,
L
ac
k
of
p
ro
gr
es
s,
L
ac

173. k
of
r
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
o
th
er
s
jo
b
of
fe

174. r/
su
bm
it
ti
ng
ap
pl
ic
at
io
n
Se
lf-
re

175. co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs
N

176. ot
s
pe
nd
in
g
tim
e
on
ac
ad
em
ic
w
or
k

177. R
es
ea
rc
h
re
la
te
d
ac
ti
vi
ti
es
(e

178. .g
.,
w
or
ki
ng
a
s
an
R
A
)
M
ak
in
g

179. a
co
nt
rib
ut
io
n,
H
el
pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni

180. ng
th
in
gs
, S
el
f-
re
co
gn
iti
on
,
R
ec
og
ni

181. tio
n
by
o
th
er
s
N
ot
m
ak
in
g
a
co
nt

182. rib
u-
tio
n
L
ac
k
of
p
ro
gr
es
s
do
in
g
re

183. se
ar
ch
(
no
t
lim
it
ed
to
r
ea
di
ng
&

184. w
ri
ti
ng
)
A
dv
an
ci
ng
c
ar
ee
r
pr
of
ile

185. ,
H
el
pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
,
Se

186. lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs

187. In
st
itu
tio
na
l b
ar
rie
rs
, L
ac
k
of
pr
og

188. re
ss
C
ou
rs
ew
or
k
A
dv
an
ci
ng
c
ar
ee

189. r
pr
of
ile
, M
ak
in
g
a
co
nt
rib
ut
io
n,
H

190. el
pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
, S
el
f-
re

191. co
gn
iti
on
N
ot
m
ak
in
g
a
co
nt
rib
u-

192. tio
n
co
nf
er
en
ce
p
re
se
nt
a-
ti
on
H
el

193. pf
ul
f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
, S
el
f-
re
co

194. gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs
L

195. ac
k
of
r
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs
M
ee

196. ti
ng
w
it
h
su
pe
rv
is
or
(s
)
H
el
pf
ul
f

197. or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
, S
el
f-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R

198. ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
o
th
er
s
In
st
itu
tio
na
l b

199. ar
rie
rs
m
ee
ti
ng
w
it
h
ac
ad
em
-
ic
s

200. Se
lf-
re
co
gn
iti
on
, R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
ot

201. he
rs
, M
ak
in
g
a
co
nt
rib
ut
io
n,
H
el
pf

202. ul
f
or
le
ar
ni
ng
th
in
gs
, A
dv
an
c-
in
g
ca

203. re
er
p
ro
fil
e
L
ac
k
of
s
el
f-
re
co
gn

204. iti
on
L
ac
k
of
r
ec
og
ni
tio
n
by
o
th
er

205. s
T
ab
le
6
c
on
ti
nu
es
.
D
oc
to
ra

206. l S
pe
ci
fi
c
A
ct
iv
it
ie
s
T
he
I
m

207. po
rt
an
ce
o
f t
he
P
os
it
iv
e
E
xp
er
ie
nc

208. es
T
he
R
ea
so
ns
fo
r
th
e
N
eg
at
iv
e

209. E
xp
er
ie
nc
es
G
en
er
al
A
ca
de
m
ic

210. A
ct
iv
it
ie
s
T
he
I
m
po
rt
an
ce
o
f t