Program elements’ impact on chemistry doctoral students’ professional development: a longitudinal study
Brittany D.
Busby
and
Jordan
Harshman
*
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Auburn University, USA. E-mail: jth0083@auburn.edu
First published on 18th December 2020
Abstract
The goal of graduate education has consistently been to produce independent scientists who can advance the knowledge of their fields, which has led to a series of staple elements in graduate components (i.e. research, courses, seminars, etc.) However, criticisms of graduate education in chemistry have been raised, stating that the current structure no longer matches the needs of our changing world, that it fails to prepare students for present and future careers in academia, industry, and government work. Suggestions have been made for improvement, but there is a lack of research investigating how graduate students actually grow professionally given the current common programmatic elements. To that end, a longitudinal, qualitative case study was conducted. Four chemistry graduate students were interviewed about their professional growth every 6 months during their first two years of graduate school based on their personal experiences to determine the impact of programmatic elements on graduate students’ professional development. Socialization theory and cognitive apprenticeship theory provided the lens for the development of the semi-structured interviews. Through the use of iterative thematic coding, evidence of five main themes was found: Career preparation, environment, perceived value, scepticism or faith in the system, and support. These themes bring into question the extent to which chemistry programs (of similar characteristics to those studied) are meeting their ethical responsibility of preparing students for the changing dynamics of careers that chemists assume. It was found that, in certain circumstances, the current chemistry graduate education structure falls short of those goals.
Introduction
The primary goal of chemistry graduate education is to train independent researchers to contribute new knowledge to their fields (The American Chemical Society, 2012). This has led to relatively homogenous doctoral programs throughout the country. Breslow (1995) provides a general list of the commonly utilized programmatic elements and their rationale: (a) a dissertation, which demonstrates mastery of a specific research area through independent research ability and development of new knowledge; (b) basic and advanced courses, along with attendance in seminars and departmental colloquia in all fields (Committee on Professional Training, 2008), allow students to gain a breadth of knowledge in chemistry and build connections to other experts; (c) presentations and written research projects, with receipt of proper critiques and feedback, provide students with practice to speak and write well; (d) original research proposals, which allow students to display creativity and an ability to critique literature in preparation for careers; and (e) teaching, which provides an avenue to further learn the basics of chemistry. Reports from the Committee on Professional Training provide evidence of the homogeneity of chemistry doctoral programs, where the majority of those who responded participated in similar programmatic elements as those listed above (Raber, 1999; Committee on Professional Training, 2008).According to a 2012 ACS report, the structuring of doctoral programs in this way “has not kept pace with the significant changes in the world's economic, social, and political environment” (The American Chemical Society, 2012, p. 1). In this commissioned report and several others (Committee on an Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs & Board on Higher Education and Workforce Policy and Global Affairs, 2011; Committee on Challenges in Chemistry Graduate Education et al., 2012; Council of Graduate Schools, 2012), authors and agencies note a general failure of the effectiveness of the current chemistry graduate education structure to fulfil the elements’ justified goals. Additionally, some specific criticisms of chemistry graduate programs include the over specialization of students, with too narrow a focus and potential inability to adapt to new fields of study (Bailey, 1927; Siebring, 1969; Lippincott, 1974; The American Chemical Society, 2012), and insufficient career preparation for non-research academia positions (Quill, 1945; Harrington, 1970; Committee on Professional Training, 2000; National Academies of Sciences, 2018). There have been reform efforts in the recent two decades by programs working to train graduate students to become better teachers (Vergara et al., 2014; Wheeler et al., 2015; Wheeler et al., 2017; Connolly et al., 2016; Mutambuki and Schwartz, 2018; Ruder and Stanford, 2018; Stoll et al., 2019; Wheeler et al., 2019; Mutambuki et al., 2020). However, these efforts have yet to materialize in many chemistry departments and still emphasize career preparation for academic positions, which is misaligned with the job market for PhD chemists that favours industry (∼55%) versus academic (∼35%) positions (Rovner, 2012). There are a number of other criticisms regarding the current system of graduate education as well (Harshman, 2020).
These reports focus on graduate programs as a whole rather than individual programmatic elements (i.e. courses, research, seminars, etc.). As a result, there is currently a lack of robust research that has examined how individual elements of graduate programs work together to meet the goal of that program. Given the reported potential shortcomings of graduate education and this lack of research dedicated to the subject, a study investigating individual students’ outcomes of programmatic elements throughout their doctoral program is necessary.
Theoretical perspectives
Programmatic elements in doctoral education have been justified primarily via cognitive apprenticeship theory. Cognitive apprenticeship theory (Collins et al., 1987; Collins et al., 1991; Stewart and Lagowski, 2003; Glazer and Hannafin, 2006; Austin, 2009b) is commonly used to describe how students gain knowledge while in graduate school. The theory is derived from traditional craftsmen apprenticeships (e.g. blacksmith) but focuses on the cognitive domain where transfer of knowledge occurs between the expert (faculty advisor) and novice (graduate student). The expert advisor mentors the advisee through five learning processes: (1) modelling, where students observe their advisor's task demonstration for conceptual understanding, (2) coaching, where the advisor advices the student while the student performs the task. Scaffolding and fading occur during this process, where the advisor initially provides more feedback, then guides the student to work more independently and on more difficult tasks, (3) articulation, where the students clearly express their knowledge, (4) reflection, where students compare their knowledge and strategies to the expert, and (5) exploration, where students are guided to independent problem solving (Collins et al., 1987; Stewart and Lagowski, 2003; Austin, 2009). This is the accepted and logical theory of chemistry doctoral programs to explain gains in graduate students’ knowledge and skills given the requirement of students to conduct research under the guidance of a primary research advisor (referred to advisor from here) (Carter et al., 1964; Arnett, 1988; Chemical Sciences Roundtable, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications, & National Research Council, 2000; Whitesides and Deutch, 2011; Maher et al., 2013). Students commonly participate in events whereby training and education are gained from other novices (fellow students) and interactions with other experts where explicit training is not expected (e.g. seminars, group meetings).To account for other common elements of chemistry doctoral programs, socialization theory (Merton and Research, 1957; Merton and Merton, 1968; Tierney, 1997; Weidman et al., 2001; Austin and McDaniels, 2006) provides a more wholistic view of how students might obtain knowledge and skills as they progress through graduate school accounting for all sources of those knowledge and skills. According to the theory, socialization occurs in four developmental stages: (1) anticipatory, where students become aware of expectations held by others, (2) formal, where students observe other students to see how expectations are carried out, (3) informal, where students receive behavioural cues regarding informal expectations, and (4) personal, where the students’ role becomes internalized and the they are able to separate from the department to seek their own path (Gardner, 2007). Essentially, socialization theory describes how individuals understand and survive the program they are part of (Tierney, 1997). It involves both cognitive and affective growth as opposed to a stricter transfer of knowledge and skills and can be applied to the other elements and sources of help, not just research and the advisor.
Armed with theory to explore how graduate students can grow in a doctoral program, we therefore pose the following research question to address the “black box” that is graduate education: How do graduate students grow (build knowledge and skills) in the first two years of a doctoral chemistry program and which elements of their program lead to the most growth?
