Learning or legitimacy? An investigation of the graduate student milestones within a chemistry doctoral program

Abstract

A Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is defined as the highest achievable degree and represents the completion of a specialized mentored project. Concerningly, graduate programs are structured in ways that can lead to inequities that exclude graduate students based on race, class, gender, ability, and additional intersecting social locations. Drawing from Yuval-Davis' framework on the politics of belonging and Porter et al.'s institutional critique methodology, the goal of the qualitative study was to examine how a chemistry graduate program fosters the professional development of its students through the graduate student milestones (admissions, preliminary exams, coursework, candidacy exam, seminar, and dissertation defense). The data comprised of documents such as the 2019 graduate student handbook and information from the departmental website, along with interviews involving faculty (N = 5), staff (N = 3), and administrators (N = 2) who served as policy agents. Findings highlight how misalignment within the admissions, preliminary exam, and candidacy milestones can create boundaries for belonging. In contrast, the seminar milestone had alignment that contributed to belonging while the coursework and dissertation defense milestones had ambiguous alignment that contributed to belonging. After gathering and analyzing the data, I collaborated with a team at the university's Department of Chemistry to revise the preliminary exam and candidacy exam milestones, aiming to enhance their inclusivity. Overall, this study offers implications for structuring chemistry graduate programs and STEM programs broadly.

---

Introduction

Within Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) fields, the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is the highest academic degree that typically represents the completion of a specialized, mentored project (McLaughlin et al., 2023). The National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee outlined two major outcomes for all doctoral training programs: “Develop scientific and technological literacy and conduct original research” and “Develop leadership, communication, and professional competencies” (2018, X). Accordingly, the graduate milestones of admissions, coursework, candidacy examinations, and dissertation writing have three documented purposes: (1) assess graduate students’ fundamental content knowledge (Kostohryz, 2016); (2) develop graduate students into independent scholars (Baker and Pifer, 2011); and (3) determine which graduate students should be allowed to the dissertation phase (Guloy et al., 2020). However, there is no common consensus of what doctoral training should look like, leading STEM doctoral programs to reinterpret these messages based on the discretion of the university, graduate school, department, and faculty. Much of this reinterpretation by the discretion of the university, graduate school, department, and faculty has problematically created social stratification that reinforces whiteness and other oppressive systems of power in higher education by reproducing privilege (Posselt and Grodsky, 2017).

Concerningly, few studies have examined doctoral training and how graduate programs are structured to support learning (e.g., Gardner, 2008; Mantai, 2022), and especially so for chemistry graduate programs (Harshman, 2021). Posselt and Grodsky (2017) explained in their review of recruitment, admissions, and matriculation how people who hold graduate and professional degrees are increasing overrepresented among the wealthiest Americans and are less likely to be women and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) scholars. Additionally, like most structures in higher education, meritocracy underpins much of the decisions that impact graduate programs (Warikoo, 2016; Posselt, 2018). (The myth of) meritocracy is the idea that achievement is inherently within an individual's full control and if one works hard, they can succeed (i.e., picking oneself up from their bootstraps). Meritocracy has since been heavily critiqued due to ignoring how race, gender, socioeconomic status, and other social locations can impact achievement and therefore success (Warikoo, 2018). Ultimately, the following study highlights how themes of exclusion can be reproduced through the graduate student milestones of a chemistry doctoral program and can potentially disenfranchise graduate students from historically marginalized backgrounds.

STEM graduate requirements in the United States

Students in STEM graduate programs must learn a variety of things: content knowledge via coursework, independent research planning via a candidacy exam, and original scholarship via a dissertation (Goldman and Massy, 2001; Walker et al., 2009; Gonzales et al., 2023). Many studies on graduate education are often underpinned theoretically by socialization theory (Weidman et al., 2001). Weidman et al. (2001) defined socialization as the process by which graduate students learn the norms needed to integrate and create social relationships in graduate school (Weidman and Stein, 2003). Weidman et al. (2001) and Gardner (2007) summarized the coursework, candidacy exam, and dissertation milestones as the three structural phases of socialization in doctoral training: anticipatory, integration, and candidacy.

