Search

Using a national sample of 336 biology Ph.D. students, this study classified students based on their interactions with faculty and peers, and investigated longitudinal changes in their interaction classifications over 3 years. We also examined associations between students' interaction classifications, their demographic backgrounds (e.g., gender, international student status, first-generation status, and underrepresented racial/ethnic minority status), and doctoral outcomes (e.g., sense of belonging, satisfaction with academic development, institutional commitment, and scholarly productivity). The findings revealed that three distinct subgroups existed among the current sample of biology Ph.D. students, with respect to their interactions with their faculty and peers: high interaction with faculty and peers, high interaction with peers only, and low interaction with faculty and peers. However, such patterns of doctoral students' interactions with faculty and peers tended to, in general, be stable over time. In addition, while the differential effects of demographic variables on changes in these interaction patterns were widely founded, such changes were not substantially linked to doctoral student outcomes. Implications for research on doctoral education and socialization theory are discussed.

In the laboratory-based disciplines, selection of a principal investigator (PI) and research laboratory (lab) indelibly shapes doctoral students' experiences and educational outcomes. Framed by the theoretical concept of person-environment fit from within a socialization model, we use an inductive, qualitative approach to explore how a sample of 42 early-stage doctoral students enrolled in biological sciences programs made decisions about fitting with a PI and within a lab. Results illuminated a complex array of factors that students considered in selecting a PI, including PI relationship, mentoring style, and professional stability. Further, with regard to students' lab selection, peers and research projects played an important role. Students actively conceptualized trade-offs among various dimensions of fit. Our findings also revealed cases in which students did not secure a position in their first (or second) choice labs and had to consider their potential fit with suboptimal placements (in terms of their initial assessments). Thus, these students weighted different factors of fit against the reality of needing to secure financial support to continue in their doctoral programs. We conclude by presenting and framing implications for students, PIs, and doctoral programs, and recommend providing transparency and candor around the PI and lab selection processes.

High attrition rates have been a defining characteristic of doctoral education for decades, representing a loss of time, talent, and effort for departing students and their faculty. This qualitative study uses a biomedical science doctoral student sample to collect "real time" data on attrition within the first 2 years of doctoral training. Eighteen students, who represented 16 distinct universities, were interviewed as they engaged in the withdrawal process. Using the conceptual frames of socialization and social cognitive career theory, we explored experiences that preceded these students' doctoral program withdrawals. Furthermore, we examined how expressed roles of students' self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and professional goals contributed to the withdrawal process. Findings indicate that faculty advising (both positive and negative), laboratory rotation experiences, self-efficacy components, and changing professional goals all play a role in the early doctoral program attrition process.

Faculty and peer interactions play a key role in shaping graduate student socialization. Yet, within the literature on graduate student socialization, researchers have primarily focused on understanding the nature and impact of faculty alone, and much less is known about how peer interactions also contribute to graduate student outcomes. Using a national sample of first-year biology doctoral students, this study reveals distinct categories that classify patterns of faculty and peer interaction. Further, we document inequities such that certain groups (e.g., underrepresented minority students) report constrained types of interactions with faculty and peers. Finally, we connect faculty and peer interaction patterns to student outcomes. Our findings reveal that, while the classification of faculty and peer interactions predicted affective and experiential outcomes (e.g., sense of belonging, satisfaction with academic development), it was not a consistent predictor of more central outcomes of the doctoral socialization process (e.g., research skills, commitment to degree). These and other findings are discussed, focusing on implications for future research, theory, and practice related to graduate training.

Although first-generation students represent a substantial proportion of doctoral students, few studies have examined their experiences and outcomes. We contribute to this nascent area of inquiry by comparing experiences and outcomes of first-generation and continuing-generation students during the first 3 years of doctoral education. Contrary to expectations, the results based on a national sample of PhD students in biology revealed remarkable similarity in experiences and outcomes between first-generation and continuing-generation students. One notable exception to this overall pattern of similarity was research productivity in the second year. By examining the relationships between students' experiences and outcomes over time, the findings illuminate the unique ways in which socialization experiences are related to specific outcomes and the extent to which those relationships change across years. Thus, this study offers initial insights into the nuanced ways in which students' socialization experiences contribute to various outcomes of doctoral education.

Studies of skill development often describe a process of cumulative advantage, in which small differences in initial skill compound over time, leading to increasing skill gaps between those with an initial advantage and those without. We offer evidence of a similar phenomenon accounting for differential patterns of research skill development in graduate students over an academic year and explore differences in socialization that accompany diverging developmental trajectories. As predicted, quantitative analysis indicated large effect sizes for skill gains after controlling for initial performance levels. Qualitative analyses indicated that students with initial advantages were more likely to report greater demands of independence by their advisors and see more extensive value in research tasks comparable to those assigned their less skilled peers.

Although learning to write for publication is an important outcome of doctoral education, it has received surprisingly little scholarly attention. Within a socialization and supervisor pedagogy framework, this study uses narratives of faculty who regularly write with their doctoral students for publication to expose challenges students commonly encounter in the writing process. Common challenges include international students' ‘writing problem’, misconstruing the nature of disciplinary writing and not realizing that ‘public’ is part of publication. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]