Methods
Research design
A longitudinal, qualitative, collective case study (Creswell, 2007) was conducted to investigate how chemistry doctoral students at an R1 university grew in knowledge and skills during their first two years of their doctoral program. This collective case study (four individual case studies) was done within-site and bounded by time (1st two years). The longitudinal approach provided enhanced depth, continuity, and trustworthiness to the data as it allowed comparisons within the same person across four interviews, rather than different people in different years of study. Iterative analysis of themes (Creswell, 2007) was utilized to determine broad themes of growth expressed by participants (analysis procedures described later in detail) in answer to the research question: How do graduate students grow (build knowledge and skills) in the first two years of a doctoral chemistry program and which elements of their program lead to the most growth?Institutional Review Board approval was received for this research. All participants were told the purpose and procedures of the study, and that participation was voluntary. Upon completion of each interview, receipt of a $40.00 Amazon gift card was approved as an appropriate incentive to thank participants for their time. Participants were also informed that the researchers would decline requests to serve on their graduate committees to remove possible bias regarding degree progress. If participants took any courses taught by the researchers, additional documentation would be signed to protect participants. Consent to be recorded during interviews was obtained. Please refer to Appendix C to see the email invitation to the incoming class.
Positionality statement
The Harshman Research Group is dedicated to identifying ways of improving doctoral education in chemistry. As a result, members of our research group intentionally expose ourselves to resources that are highly critical of doctoral education in chemistry as a means of identifying areas for improvement. While we do not ignore the many praises of the system that exist, we do tend to focus on the areas in which doctoral education can be improved. Every research member is additionally a current or former graduate student, meaning we are “products” of the very system we are investigating. As a result, each of us has our own set of beliefs towards the effective education of doctoral students in chemistry. We understand that our beliefs may influence participants or analysis. However, as Bretz (2008) states:“Given that qualitative research designs rarely formulate a researchable hypothesis, this concern is irrelevant. Furthermore, qualitative research designs reject the postulate that there exists a distance of objectivity between the researcher and the research subjects. The case of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is instructive for asserting the viability of this stance. In 1927, Heisenberg shook the scientific community by arguing that it was impossible to simultaneously determine both the momentum and the position of an electron. Heisenberg reported that in attempting to determine the position of the particle, the photon used to do so was itself responsible for altering that very position. As Heisenberg wrote (6), ‘what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.’ In keeping with Heisenberg's findings, qualitative research designs operate from the premise that it is impossible to separate the inquirer from the subject of the inquiry because the two ‘interact to influence one another; knower and known are inseparable’ (7). This interaction is, in fact, valued in qualitative research due to the multiple realities and meanings likely to be encountered by the human, who is uniquely capable of functioning as a research instrument in interviews and observations” (pp. 82–83).
However, some consensus exists within the group: We more or less universally believe that (a) doctoral programs have an ethical responsibility to effectively prepare students for all career types in chemistry, (b) many of the criticisms raised in literature are valid and warrant significant change in the structuring of programs, and (c) graduate students are affected by every aspect of their surroundings in significant ways, not just the interactions with their primary advisor.
Chemistry graduate program
The chemistry PhD program, in which all participants were enrolled, included programmatic features and requirements found in many chemistry doctoral programs (Committee on Professional Training, 2008): entrance exams to guide a flexible program of courses, a requisite number of credit hours prior to graduation, departmental and divisional seminars, two formal seminar presentations, selection of advisor and committee, defense of a written and oral preliminary exam regarding current and future research relating to the dissertation project, and a final defense. Students in the program held either teaching or research assistantships for which they received a tuition waiver and an annual stipend. There were less than 100 graduate students in this particular department, with 24 in the incoming Fall 2018 class, from which our participants came. In this incoming class, five identified as Black or African American, seven as White, seven as Asian (three of which were Middle Eastern), and five as American Indian or Alaska Native. Of these students, eight were domestic and 16 were international. Binary gender demographics indicated 15 students identified as male and nine as female.Participants
Incoming chemistry doctoral students from the Fall 2018 class were sent an email (Appendix C) describing the purpose, methods, and safety measures for confidentiality of the research and invited to participate in incentivized interviews. Participation in this study was strictly voluntary to ensure those students who did participate would feel safe to express their authentic experiences, not coerced. Four students volunteered to participate; all were in the same field of research and one switched fields during their second year of graduate school. To maintain confidentiality, the fields of study are concealed. Narrowing the results to one field of chemistry was not intentional, but no other students volunteered for the study. During the initial interview, participants were asked about research experiences prior to their doctoral programs to provide a knowledge and skills baseline. Demographics of participants are shown in Table 1.| Participant | Gender identity | Ethnic identity | International status | Prior research | Career goals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Male | White | Domestic | Undergraduate | Industry, then PUI Academia |
| 2 | Male | Middle Eastern Asian | International | Master's | Academia |
| 3 | Female | White | Domestic | Undergraduate | Industry |
| 4 | Male | South Asian | International | Undergraduate and Master's | R1 Academia |
Baseline knowledge and skills
Participant 1 participated in undergraduate research pertaining to inorganic and medicinal chemistry during the last two semesters of his bachelor's degree. He reported gaining confidence in working with various instrumentation, when to ask questions, and understanding that research is a lot of failure and figuring out why, requiring perseverance and patience from this experience. Participant 1 did a two-year internship at a local start-up chemistry company with primary duties of quality control, instrument maintenance, writing detailed procedures for non-chemists to follow, running small scale tests, making standards, and determining how to scale between large and small quantities. He reported that this work required him to often be independent with quite a bit of responsibility.Participant 2 conducted his two-year master's degree in both organic and computational chemistry. He noted that a lack of undergraduate research was a bit of a handicap to start as he had to learn all techniques, how to read literature, and basic terminology, etc. Participant 2 reported gaining a lot of technical experience in synthesis, purification, and characterization techniques by working on simplified scaffolds for natural products. He also discussed how he learned to perform literature reviews and reproduce a compound from a paper in addition to writing his own papers.
Participant 3 previously worked about three years in chemistry engineering and inorganic labs during her bachelor's degree and gained experience in radioactive safety procedures, solid-state syntheses, and crystallography. She discussed having mentoring opportunities and was generally independent, which helped spark creativity, but made writing difficult. She reported several collaborative opportunities in the engineering lab and claims to have learned time management, delegation, and several technical skills. She also worked on part of a published paper and presented at a couple national and local conferences.
Participant 4 conducted five months of undergraduate research and a two-and-a-half-year master's in inorganic and physical chemistry. He reported learning how to operate various instrumentation and run analyses. He also had to opportunity to present a poster about his research and learned about writing papers. Additionally, outreach gave Participant 4 the opportunity to communicate to non-chemists. During his master's, he discussed gaining skills in trouble shooting, time management, and more about writing papers and responding to reviewers.
Data collection
As a result of both theories, our interview asked participants about the influence of each element of their graduate program: courses, teachings assistantship, research, interactions with advisor, group meetings, seminars, publications, presentations/conferences, qualifying exams, and any other element they believed to be a significant factor in their development as a graduate student and scientist. For each programmatic element, participants were asked three questions: (a) what knowledge and skills they had learned from that element, (b) some examples of these skills learned, and (c) the degree to which they perceived the element would be beneficial to their doctoral program or future career. The justification of each question is as follows: Cognitive apprenticeship describes the transfer of knowledge and skills from expert to novice (Merton and Merton, 1968) and socialization theory describes how one develops as a professional, including the knowledge and skills gained through everyday observations and interactions with others (Tierney, 1997). In both theories, capturing the knowledge and skills gained is essential (justifying question (a)). However, because people can over-estimate their own knowledge and skills (Kruger and Dunning, 1999), we found it necessary to ask for specific examples for verification, as well as to identify a mechanism for how these knowledge and skills were obtained via the specific element, something that has not been documented in graduate education previously (justifying question (b)). Finally, because both cognitive apprenticeship and socialization theories are context-dependent (knowledge and skills obtained to become a professional), we prompted each participant to report the perceived benefit that each element has on their progress to graduation as well as their career goals (justifying question (c)). An outline of the interview is shown in Fig. 1. Each participant was asked how they felt they were progressing in the program and what their current career goals were at the beginning of each interview to assist in answering these questions.
 | ||
| Fig. 1 Outline of questions asked in the interview. Inclusion of red elements were primarily hypothesized as essential by cognitive apprenticeship theory; blue elements are those primarily hypothesized as essential by socialization theory. | ||
The full interview protocol can be found in Appendix A. Follow-up questions were asked throughout based on initial participant responses to elicit further examples and perceptions of growth. During this process member checking was done to ensure participants’ responses were interpreted correctly.