The anticipatory phase begins with the doctoral program application process and ends with admissions, whereby students start to understand the graduate program and make decisions about enrolment. When graduate students enter the anticipatory phase, they are learning about the roles, procedures, and agenda of the department (Weidman et al., 2001; Gardner, 2007). Although the anticipatory phase lasts a few months, these few months typically set the tone for the remainder of graduate students’ doctoral training (Gardner, 2007). As graduate students learn about the doctoral training program to apply and accept, they become aware of the formal and informal expectations through interactions with other incoming students and with existing graduate students, faculty, and staff of the department. Examples of formal expectations include knowing when first-year orientation begins or when one must select an advisor while informal expectations can be which advisors are strict or which advisors have the most successful students.

Following admissions, students reach the integration phase by undertaking coursework and interacting with peers, faculty, and the research community to learn about the practices of their discipline. The integration phase occurs when graduate students begin growing peer relationships in the department through coursework (Weidman et al., 2001; Gardner, 2007). Coursework can offer graduate students the opportunity to connect with peers with similar research interests that would then be helpful for navigating other aspects of the graduate program (Gardner, 2007). Coursework serves as a mechanism to learn both disciplinary content to navigate the program since peers became a resource for graduate students to ask questions even more than their advisor (Gardner, 2007). Examples of other aspects of the graduate program can include insights on advisor and committee selection. Although graduate-level coursework has been largely understudied, coursework has been viewed as a valuable tool for providing graduate students with feedback through assessments (Keup et al., 2023) and can serve as a checkpoint for graduate student progress (Baneres et al., 2019).

Finally, students enter the candidacy phase only when they have demonstrated themselves as an independent scholar to their committee and are deemed ready to embark on projects on their own. The candidacy phase occurs when graduate students create a personal identity with their research (Weidman et al., 2001; Gardner, 2007). Also known as the comprehensive or qualifying exam (Furstenberg and Nichols-Casebolt, 2001), the doctoral candidacy exam has been a predominant milestone within the United States for over a century and was invented to transition those who pass from being PhD students into being PhD candidates (Walker et al., 2009; Guloy et al., 2020). Students who become candidates are then considered to have a mastery of the field and the skills required to be successful in future projects (Furstenberg and Nichols-Casebolt, 2001; McLaughlin et al., 2023). Therefore, the original role of the doctoral candidacy exam has been to ensure that students are on-track to accomplish and communicate innovative scholarship for their dissertation defence (Posselt and Liera, 2022).

The role of belonging in doctoral education

Recent work examining the experiences of historically marginalized groups pursuing doctoral degrees has showed that learning entails less socialization and more belonging, which considers the dynamic interaction of social structures, norms, contexts, and experiences (Blockett et al., 2016; Burt, 2020; Jeong et al., 2020). Twale et al. (2016) explored how historically marginalized graduate students may not receive adequate resource distribution since fewer faculty mentors advocate for their success. Imbalances between graduate students and their faculty advisors can often “reify dynamics of oppression and inequity daily” (Bettencourt et al., 2021, 238). Power dynamics between faculty advisors and their students; junior faculty advisors and tenured faculty advisors; and faculty advisors and funding sources further complicate the amount of mentorship that graduate students receive leading up to the dissertation defence, often causing graduate students to leave the program prematurely because when graduate students learn about the practices of the discipline, they are also learning where they problematically [may not] fit in it (Brodin, 2018).

Studies focused on doctoral attrition have discussed this phenomenon as, “all-but-dissertation” or ABD, whereby most of the graduate students who leave graduate programs do so right before they begin writing their dissertation or before doing their formal defence (Sowell et al., 2015; Hanson et al., 2022). The dissertation defence has a well-documented role in serving as the final gatekeeping mechanism within doctoral training (Feldon et al., 2022) because faculty conceptualize the dissertation less as an opportunity for graduate students to exercise agency and more of an opportunity for labour and exploitation through publications (Smaldone et al., 2019; Feldon et al., 2022). Graduate students most vulnerable to ABD are women of colour, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, people who are first-generation college students, and people who are older than the average graduate student (Xu, 2014; Hanson et al., 2022; Johnson, 2022; Wilkins-Yel et al., 2022).

Chemistry doctoral training in the United States

Beginning in 1866, the first chemistry doctoral programs in the United States were based on the success of teaching laboratories in Germany and have rapidly changed leading into the 21st century with the creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950 and the American Chemical Society's 2012 report on advancing graduate education (Harshman, 2021). Harshman (2021) outlined in an extensive literature review the eight major themes that have emerged related to doctoral training: (1) it is overly specialized; (2) it does not prepare students well for trajectories outside of academia; (3) it does not prepare students to be teachers; (4) it may not be meeting demands of workforce needs; (5) it has been largely unchanged from decades past; (6) it is heavily influenced by single-project funding; (7) it has not considered what it means to be an independent scientist in the past century; and (8) it is not based on empirical investigations of best pedagogical practices. Overall, the consensus is chemistry doctoral training has much area for improvement.

Many studies that have examined doctoral training in chemistry have approached it by understanding the experiences of graduate students (Nardo, 2021; Cui and Harshman, 2023). For example, Nardo (2021) performed a narrative analysis to reveal how the experiences a Latinx student had contributed to her professional development as a PhD chemist. Furthermore, Cui and Harshman (2023) found that power dynamics shape the advisor-advisee relationship and graduate students often feared upsetting their advisor close to their dissertation defence. Other studies have used a combination of faculty and graduate student experiences to motivate systemic change within chemistry departments (Stachl et al., 2019; Brauer et al., 2022; Liera et al., 2023). For instance, Stachl et al. (2019) employed a survey to motivate grassroots efforts to change the academic climate of their chemistry department. Brauer et al. (2022) investigated the mismatch between faculty advisors and doctoral students on academic values related to publishing academic papers. Finally, Liera et al. (2023) performed a case study with a middle-ranked chemistry program to address the format of their candidacy exam. The candidacy exam was then reimagined to conform to standards of the 15-page, National Science Foundation (NSF) proposal and 10-page, National Institutes of Health (NIH) structure. Recent work has examined the learning goals of doctoral training as highlighted by the graduate student handbook, taking a structural approach to assess the degree that chemistry graduate programs implement backwards design principles (Donkor and Harshman, 2023). Drawing from participants in lab-based STEM fields, Wright (2023) offered that using methods like institutional ethnography that draw from interviews with people and analysis of policies can showcase how institutions are organized. Thus, to understand how chemistry doctoral training teaches graduate students to learn how to become PhD chemists, it's important to understand how aligned policies and faculty perspectives are within an institution.

Purpose and research question

Because socialization theory may ignore how context plays an immediate role in realizing a person's pathway into a community, especially for Black graduate students (Burt, 2020) and other graduate Students of Colour from historically marginalized backgrounds (Jeong et al., 2020), this study draws theoretically from Yuval-Davis’ framework the politics of belonging and methodologically from Porter and colleague's institutional critique. This qualitative study seeks to understand how a chemistry graduate program professionally develops their graduate students through the graduate program milestones. The goal is presented in the following research question:

• How do the graduate milestones in doctoral training (re)produce boundaries for belonging?

Theoretical framework: the politics of belonging

Belonging has long been acknowledged as a fundamental human need to satisfy (Baumeister and Leary, 1995) and has been largely associated with theories of socialization of graduate Students of Colour (Winkle-Wagner et al., 2010; Blockett et al., 2016). Socialization theory considers that every person, regardless of background, can learn to become part of a community (Levine and Moreland, 1994; Weidman et al., 2001; Maccoby, 2007; Grusec and Hastings, 2014). Here, learning is defined as acquiring the practices (i.e., roles, values, engagement) necessary to belong to a community through interactions with others in the community (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Gillies and Ashman, 2013). As an alternative to socialization theory, learning is understood as a process of becoming where becoming involves the integration of knowing and performing in professional ways of being (Dall’Alba, 2009), which acknowledges the resources available to author one's becoming. The apprenticeship model that underpins socialization theory to describe how graduate students learn in graduate education does not consider access to apprenticeship (Winkle-Wagner et al., 2010). Affordances of learning as becoming instead reimagine the relationship between faculty and graduate students as mentorship rather than apprenticeship (Perez et al., 2020). By considering the mechanism for learning as mentorship instead of apprenticeship, graduate students can be trained not as carbon-copies of their advisors, but as stewards of their own professional development.

Belonging and learning

Allen et al. (2021) describe four components to belonging: (1) motivations to belong (inner drive); (2) perceptions of belonging (positive or negative experiences when connecting); (3) competencies for belonging (skills and abilities); and (4) opportunities to belong (enablers, removal/reduction of barriers). Overall, motivations to belong and perceptions of belonging have been well documented (Leary and Kelly, 2009; Walton and Brady, 2017; Nelson, 2021), but competencies for belonging and opportunities to belong have been less explored. Competencies for belonging necessitate having the skills that enable a person to connect whereby opportunities to belong necessitate the availability of opportunities a person has to connect.