Data analysis
Audio files were transcribed and verbatim reviewed for accuracy. The primary analytic method was the identification of themes, which occurred via multiple steps. While the theoretical frameworks guided the interview questions, they did not directly guide our analysis process. It is assumed that apprenticeship and socialization occur during graduate school, but these frameworks were not adequate to ultimately capture the exploration of the research question. The knowledge and skills graduate students are expected to gain and use later in careers also guided the analysis process (Cui and Harshman, 2020). Therefore, an inductive approach to analysis was used to ensure emergence of themes was not hindered in any way.First, rough summaries, identifying main points described by the participants, were created to become familiar with the data. Second, coding was done using Dedoose in an effort to abstract the smallest unique idea in each section of the interview to address the research question of: How do students grow? This resulted in over 100 parent and sub codes that identified specific knowledge and skills, areas of growth, and thoughts about the benefit of programmatic elements. Creswell (2007) expresses the need for the researcher to disregard predetermined questions to hear what interviewees have to say, so after reflection and drawing a concept map of main ideas, these codes were reduced to five broader codes to describe the data and relate back to the literature on knowledge and skill gain expectations (i.e. aspects of chemistry graduate school, technical knowledge and skills, non-technical knowledge and skills, general demographic information, and knowledge and skills gained during prior research experience). The benefit of programmatic elements was a sub code. Interviews were re-coded in Dedoose using these five broad codes. Third, interviews were systematically summarized according to the five broad codes, plus the benefit sub code, identified in step 2 (and therefore are distinct summaries from those previous). Through this process of hand-written summarization, it was determined that the code of general demographic information did not fit into the broader scheme of growth, so was noted at the top of each summary page. Similarly, knowledge and skills gained during prior research was only relevant in the first interview and to provide a baseline, so it was not included in later theme development. The other three broad codes and sub code were consistently relevant across interviews and participants. An example of these summaries is shown in Fig. 2, which were organized in such a way as to allow the researchers to compare general ideas, presented by participants, across years (same student) and across students (same year). Interestingly, by reviewing each interview again in this way, evidence of both cognitive apprenticeship and socialization appeared regarding how specific knowledge and skills were gained (advisor, self, others), as well as rationale for perception of each program element's benefit. As participants mentioned where their knowledge and skills came from, they were indicated under the “General Notes” section of the summaries in a different colour.
 | ||
| Fig. 2 Summary example from a participant's interview. Each program element (aspect of chemistry graduate school code) was listed in the left column. General notes consisted of details about that element in the centre, emphasizing the broad codes of technical (indicated by a capital “T”) and non-technical (indicated by a capital “NT”) knowledge and skills. Participants’ response to the benefit of that element (checks were beneficial, – for neutral, and X for not beneficial) were noted in the right column, with any rational concerning benefit noted below. | ||
Comparisons of these summaries led to the development of five themes related to growth (Table 2), which are the basis for the results presented. As theme ideas surfaced from the interviews, both researchers went through an iterative process together to finalize themes. To do so, interview excerpts were reviewed to make sure the intention of the original quote matched the theme, and discussion followed until there was agreement between both researchers. Finally, interviews were re-coded in Dedoose based on the growth themes. Any changes were discussed between both researchers to ensure agreement.
| Theme | Description | Example ideas |
|---|---|---|
| Theme 1: career preparation (Career) | Perceived benefit/relevance of programmatic elements to the stated career goals; impact of programmatic elements on career goals | • Desire industrial exposure |
| • Desire preparation for preferred future career | ||
| • Desire collaborative and professional development experiences | ||
| • Feel that component was particularly helpful or unhelpful in preparing for career | ||
| Theme 2: support (Support) | Network of faculty, fellow students, and friends that graduate students perceived have been integral for their success | • Choice of advisor is important |
| • Connections with professors and other colleagues are helpful/not helpful | ||
| • Friends and family outside of chemistry make work and life easier | ||
| • Other graduate students provide advice & perspective | ||
| Theme 3: environment (Environment) | Perceived effect of culture (inside and outside the university setting) on students’ ability to thrive within the graduate program | • Positive working environments impact comfort, belonging, motivation, and drive |
| • Cultural differences influence interactions with others | ||
| • Experiences in program elements affect motivation during graduate school and desire for certain careers | ||
| Theme 4: perceived value (Value) | Perceptions of the extent to which programmatic elements will be beneficial to students’ personal and professional growth | • Foundational knowledge for future use is valuable/not valuable |
| • Transferrable “soft” skills are beneficial | ||
| • No value if perceive direct impact on current research or future career is missing | ||
| • “Sanity maintenance” is beneficial | ||
| Theme 5: scepticism (or faith) in the system (Scepticism/Faith) | Doubt (or trust) in the ability of doctoral program to meet personal and professional goals resulting from personal disillusionment, criticisms, or stalwart faith in program aspects | • Faith in programmatic elements (e.g. the requirement for me to take courses was made with students’ best interest in mind) |
| • Scepticism that programmatic elements are required because this is what is best for students | ||
Results
Themes
Five themes were found during the analysis of interviews over the first two years of participants’ graduate school experience. For each theme developed, we present a detailed description with supporting quotes below. Table 2 shows these themes and the key concepts that underlie them. The data indicated that all participants shared some level of each theme, although they manifested differently in certain cases. We wanted to capture the overall academic culture of graduate school that all students become a part of, through socialization. As such, we did not specifically probe for cultural distinctions between domestic and international students. We did not wish to imply differences between participants nor bias their responses to questions by assuming there would be different experiences based on identity. However, some distinctions were noticed in certain themes and are mentioned in the subsequent sections.The primary goal of graduate school is to produce independent graduates who can contribute new knowledge to their fields. This implies that graduate students must assimilate to the culture of their graduate program to pursue that goal and successfully become marketable for a career. According to socialization theory, this assimilation occurs by becoming aware of others’ expectations and observing how others carry out such expectations. Eventually the students’ role regarding those expectations becomes internalized; they separate themselves from their program and pursue their own goals.
While we used an inductive approach to coding, socialization theory seemed to be primarily supported by the data and so informed the order of importance of our themes listed below. As socialization theory emphasizes integration into a culture, which relates to preparing for a career, we first present the findings on the theme career preparation. Socialization theory also prioritizes investigation of who is in your inner circle and how they influence you, which involves support from multiple sources, including the advisor (expert based on cognitive apprenticeship theory), and which may be influenced by the different environments you are in. Support and environment are the next two themes presented. Individuals’ personal observations and assessments also determine their integration into a culture according to socialization theory; thus, perceived value and scepticism (or faith) in the system will be presented.
Career preparation
Participants expressed their thoughts and feelings about how the various elements of doctoral education helped or hindered their desired career goals. Their targeted career goal largely determined the perceived benefit of a programmatic element, and to a smaller extent, personal views on the value of learning. A symmetrical distribution of career goals was observed across the four participants. One expressed an interest to solely work in academia (Participant 4), two others said they would work in industry or academia (Participant 1 and Participant 2), and the fourth solely wanted to work in industry (Participant 3). Participant 1 changed his career goals to industry after exposure to politics of faculty and administrative kept him from completing a career-related learning opportunity and soured his overall view of academia. Participant 1 stated: “Noticing how much politics there are and how everyone's trying to play around each other. And like figured, I just don't, I'm tired of it at this point. So I'm wanting to go to industry, but I, I love teaching. I’d love to come back to teaching but I need to get away for a bit” (4th interview). This is a direct example of how experiences in the program shifted Participant 1's desired career away from something he loves.In addition to expressing frustration at a lack of industrial exposure, participants further claimed that the program (all faculty and administration) generally cared less about industry than they did about academia. As described later, they felt that because so many elements were designed to prepare students for academic positions (particularly seminars/colloquia, courses, research, and TA experiences), this implied that industrial positions were not as valued. Participant 3 expressed this irritation by talking about a travel fund that could help her attend industrial conferences: “I didn't even know that that was a thing, like, until someone else told me, and it was another student it wasn't even like a professor. So, I know there’re opportunities out there, I just don't know like how to get into them. And I don't really feel like people here care to help with that” (4th interview).
The most sceptical participants attempted to find some benefit in certain elements preparing for industrial careers. Participant 2 saw his experiences in group meetings as a means to prepare for the types of meetings he could conduct as a professor or for those in industry where presentation of work was expected (2nd interview). Participant 3 conceded that gaining exposure to how people present science in seminars/colloquia and her preliminary (oral) examination could be beneficial: “whether I’m in industry or academia, like I'm going to have to propose something…or have to present it in some way” (4th interview). Similarly, participants indicated that exposure to prior work through literature reviews and to scientific language and terminology through presentations was helpful no matter the choice of career. However, these concessions were very few compared to the repeated vexation over not being properly prepared for industrial careers.
Programmatic elements mentioned as more beneficial for academia also included seminars/colloquia and mentoring opportunities. Colloquia and seminars seemed to provide some exposure to presentation styles, scientific language, a broad variety of research topics, and examples of how to respond to questions. Those looking for academic careers viewed mentoring more favourably because it gave an idea of “responsibility, how to direct your students, [and] how to communicate with your students effectively” (Participant 2, 2nd interview). Overall, international participants seemed to have a more positive experience with career preparation than the domestic participants. However, this could be due to the fact that Participants 2 and 4 were both pursuing an academic career path and Participants 1 and 3 were pursuing industrial paths.
Support
A support system was expressed as a necessity for personal/professional growth during participants’ first two years of their doctoral program. This included participants’ advisors, other graduate students, and friends outside of school. Each of these groups was brought up spontaneously by participants. Advisors and graduate students were both noted during the programmatic element portions of the interview, and graduate students and friends outside of school were brought up independently as essential when participants were asked if there was any other significant component of graduate school that they perceived as essential to their success. Professors and other professionals, such as library workers, were also mentioned as a support, but were more auxiliary so will not be discussed in detail here. This theme supports the idea of socialization to assimilate into the graduate school culture.Even with positive working relationships with their advisors, participants worked to be independent, as much as possible, soon after joining their research groups. Participant 3 said of her advisor, “Yeah, I think that he's a good resource, but I think I don’t prioritize him as a resource. I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing or a good thing. But I like to ask other group members first. Or I like to do a quick Google search or lit search first. And if I still don't know, then I'll ask him. And I think that kind of helps funnel out not necessarily stupid questions, but questions that are easily answered on my own” (2nd interview). This attitude was generally reflected by the other participants throughout their first two years: trial and error experiments and troubleshooting were employed prior to asking advisors questions. Whenever possible participants worked to have results and some analysis completed before discussing further steps with their advisors. As expected, they gained organization skills, practical instrumentation knowledge, and deeper understanding of the concepts driving their research, all of which helped participants gain confidence in their independence. By her third year, Participant 3 stated: “I haven't learned a lot of new skills, but I've advanced the skills I have now because I understand them on a deeper level to the point where I can start making my own modifications independent from my professor” (3rd interview).
These findings regarding support from students’ advisor suggest that knowledge gained from these interactions does not occur in the explicit modelling, coaching, and articulating stages predicted by cognitive apprenticeship theory. Perhaps this model occurs more often at the very beginning of the students’ time in their research labs or when lab mates are not present. It seems that students recognize the need to be independent in their work and strive to seek other sources of help when possible, supporting socialization theory.
Environment
The surroundings, conditions, and cultures in which participants function constitute their environment. Participants brought up colleagues, the graduate school, and the city as contributing to an environment that provided them with an ability to thrive in graduate school. Additionally, Participant 4 (2nd interview) and Participant 2 (3rd interview) appreciated the American learning environment that professors provided in their courses. Participant 4 recognized that there was a more approachable relationship between teachers and students compared to his home country, so he adopted and implemented that environment as a TA.Participants also described the university as having a friendly environment to learn in. One participant chose this school because of the friendly environment, where professors and advisors were approachable in person or via email (Participant 1, 1st interview). “It's just a general feeling that you are motivated by all the other graduate students who are doing research. Yeah, I mean, yeah it's, best describe it as a friendly environment here. So, you know, you can interact with whoever you want. Also, you can ask any faculty you want about your research” (Participant 2, 3rd interview).
Even generally, learning the city culture by going to grocery stores, playing sports, or observing others’ everyday lives influenced participants’ ability to thrive at work. “So, if you know better about your community…if you can, you can communicate more you can, it will be easier for you to stay here. So, we are human beings. We have to be social… It's not all about your education. You have to be here. You have to go to the grocery shops, you have to, you know, talk with your [advisor], you have to talk with other grad students… They invite you; you have to go their party. And you, you invite them they will come. So, if you don't know those stuffs, and there it will be make more your life easier. When life will be more, easier [sic] then it will be easier also to focus your research. Otherwise, I don't know if, I think if your environment is good” (Participant 4, 4th interview).
Overall, our international participants, 2 and 4, mentioned several cultural distinctions that were not mentioned by our domestic participants. Communication presented several extra barriers to work though, including verbal and written. Where domestic students only had to become familiar with specific technical terms, our international participants also had to work on general sentence structure in presentations and papers. Culturally, as was mentioned previously, participant 4 indicated a difference in faculty/student interactions here compared to his home country. In his home country students would never question their instructors or have friendly interactions with them. This difference required participant 4 to also assimilate to a new teaching culture both as a student and a TA. Another cultural distinction mentioned was time management. Participant 4 said he had to get better at being on time, as appointments in his home country were more of a suggestion rather than an absolute start time. Not only did our international students have to adjust to graduate school culture, they also had to get used to the city and broader cultures outside of school, such as team sports, group parties, and grocery stores. Such differences were not mentioned as barriers for our domestic participants.
Perceived value
Participants’ described how valuable they perceived each programmatic element was to their personal and professional growth. They understood all program requirements had to be taken, but only saw use for those elements that provided what they saw as knowledge and skills relevant to their immediate research project or future career. Participant 3 explained that, for the most part, courses, colloquium, and seminar were not beneficial: “it's equivalent, I think, to just reading papers on my own, like just being better versed in like, recent advancements in research” (4th interview). Participant 4 countered that, at least for advanced courses, there is some benefit to a professor already compiling knowledge deemed important, rather than taking extra time to self-determine importance (4th interview). Also, Participants 2 and 4 expressed a philosophy of learning where any gain of new knowledge, even if not directly related to current research or future career, was seen as valuable. Such knowledge could become relevant in the future or provide a foundation for other knowledge. Participant 2, for example, stated, “For me, I love science so anything new, even if it is not pertaining [to my dissertation research], it's an advantage. You try to utilize your time while being in graduate school to obtain maximum knowledge you can” (2nd interview).In addition to relevance of elements to participants’ dissertation projects, elements that provided problem solving and communication skills were perceived as beneficial because they are transferrable to other areas of life. Communication, for example, was gained from email correspondence, simplification of complex ideas, presenting, use of scientific terminology, and writing papers. Specifically, giving presentations within programmatic elements, such as seminar or group meetings, were also seen as particularly helpful as they provided participants with opportunities to improve their public speaking, presentation styles, and ability to answer questions.