Acknowledging competencies for belonging and opportunities to belong, Yuval-Davis (2006) offered a framework to understand belonging as the dynamic interaction of how people learn to be part of social structures, norms, contexts, and experiences. Nira Yuval-Davis’ (2006) work is situated in sociology and explores gender, nationalism, racism, citizenship, and belonging through an intersectional lens. Belonging was defined as an emotional attachment to feeling “at home” and “safe” (2006, 197) whereas the politics of belonging referred to how that emotional attachment can be threatened and unrealized. The goals of the article will focus on the latter. Given that learning is understood as a process of belonging (Gillies and Ashman, 2013), the politics of belonging is concerned with the boundaries of a community. Boundaries themselves define “imagined communities” (2006, 204), which represent the entirety of a community and its practices. Imagined communities are preserved through boundary maintenance, which manifests as the ways in which power hegemonically reproduces boundaries through policies and policy agents (i.e., people who write and enact policies). The interaction between policies and policy agents can reproduce imbalances in power, creating stratification within the imagined community known as membership and citizenship.

Belonging and legitimacy

Within an imagined community, Yuval-Davis (2006) continued that membership consists of the minimum requirement of simply being in a community whereas citizenship consists of realized access to resources that provide power. People can only transition from members to citizens when they are granted power by others within the imagined community. Typically, policies describe membership whereas policy agents prescribe citizenship. Consequently, belonging is not just about being a member of a community but also being allowed to be a citizen of that community (Yuval-Davis, 2006). Citizenship involves having the opportunity for membership to be legitimized, which occurs when members assimilate to the norms and practices of a community.

Thus, legitimization is granted when others with power in an imagined community recognize how members have assimilated the practices of that imagined community to belong. Members who do not assimilate are typically excluded from citizenship as they threaten the imagined community and are disenfranchised from resources that have power to shape the imagined community. Members are typically excluded from citizenship based on identities and ethical and political values that manifest intersectionally across race, socioeconomic status, gender, nationality, and other social locations. Ultimately, the goal of the study is to understand how the graduate program milestones in doctoral training (re)produce boundaries that privilege certain competencies and disallow opportunities for citizenship. Exploration of these boundaries can reveal how the imagined community of chemists and/or higher education in chemistry excludes groups based on intersecting social locations like race, socioeconomic status, gender, nationality, and additional intersecting social locations. Boundary maintenance of an imagined community can be realized by exploring how policies and policy agents interact through a methodology called institutional critique.

Methodology: institutional critique

Originating from rhetoric/composition, institutional critique is an activist methodology that posits how institutions can be changed through rhetorical action (Porter et al., 2000). Rhetorical action is the use of language to persuade, inform, or inspire people and is shaped through power (Agboka, 2021). As a rhetorical system, institutions exercise power through discursive ambiguity, referring to the degree of alignment between documents and people, summarized together as writings. Alignment occurs in various degrees, whereby alignment between writings refers to (1) the extent to which documents describe; and (2) the extent to which people uphold the expectations set within the documents. For the purposes of this article, extent of alignment was evaluated as: alignment, misalignment, and ambiguous. Misalignment between writings lead to boundaries that can intersectionally exclude groups across race, socioeconomic status, gender, nationality, and other social locations. As a methodology, institutional critique requires an in-depth analysis of how misalignment causes harmful power dynamics for excluded groups, which is best served with one research context (Porter et al., 2000). Consequently, the goal of institutional critique is to map boundaries and unpack how boundaries contribute to systemic exclusion and oppression. Boundaries can be mapped through postmodern mapping, which is a practice of representing relationships and positions visually (Peeples, 1999). For example of a postmodern mapping see (Peeples, 1999).