A cultural distinction may be the result of these findings. Our international participants were generally more positive about the value of all programmatic elements, with the exception of participant 4 finding no value in retaking core courses after he had completed them during his master's. He was also open about colloquium being boring, but recognized the potential value in them, especially as he gained more knowledge himself. This positivity about programmatic elements could indicate a general philosophy of learning. However, it could also be due to both international participants’ pursuit of an academic career. As discussed in career preparation above, all programmatic elements catered more to academia than industry and our domestic participants were interested in industrial paths.
Scepticism or faith in the system
When discussing the programmatic elements, each participant made comments that either expressed an overall faith or scepticism in the ability of the doctoral program, and those in charge, to set requirements that would effectively help them grow and meet personal and professional goals. Interesting to note, our two domestic participants changed over the course of the study from having faith to holding scepticism, but no one expressed the reverse trend.With some elements, both Participant 1 and Participant 3 originally had faith in the system but experienced a shift to a more sceptic perspective. For colloquium, during their first two interviews, both shared that the presentations were typically not related to their research field and were too complex and boring. At the same time, they felt that being exposed to scientific vocabulary and examples of questions asked was beneficial. By the fourth interview, however, they stated quite directly they felt there was no gain to colloquium, and it was hard enough to stay awake. By the end of second year, there was also some heavy-heartedness developed toward research. Participant 1 mentioned that, while he was becoming more efficient, the research had become monotonous; he was focused on getting as much data as possible but not learning anything new (4th interview). He also explained that the expectation was for students to be in graduate school for five years so he had to plan out three years of research to fill that time, which gave him plenty of data to collect (4th interview). Participant 3 said she started to realize how many projects didn’t work or weren’t relevant to the world, “and you just feel like you could be doing something that's more impactful” (4th interview). Additionally, Participant 1's perception of group meetings changed over time. Initially he felt that they would help him stay focused and directed (1st interview) and although redundant, they would be helpful (2nd interview). By the fourth interview he saw no gain from them; no new knowledge or skills were being learned and when asked about their benefit for his graduate education he said, “Honestly, no. I've heard like, there are some group meetings where they have presentations, or they have more structure, it's a much more in-depth meeting, which those might be beneficial in helping you develop those skills and presenting and being able to present your research and that sort of stuff. But just, it's the same, we talk to [our advisor] about the same sort of things that he comes into lab once or twice a day and asks us how we're doing and what we're up to. And it's the same sort of thing” (4th interview).
Again, it seemed that overall, our international participants had more faith in the system than our domestic participants. Participants 1 and 3 started their graduate programs indicating faith in the system for most programmatic elements but that quickly turned to scepticism. Whereas, for the most part, participants 2 and 4 maintained a general philosophy that experts would know best and there must be knowledge worth gaining from each programmatic element.
Discussion
In this study we investigated how graduate students grow (build knowledge and skills) in the first two years of a doctoral chemistry program and which elements of their program lead to the most growth. Cognitive apprenticeship theory and socialization theory directed the interview questions to investigate the knowledge and skills participants perceived they gained from each required programmatic element and their perceived benefits. Since cognitive apprenticeship theory assumes growth in a graduate program is primarily due to interactions between advisee (novice) and advisor (expert) particularly related to research, our interview included questions about participants’ research, group meetings, and one-on-one interactions with their advisors. Socialization theory emphasizes the growth of an individual through any interactions, so the interview encompassed all other programmatic elements of the graduate program as well (Fig. 1). After inductive analysis, five main themes emerged from the data to characterize the growth of these four participants resulting from individual elements of doctoral programs (Table 2). All themes supported socialization theory rather than cognitive apprenticeship theory. Even though participants were asked about interactions with their advisors, they did not consistently mention instances of modeling, coaching, articulation, or reflection as a result of their time with their advisor. Modeling and coaching of instrumentation use were occasionally mentioned in the first interviews, within a couple months of starting their research groups, but participants worked quickly to become independent of their advisors in those regards. Of course, articulation and reflection are required aspects of graduate school through execution of preliminary oral and written exams. However, completing these requirements appeared to be more a result of work with other graduate students (Support) and independent study for our participants. Advisors were asked for help when other resources were exhausted (Support); participants expressed an understanding of an expectation, another aspect of socialization, for them to become independent researchers.Research has been heralded as the primary experience in which students are trained to become independent scientists (Hutchins, 1930; Kilpatrick, 1954; Burke, 1988; Council for Chemical Research, 2010). Our data suggested that these research experiences were beneficial for graduating, but may have been less beneficial depending on the career path of the student. Overall, participants reported receiving support from their advisors and lab mates regarding both research and personal issues (Support) that allowed them to remain productive. This is similar to a finding by Muetzel (2015) where participants appreciated when advisors were approachable and provided insight into personal issues in addition to research expectations. Our participants also reported constructive work environments where lab mates were responsible and respectful (Environment). However, there were also several instances of exasperation due to a lack of feedback from an advisor on written and oral work (Participant 1) and general frustration over a lack of collaborative or expanded opportunities with other labs and instrumentation for those participants interested in pursuit of an industrial career (Participant 1 and 3). Such frustration was expressed about other programmatic elements as well, that were perceived as much less useful by those who had industrial career goals, particularly colloquium and seminar (Value). Participants felt they were not being prepared as well as they could be for industry and instead all elements catered to academia (Career). This finding is corroborated by the ACS Graduate Student Survey (Kuniyoshi et al., 2014), which found 56–78% of sampled doctoral students (who were ACS members) reported general satisfaction with their overall experience of graduate school but when asked about career preparation only 39% indicated their advisor provided academic career information and 26% nonacademic career information.
Our results propose a reason for this dissatisfaction in career preparation: lack of exposure to industrial cultures, research, and opportunities in addition to the perceived notion that faculty display favoritism towards academia or feel academic careers are “superior” to those in other sectors (Committee on Challenges in Chemistry Graduate Education et al., 2012; The American Chemical Society, 2012; National Academies of Sciences, 2018). For both reasons, it is important to note that the students are aware of these traits and can express a great deal of skepticism in their training as a result of them (Scepticism/Faith). Faculty and administration should be aware of the relative proportion of chemists who occupy industrial, academic, and governmental positions (∼55%, ∼35%, and ∼10% respectively) (Rovner, 2012) and tailor programs and mentoring accordingly. Boden, Borrego, and Newswander (2011) have shown that interdisciplinary programs offer great opportunities for collaborative research and help counter the academia-focused socialization into disciplines. Liddell et al. (2014) also found that opportunities such as internships help students’ professional development, something that our participants interested in industry indicated a desire for.
If academic careers were desired, participants expressed more positive outcomes in their programmatic elements, especially TA experiences (Scepticism/Faith). However, this hinged largely on the students’ environment (Environment). For example, when Participant 4 realized that generally, the culture between students and faculty in the US was friendlier than what he experienced from his home country, he felt the TA experience was incredibly helpful to his goals of becoming a professor. Conversely, Participant 1 felt so repelled by the politics he witnessed, hindering his ability to continue learning from his TA experience within the program, that he abandoned the pursuit of an academic career. According to Paglis et al. (2006), working with a faculty advisor showed no reinforcing effect over 5½ years on students’ commitment to a career chosen when they started their doctoral program, rather, if anything, observations of the academic world was more likely to have a negative effect. The two opposites demonstrate that students are always observing those around them, becoming aware of formal and informal expectations, and adjusting their behaviors accordingly, a clear indicator that socialization theory (and not cognitive apprenticeship) drives much of the students’ professional growth (Gardner, 2007).