Relationality statement and study context

Drawing from a decolonizing education lens, relationality means research is situated contextually and is grounded in the braided histories of people, place, and purpose (Patel, 2015). As a white Cuban American cis-woman, I recognized the importance of shared, consistent community and mentorship. Although I had my own setbacks in my own chemistry graduate program, I recognized how my privilege as a white, Cuban American cis-woman afforded me the ability to navigate white spaces and receive resources that align with my proximity to whiteness. Interacting with faculty members, I was often perceived as white American, which I believe disarmed them when discussing charged topics, especially related to race. For the study, I collected interviews with graduate students, faculty, staff, and administrators as well as documents from the graduate student handbook and graduate student website. I present the results from the interviews with faculty, staff, and administrators as well as documents from the chemistry graduate student handbook and departmental website to understand the graduate student milestones themselves by employing ethnographic description. The data presented from the lived experiences of the graduate students will be reserved for a separate study, but examples can be seen in Nardo 2021. The IRB-approved study took place in a public R-1, Midwestern university (pseudonymized as Peony University) in the United States that was established through the Morrill Land-Grant Act of 1862, which settled 30 000 acers of land to teach agricultural sciences and engineering.

Data sources and data analysis

Drawing from Yuval-Davis’ politics of belonging (2006) and Porter and colleagues’ institutional critique (2000), I assert the institution under critique is the chemistry graduate program at Peony University. I collected the data Fall 2019–Summer 2020, which coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the height of national attention to the BLM (Black Lives Matter) Movement and can serve as comparison of chemistry doctoral training during precedented and unprecedented times. Data consisted of writings in the form of the 2019 version of the graduate student handbook (there was no handbook in 2020) and departmental website; as well as interviews with policy agents that included faculty (n = 5), staff (n = 3), and administrators (n = 2). For the policies, I identified documents from the departmental website that described the goals of each graduate student milestones along with the handbook language that was made available to graduate students in the department and written by faculty, staff, and administrators. For the policy agents, I conducted 60-minute interviews where I asked the participants their role in the department, history of the graduate student milestones, and specific questions about each of the graduate student milestones (For example: How do you determine if a graduate student is ready to defend their dissertation?). For the policy agents who were faculty, I recruited participants who could provide insight from each departmental division (i.e., analytical chemistry, biochemistry, chemistry education, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and physical chemistry). All data was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB ID no. 1907022455) and participants provided informed consent that included lack of member-checking (Hallett, 2013). Table 1 summarizes the policy agent, role, and years of service.

Table 1 Policy agent, role, and years of service

Policy agent role in the department		Years of service
Andrew	Administrator who works to coordinate between graduate students, faculty, staff, and external bodies like the Graduate School.	∼2 years
Amanda	Administrator who works closely with Andrew as well as with graduate students.	∼20 years
Suzy	Staff member who works to support communication among graduate students, faculty, administrators, and external bodies like the Graduate School.	∼30 years
Stella	Staff member who works to advise undergraduate and graduate students in the department of chemistry, especially involving student issues with faculty.	∼20 years
Sarah	Staff member who works as a liaison between administrators and graduate students in the department of chemistry.	∼3 years
Fred	Faculty advisor who works closely with graduate students across analytical chemistry and physical chemistry.	∼15 years
Frank	Faculty advisor who works closely with graduate students across inorganic chemistry and biochemistry.	∼20 years
Fiona	Faculty advisor who works closely with graduate students across biochemistry and organic chemistry.	∼5 years
Felipe	Faculty advisor who works closely with graduate students across physical chemistry and chemical education.	∼10 years
Fitzgerald	Faculty advisor who works closely with graduate students across biochemistry, organic chemistry, and analytical chemistry.	∼3 years

---

I then used NVivo 10, a qualitative coding software, to organize the data by graduate student milestone and examined the misalignment between the policy and policy agents (i.e., writings) as dictated by institutional critique (Porter et al., 2000). The misalignments between the writings were then conceptualized as boundaries for “competencies for belonging” and “opportunities for belonging” for the imagined community of chemists holding doctoral degrees from Peony University. Finally, I mapped boundaries based on the alignment between the writings that could be exclusionary across race, socioeconomic status, gender, nationality, and other intersecting social locations using postmodern mapping (Peeples, 1999). The constructs of membership and citizenship are showcased within the postmodern mapping of the graduate student milestones to indicate what resources afford membership and which afford citizenship. Fig. 1 visualises the relationship of the theoretical framework, methodology, and data sources.

Fig. 1 Illustrates the relationships among all the constructs in the theory and methodology.