Those who design chemistry graduate programs consider courses, seminar, and colloquium beneficial to students’ professional growth as they are meant to expose students to a breadth of knowledge so connections to other areas of chemistry can be seen and appreciated (Breslow, 1995). Participants, however, made it clear that unless something was related to their research or desired career, they did not perceive these elements as beneficial (Value). For example, while participants understood the expectations for colloquium and initially attempted to see the benefit of exposure to scientific vocabulary, another indication of socialization, most eventually stopped making that effort. Even when seminars and colloquia were related to participants’ research areas, participants stated that the presentations were too complex or boring and were mostly seen as a hindrance to research productivity (i.e. time was better spent elsewhere).
Alternatively, some participants felt the gain of any new knowledge was valuable. It seemed that participants with this philosophy saw requirements as beneficial because experts designed them (Scepticism/Faith), but even this faith in the system only went so far for most participants. In fact, over time that faith turned to scepticism for two participants regarding the value of most programmatic elements, including research experiences. A third participant was sceptical of the benefit of a couple elements. Such scepticism of graduate program elements was expressed more often than faith, where these particular requirements were seen as something participants had to do to “check the box” toward graduation. Students in this study generally saw benefits to seminars and group meeting only when they received explicit training in transferrable skills like communication and presentation style (Value).
To help alleviate non-beneficial program elements, faculty could make sure they are aware of students’ preferred career paths and work to provide students with appropriate opportunities to explore and prepare for those paths. It seems that the current graduate school programmatic elements are already doing well to prepare students for academic positions, but if students are interested in industry or government representatives from those sectors could be brought in to speak in seminars or on career panels. Students can also be sent to industry-specific conferences and given opportunities to do internships. We realize that there are barriers to faculty providing such changes for students when their progress to tenure is partially supported by the number of publications produced through their research, which the graduate students help generate. Administration, therefore, would also have to be on board to support faculty and students in these alternative endeavors financially and when considering faculty contributions to the department.
While we did not set out to investigate distinctions in experience of growth based on international status, we did find that our international participants had different perspectives within themes. Primarily, participants 2 and 4 expressed a more consistent faith in the system requiring programmatic elements that must be beneficial for them (Scepticism/Faith). Other than participant 2's frustration about core courses and admission that colloquium was boring, there was an overall positive outlook on requirements. In the same vein, they also saw the elements as valuable and indicated that any new knowledge gained was beneficial, whether it was related to current research or not (Value). This philosophy of learning explains participants 2's course frustration, as the knowledge from the core courses was not new for him, as well as his determination that colloquium was still valuable to attend because of an opportunity to observe expert speakers. However, it could also be that, rather than a cultural difference, the beneficial view of elements from participants 2 and 4 was instead due to them both seeking an academic career (Career). As previously discussed, programmatic elements were perceived by participants as catering to academia rather than industry. Finally, there were some distinctions based on Environment. Participants 2 and 4 mentioned some barriers with communication. Both indicated that working as a TA helped them get practice and Participant 2 additionally revealed that interactions between students and teachers was much friendlier and more relaxed than in his home country. In addition to assimilating into a TA role, there seemed to be additional environments of the department and city to get used to. For help to overcome certain barriers (Support), both mentioned a course that provided extra preparation for them to TA. Additionally, participant 2 stated that his lab mates helped him with editing his written work and practicing presentations and participant 4 brought up library workshops as an additional resource for many areas of interest. Participant 2 also described how his lab mates were able to provide cultural explanations for situations outside of the graduate school environment.
More work should be done to explore cultural distinctions with purposefully selected participants to openly explore their experiences. Following such qualitative work, it would be beneficial to eventually compile a survey of relevant questions regarding graduate students’ growth within their schools’ programmatic elements. This would provide a big picture assessment of graduate programs and more exact ideas for change.
Limitations
Case studies typically involve multiple sources of information with which to determine themes (Creswell, 2007). Given the nature of this research, however, interviews were the only source available. Advisors and faculty could not be approached about participants’ knowledge and skills developed during the required aspects of their program due to confidentiality requirements. Advisors complete student evaluations once per year, but they are not filled out in an in-depth manner that would address knowledge and skills. Observations during research or courses, etc. would also be intrusive of confidentiality. These would also not be a consistent format so a poor measure of knowledge and skills. Also, all four participants were in the same field of research, with one switching during their second year of graduate school. It was not intentional to interview participants with such a narrow field of study, but no other students volunteered.While our participants did not have completely positive experiences our interview protocol was not designed to probe into depth about the negative or stressful experiences mentioned by participants − mental health issues, financial frustrations, switching groups, etc. We recognize that these are important issues and captured the surface of them, but we were focused on investigating the growth of participants based on programmatic elements so further research would need to be done to elicit more information about those issues. We also did not aim to determine cultural distinctions in experiences between domestic and international participants, but rather focused on their assimilation into the graduate school culture as a whole. Despite this we did notice some distinctions, but more research would need to be done with that focus in mind. And, as this is qualitative research, it is not generalizable to other fields of study, graduate programs, or groups of students as only four participants in one main field were interviewed.
Conclusions
The five themes found here challenge the significance of “staple” elements that are thought to lead to professional growth (i.e. research, courses, seminars, etc.) within a graduate program, and instead emphasize behaviors, culture, and expectations as crucial for professional growth. With only four students in the sample, we cannot claim that these themes are representative of a significant portion of graduate students nor was this the goal of the present work. However, the depth allowed by this small sample size allowed us to characterize several themes that are plausible to observe in other students enrolled in doctoral chemistry programs. The primary implications for practice of this work are twofold. First, faculty should assess to what degree, if any, some of the themes found here exist at their chemistry departments. If students at a particular program express limited benefits of seminars and colloquia and/or courses not related to their dissertation projects, faculty can discuss how to modify or replace them to be more meaningful to the student.Second, our findings investigate the role of the faculty advisor in students’ professional growth. Cognitive apprenticeship theory is the traditionally assumed model for graduate education whereby a students’ success is largely considered to be the product of their faculty advisor's training (Carter et al., 1964; Mohrig, 1988; Stewart and Lagowski, 2003). While the participants here listed the advisor as a source of significant growth (supporting cognitive apprenticeship theory), they also reported benefits of the informal elements of graduate programs to the same, if not greater, degree (supporting socialization theory). This is a particularly important implication, especially in light of a recent controversial essay that was redacted from Angewandte Chemie (Howes, 2020) that exposed a belief (the author and reviewers felt would resonate with the field) that there should be “an unconditional submission of the apprentice to his/her master” (Polanyi, 2012). Our study, and others (Gardner, 2007; Boden et al., 2011; Muetzel, 2015), reveal that faculty advisors are a significant source of professional growth in doctoral education, but they are not the only sources and may not even be the primary source of development of skills, knowledge, beliefs, and values. This implies that faculty, as well as administration who would need to support them, ought to rethink the structure of their programs concerning where students’ time is allocated within programmatic elements.
Regarding cognitive apprenticeship theory, while this study did not find extensive evidence to support its application, it could be that this model appears to greater degree in smaller, or one-person, lab groups. All participants in this study mentioned their groups contained multiple people, some with postdoctoral fellows or undergraduate students as well. Or, perhaps if advisors were themselves trained by such a model, they would be more likely to use it. More research with a larger and more diverse group of participants would need to be done to determine when and if a cognitive apprenticeship model gets used in research groups.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.Appendix A. Interview questions
Date:Interview #:
Participant Pseudonym:
Location:
Start time:
End time:
Introductions:
• Thank you
• Time constraints?
• Reminder of interview format: go over aspects of grad school & K&S gained
• Recorded
Demographics:
• Verify year status
• Verify chemistry area(s)
• Verify advisor
Overall, how are you doing? How is graduate school going so far?
Have your career goals changed at all in the last 6 months?
Current Graduate School Experiences
1. Could you provide a brief description of the project(s) you are working on for your dissertation or as a part of your research group?
a. What do you do on a day to day basis? What are your main responsibilities? What kinds of activities do you do to complete this project?
b. Are you generally content with your research experiences?
c. Do you currently wish you had other opportunities in research?
2. What knowledge do you feel you successfully gained thus far in your research experiences?
a. If you had to define __________, how would you define it?
b. Can you provide an example that demonstrates how you need __________ in your current research experience?
3. This may seem similar to the previous question, but coming off of undergraduate research, what skills do you feel you successfully gained?
a. If you had to define __________, how would you define it?
b. Can you provide an example that demonstrates how you needed __________ in your undergraduate research experience?
Now I’m going ask you same question, but this time, I’m going to specify a specific piece of your graduate education thus far instead of the whole education, and then we’re going to do it again for a different piece. Let's start with coursework:
Coursework
1. What courses have you taken over the summer or are currently enrolled in?
2. What main K&S do you feel you gained from previous coursework, now that you’re done?
3. Do you feel that in general, previous course work was beneficial now, looking back? Core courses? Advanced courses?
4. Are there any courses that you wish you could have taken previously?
GTA [Make sure to tease out if K&S used or gained]
1. Were you and are you currently a TA for a course? Which one(s)?
2. What knowledge and skills do you feel that you have gained by being a TA thus far?
3. Do you feel that your experiences as a TA will be beneficial to your graduate education?
Group Meetings
1. What is the structure of your group meetings? To what extent have you participated in the meetings?
2. What knowledge and skills do you feel that you have gained by attending group meetings?
3. Do you feel that your attendance in group meetings will be beneficial to your graduate education?
Discussions with Advisor
1. Do you have individual meetings with your advisor? If so, what does that structure look like?
2. What knowledge and skills do you feel that you have gained by talking with your advisor about research?
3. Do you feel like s/he teaches you valuable knowledge and skills?
Colloquium [Visiting experts present]
1. Have you attended departmental colloquium?
2. What knowledge and skills do you feel that you have gained by attended colloquium?
3. Do you feel that colloquium will be beneficial to your graduate education?
Department Seminar [Students & within dept present]
1. Have you attended departmental seminar?
2. What knowledge and skills do you feel that you have gained by attending seminar?
3. Do you feel that seminar will be beneficial to your graduate education?
Writing Papers
1. Have you participated in writing papers or have papers published while at AU? How many were first author or significant contribution to the paper?
2. What knowledge and skills do you feel that you have gained by writing your work for publication?
3. Do you feel that writing papers will be beneficial to your graduate education?
Presenting Posters or Talks
1. Have you participated in preparing and/or presenting posters or talks at either local or national meetings or events?
2. What knowledge and skills do you feel that you have gained by preparing or presenting posters or talks?
3. Do you feel that presenting research will be beneficial to your graduate education?
Prelims (Oral Exams)
1. Have you done your prelims? Can you tell me a bit about what was expected of you in your prelims, so far as you know?
2. What knowledge and skills do you feel that you have gained by preparing and presenting your prelim?
3. Do you feel the prelims will be beneficial to your graduate education?
Other Experiences
1. Are there any other experiences besides the ones we’ve already talked about that you have had as part of your graduate education so far that have allowed you gain knowledge and skills?
2. What knowledge and skills do you feel that you have gained from _________?
3. Do you feel that _________ will be beneficial to your graduate education?
Thank participant and talk about getting the gift card.
Appendix B. Redacted interview summary example
Appendix C. Recruitment email
Dear First Year Graduate Students,I will be conducting a research study regarding the knowledge and skills that chemistry graduate students will gain throughout their education. As first-year graduate students at Auburn University, you have an opportunity to participate in this research for the duration of your graduate education and improve the graduate program here in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.
This project will request that you to participate in two interviews per year until you graduate. The interviews are expected to last between one and two hours each. Only I (Dr Harshman) or a postdoctoral researcher will interview you; you will not be interviewed by your graduate peers nor will your comments or participation in the project be accessible to your fellow graduate students. The interviews will ask you about the educational experiences that you’ve had as a graduate student here at Auburn (research opportunities, exams, courses, group meetings, etc.) with the intention of gathering your perspectives on the knowledge and skills that you’ve gained in your training, so you should not view this as a test or examination of your knowledge and skills. Your time is very valuable to me. All participants will be given a $40 Amazon.com gift card for every interview completed, up to a maximum of 12 interviews over the course of 6 years.
Because of my involvement in this project, you should consider a few things for your protection prior to participating. First, I will likely decline any requests to serve on your graduate committee in any way if you participate in this project. Because of these interviews, I will have access to information about your degree progress that risks biasing any role I may have on your committee. Second, if you wish to take any classes taught by me or are involved with any courses I teach (as a TA, for example), you will need to sign additional documentation that you acknowledge that I have access to the information in the interviews. I will also sign a document that I will make my best attempt to not consider this information in my role as an instructor. This email will serve as documentation that if you choose not to participate, I will not hold this decision against you in any of my official capacities.
Lastly, I fully believe that if you choose to participate in this research project, your decision to participate and any information you supply will only be known to the approved project personnel and no one else. However, I cannot fully guarantee that your decision to participate in this project nor your comments made in interviews will be kept from your fellow graduate students and/or the other faculty members, including your advisor. I and all project personnel (not graduate or undergraduate students) have strict measures in place to protect your involvement as best as we are able. These measures include:
• Meet and interview with you outside of the chemistry building for all inquiries and interviews, if you wish
• All personnel interacting with your data will sign documentation that we will not share any of your comments or your decision to participate with any faculty, staff, graduate students, or anyone not approved as project personnel
• Appropriate desk arrangements and auto-computer lock screens will be in place to help prevent non-approved persons from viewing your information.
• Your data, including transcripts, consent forms, and identifying information will be stored on a secure, password-protected computer/external hard drive that only approved personnel have access to; hard copy versions will be stored in a locked filing cabinet
• All data will be de-identified prior to publication. Identifying data that will not be published or made public includes your name, research group, broad area (analytical, organic, etc.), specific research project area, unique instrumentation or techniques, or any other information that could reasonably identify you as a participant.
I believe that this project is a great opportunity for you to reflect on the knowledge and skills that you are gaining throughout your education here at Auburn and represents a great opportunity to participate in transforming graduate education in chemistry. If you would like more information or wish to participate in this project, please contact me via email.
Thank you for your time.
Jordan Harshman
Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Auburn University
268 Chemistry Building
http://harshmanresearchgroup.com
Acknowledgements
We thank the participants of this study for their willingness to give us their valuable time repeatedly over the years and their transparency while doing so.References
- Arnett E. M., (1988), Formal and informal graduate training for a career in research chemistry. J. Chem. Educ., 65(7), 590–592.
- Austin A. E., (2009), Cognitive apprenticeship theory and its implications for doctoral education: A case example from a doctoral program in higher and adult education, Int. J. Acad. Dev., 14(3), 173–183.
- Austin A. E. and McDaniels M., (2006), Preparing the professoriate of the future: graduate student socialization for faculty roles, in Smart J. C. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 397–456.
- Bailey C. H., (1927), The training of cereal chemists, J. Chem. Educ., 4(6), 766–769.
- Boden D., Borrego M. and Newswander L. K., (2011), Student socialization in interdisciplinary doctoral education, Higher Educ., 62(6), 741–755.
- Breslow R., (1995), The education of PhD in chemistry, Chem. Eng. News, 73(50), 65–66.