Findings

The findings draw from the common graduate student milestones identified in the literature review: (1) admissions, (2) coursework, (3) candidacy exam, (4) dissertation defence as well as two additional graduate student milestones specific to the research context: (1) preliminary exams and (2) seminar. The findings will be ordered as: admissions milestone, preliminary exam milestone, coursework milestone, candidacy exam milestone, seminar milestone, and dissertation defence milestone. Each milestone will describe ethnographic context generated from the data, present analysis of policies (i.e., documents from graduate student handbook and departmental website), policy agents (i.e., interviews with faculty, administrators, and staff), and boundary maintenance (i.e., descriptions of membership and citizenship). See Table 2 for a summary of the milestones and their short descriptions.

Table 2 Milestones and description

Milestone	Description
Admissions	When graduate students accept their formal offer
Preliminary exam	When graduate students take chemistry content-area exams
Coursework	When graduate students take graduate-level classes
Seminar	When graduate students present literature or their own research
Candidacy exam	When graduate students undergo an oral and written presentation to become doctoral candidates
Dissertation defence	When graduate students defend the culmination of their research projects

---

Admissions milestone

The admissions milestone refers to the process used to determine which students will be accepted into Peony University. Recruitment takes place between September through October where applications are then reviewed between October till early January. Applications should have transcripts from their undergraduate institution, three letters of recommendation, academic statement of purpose, personal history statement, resume or curriculum vitae, English proficiency scores (international students only), and application fee. Applications are each ranked by two faculty members. If the two faculty agree positively, the applicant becomes a prospective student and if faculty agree negatively, the applicant is rejected. Disagreements between faculty are sorted as borderline cases for the final admissions committee leaders to decide. Acceptance letters are sent out to prospective students in February and prospective graduate students visit the campus in March to inform their decision. Prospective graduate students have until about April to decide if they would like to accept the offer and start research either in the Summer (dependent on funding) or the Fall. Graduate students who accept begin orientation in early August.

Policy. On the departmental website, prospective graduate students are expected to have:

The Departmental website also has an emphasis on recruitment of historically marginalized students by building critical mass in their listed objectives from the diversity initiative plan:

The policy documents imply that all students can apply to the graduate program even if they don’t have a chemistry major as long as they have the coursework needed for the graduate program. There is no elaboration on the departmental website what the desirable math and physics courses are nor the minimum grade-point average (GPA) at the time. The diversity initiatives imply that Peony University maintains relationships with universities in Puerto Rico to foster a diverse candidate pool.

Policy agents. Andrew explains the requirements for admissions:

When asked about the admissions policies on the departmental website, Andrew offered:

Considering recruitment protocols for diversity, Amanda explained:

When asked about how diversity is maintained in the admission application process, Amanda added:

The policy agents express there is a minimum GPA that is expected of applicants as well as a major in chemistry, biology, or physics. The courses that would be most desired are from physics majors. Accordingly, diversity is maintained in the application process mostly from the graduate Students of Colour organization who recruit applicants while the faculty monitor the ratio of students from historically marginalized backgrounds and select who they consider the best from those subgroups. Finally, a fee waiver is provided for students to apply if they attend recruitment events or know to ask for them.

Boundary maintenance. Comparing writings, misalignment exists between the policies and policy agents for admissions requirements and standards for maintaining diversity. Membership is granted to graduate students who meet the minimum requirements set by the policy documents (i.e., having 35 hours of chemistry coursework), but the policy agents have the power to grant citizenship to graduate students who have competencies for belonging in biology and physics over fields like performing arts and anthropology despite also having the chemistry coursework. In terms of opportunities to belong, other graduate Students of Colour are mostly supporting the department to recruit historically marginalized students rather than putting the emphasis to maintain relationships with universities like in Puerto Rico on the department. The admissions committee evaluates the ratios of student groups, prioritizing the ‘very best” although many of the applicants who are from historically marginalized backgrounds are “usually better” than their counterparts, which consist of the male, white students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Nevertheless, there is no mention of non-binary students or transgender graduate students in terms of seeking gender parity according to Amanda. The use of the fee waiver is also meant to support graduate students from low-income backgrounds to apply, but graduate students must know to ask for the fee waivers which creates a boundary for graduate students who may not have the experience to know. Based on these misalignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship occurs by policy agents having the power to legitimize only certain graduate students. Therefore, exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized students reinforce the imagined community of chemists and are reproduced in the admissions milestone across race, socioeconomic background, generation status, and gender (Barber et al., 2021; Cadena et al., 2023).