- Bretz S. L., (2008), Qualitative Research Designs in Chemistry Education Research, in Bunce D. and Cole R. (ed.), Nuts and Bolts of Chemical Education Research, ACS Symposium Series, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, pp. 79–99.
- Burke J. D., (1988), A four-year model for the PhD degree program in chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 65(7), 592–593.
- Carter H. E., Clapp L. B., Crawford B. L., Haenisch E. L., Hammond G. S., King E. L., Smith R. N., Walling C., Young W. G., Howard J. H. and Wiig E. O., (1964), Doctoral education in chemistry, Chem. Eng. News, 42(18), 76–85.
- Chemical Sciences Roundtable, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications, & National Research Council, (2000), Graduate education in the chemical sciences: Issues for the 21st century: report of a workshop, National Academy Press, Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3375507.
- Collins A., Brown J. S. and Holum A., (1991), Cognitive apprenticeship: Making things visible, Am. Educ., 15(3), 1–18.
- Collins A., Brown J. S. and Newman S. E., (1987), Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics, Technical Report No. 403.
- Committee on an Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs & Board on Higher Education and Workforce Policy and Global Affairs, (2011), A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States, National Academies Press.
- Committee on Challenges in Chemistry Graduate Education, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, & National Research Council, (2012), Challenges in chemistry graduate education: A workshop summary, National Academies Press.
- Committee on Professional Training, (2000), Survey of PhD recipients in chemistry part 2. Analysis of written comments, American Chemical Society.
- Committee on Professional Training, (2008), Survey of PhD programs in chemistry, American Chemical Society.
- Connolly M. R., Savoy J. N., Lee Y. G. and Hill L. B., (2016), Building a better future STEM faculty: How teaching development programs can improve undergraduate education, Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
- Council for Chemical Research, (2010), CTO roundtable on graduate education, Council for Chemical Research.
- Council of Graduate Schools, (2012), Pathways through graduate school and intro careers, Educational Testing Services.
- Creswell J. W., (2007), Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
- Cui Q. and Harshman J., (2020), Qualitative Investigation to identify the knowledge and skills that U.S.-trained doctoral chemists require in typical chemistry positions, J. Chem. Educ., 97(5), 1247–1255.
- Gardner S. K., (2007), “I heard it through the grapevine”: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history, Higher Educ., 54(5), 723–740.
- Glazer E. M. and Hannafin M. J., (2006), The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings, Teach. Teach. Educ., 22(2), 179–193.
- Harrington G. W., (1970), Diversifying the doctorate, J. Chem. Educ., 47(8), 594–596.
- Harshman J., (2020), Review of the Challenges that Face Doctoral Education in Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ. DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00530.
- Howes L., (2020), Essay criticizing efforts to increase diversity in organic synthesis deleted after backlash from chemists, Chem. Eng. News, https://cen.acs.org/research-integrity/ethics/Essay-criticizing-efforts-increase-diversity-in-organic-synthesis-deleted-after-backlash-from-chemists/98/web/2020/06 (accessed January 1, 2021).
- Hutchins R. M., (1930), The spirit of the university of Chicago, J. Higher Educ., 1(1), 5–12.
- Kilpatrick M., (1954), Building a chemistry department. II. The graduate curriculum, J. Chem. Educ., 31(6), 313–316.
- Kruger J. and Dunning D., (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 77(6), 1121–1134 DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121.
- Kuniyoshi C., Sostaric J. and Kirchhoff M., (2014), ACS graduate student survey, American Chemical Society.
- Liddell D. L., Wilson M. E., Pasquesi K., Hirschy A. S. and Boyle K. M., (2014), Development of professional identity through socialization in graduate school, J. Stud. Aff. Res. Pract., 51(1), 69–84.
- Lippincott W. T., (1974), Graduate education: Sentiment for change, J. Chem. Educ., 51(3), 145–145.
- Maher M. A., Gilmore J. A., Feldon D. F. and Davis T. E., (2013), Cognitive Apprenticeship and the Supervision of Science and Engineering Research Assistants, J. Res. Pract., 9(2), 1–22.
- Merton R. K. and Merton R. C., (1968), Social theory and social structure, Simon and Schuster.
- Merton R. K. and Research C. U. B. of A. S., (1957), The student-physician: Introductory studies in the sociology of medical education, Published for the Commonwealth Fund by Harvard University Press.
- Mohrig J. R., (1988), And what did you learn in your PhD program? J. Chem. Educ., 65(7), 588–590.
- Muetzel A. M., (2015), Experiential Learning & Engagement: The Role of Professional Development and Engagement in the Graduate Assistant Experience, LSU Doctoral Dissertation, 1817.
- National Academies of Sciences, E., (2018), Graduate STEM education for the 21st century, National Academies Press.
- Mutambuki J. M., Frey R. F. and Leonard D. A., (2020), Features of an Effective Future Faculty Teaching-Development Program: A Case Study of 10 STEM Faculty, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 49(4), 58–65.
- Mutambuki J. M. and Schwartz R., (2018), We don’t get any training: The impact of a professional development model on teaching practices of chemistry and biology graduate teaching assistants, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19, 106–121.
- Paglis L. L., Green S. G. and Bauer T. N., (2006), Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Res. Higher Educ., 47(4), 451–476.
- Polanyi M., (2012), Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy, University of Chicago Press.
- Quill L. L., (1945), Some problems of the department of chemistry in state-supported universities, J. Chem. Educ., 22(2), 68–73.
- Raber L., (1999), Evaluating PhD education, Chem. Eng. News, 77(22), 36–37.
- Rovner S. L., (2012), Salary & employment survey for chemists, Chem. Eng. News, 90(39), 40–43.
- Ruder S. M. and Stanford C., (2018), Strategies for training undergraduate teaching assistants to facilitate large active-learning classrooms, J. Chem. Educ., 95(12), 2126–2133.
- Siebring B. R., (1969), A doctorate program for college chemistry teachers, J. Chem. Educ., 46(3), 163–164.
- Stewart K. K. and Lagowski J. J., (2003), Cognitive apprenticeship theory and graduate chemistry education, J. Chem. Educ., 80(12), 1362.
- Stoll L. K., Lamont L. B., Block S. B. and Pesavento T. M., (2019), Using active learning methods for development of teaching assistants in high enrollment general chemistry courses, Active Learning in General Chemistry: Specific Interventions, American Chemical Society, pp. 117–148.
- The American Chemical Society, (2012), Advancing graduate education in the chemical sciences, The American Chemical Society.
- Tierney W. G., (1997), Organizational socialization in higher education, J. Higher Educ., 68(1), 1–16.
- Vergara C.E., Urban-Lurain M., Campa H., Cheruvelil K.S., Ebert-May D., Fata-Hartley C. and Johnston. K., (2014), FAST-Future Academic Scholars in Teaching: A high-engagement development program for future STEM faculty, Innovative Higher Educ., 39(2), 93–107.
- Weidman J. C., Twale D. J. and Stein E. L., (2001), Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series, 28(3).
- Wheeler L. B., Maeng J. L. and Whitworth B. A., (2015), Teaching assistants' perceptions of a training to support an inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory course, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16(4), 824–842.
- Wheeler L. B., Maeng J. L. and Whitworth B. A., (2017), Characterizing teaching assistants’ knowledge and beliefs following professional development activities within an inquiry-based general chemistry context, J. Chem. Educ., 94(1), 19–28.
- Wheeler L., Sturtevant H. and Mumba F., (2019), Exploratory study of the impact of a teaching methods course for international teaching assistants in an inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 96(11), 2393–2402.
- Whitesides G. M. and Deutch J., (2011), Let's get practical, Nature, 469, 21–22.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021 |