Preliminary exam milestone

The preliminary exam milestone refers to chemistry-content assessments given to students within their first two years of the graduate program. The chemistry-content assessments cover analytical chemistry, biochemistry, organic inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and physical chemistry. Each year, there are 10 opportunities to take each of the five chemistry-content assessments of which five are given in the first semester [Fall] (16-weeks) and five are given in the second semester [Spring] (16-weeks), totalling 20 opportunities with 100 chemistry-content assessments for years one and two. Within each chemistry-content assessment, graduate students are given a combination of research articles to read and chemistry content questions to answer; however, variation in format exists among and within the divisions. Each chemistry-content assessment contains an exam for each of the divisions, so graduate students may take as many exams in each division as they can complete in two hours. Graduate students must pass five chemistry-content assessments within their first two years of the program. The five passing scores can be attained in any of the examination areas; therefore, a student could pass all their exams in one chemistry-content assessment or a combination of different chemistry-content assessments. For example, a student might sit for one opportunity and pass organic and biochemistry chemistry-content assessments, amounting to 2/5 passes needed. Excluding physical chemistry, each division curves their passing scores, meaning the passing score changes depending on how other graduate students perform on the chemistry-content assessment. Graduate students are typically notified of passing before taking the next chemistry-content assessments.

Policy. The graduate handbook specifies that the primary objectives of the preliminary exams are:

On the departmental website, graduate students are told there are three types of exams:

The departmental website also offers graduate students how to prepare for exams by reading articles, talking to peers, and taking chemistry courses:

The policy documents suggest the preliminary exam milestone is a learning experience for graduate students in that they will have opportunities to apply their fundamental knowledge of chemistry to reading articles and receive feedback on how they are performing on those skills. The objectives of the preliminary exam milestone are to evaluate critical thinking in chemistry to provide feedback opportunities on places where graduate students are underperforming. There are many resources to study for the preliminary exams that are all valuable for passing the exams such as reading articles, talking to peers, and taking chemistry courses. Graduate students have plenty of approaches to learning and refining their process.

Policy agents. Andrew explains the objectives of the preliminary exams when asked about their purpose in the department:

Fred corroborates Andrew's premise that some faculty view the purpose of the preliminary exam as a weed out process. When asked about why Peony University has the preliminary exams, Fred says:

Fiona presents a conflicting point to Fred's regarding the preliminary exams. When asked how she supports her graduate students to study for the preliminary exams, Fiona explains:

When asked how graduate students prepare for the preliminary exams, Suzy describes the process for grading:

The policy agents express that the preliminary exam milestone is viewed as a “weed out” tool by policy agent Andrew due to what is perceived as an imperfect admissions system as articulated by Fred. Although only explicitly stated by Fred, the admission system itself is imperfect as it considers additional factors like diversity. However, other policy agents like Fiona explain how the preliminary exam milestone is random in how they assess chemistry content since it would be hard to study for them without knowing who is writing the assessment. Suzy adds that the chemistry-content assessments are sometimes not returned to graduate students before the next opportunity, nor do they often have written feedback (i.e., writings in the margins).

Boundary maintenance. Comparing writings, misalignment exists between the policies and policy agents for the preliminary exam milestone. The policies describe that membership is granted to graduate students who are learning from and passing the preliminary exams; however, the policy agents dictate that citizenship in terms of a passing the preliminary exams is not clearly defined by faculty who write the exams. For example, Fred offers that the reason why the preliminary exams exist in the department is because the admission system is not perfect and there are considerations such as diversity that Fred does not consider to be merit-based. Here, Fred is dichotomizing competency and diversity, suggesting that diversity considerations negatively impact the admissions system based on perceived merit. Additionally, Fred mentions the purpose of curving the preliminary exams is to make sure that students are not “complacent” in learning the material but are instead motivated to score better than their peers. Although there are no specific competencies for belonging elucidated, the competencies for belonging are valued in relation to other peers. Suzy mentions that the feedback that graduate students receive for the preliminary exams they take are not usually given to them with enough time for them to prepare for the next opportunity. Suzy also says that most faculty don’t operate under the expectation that the chemistry-content assessments are very related to each other, meaning this the preliminary exams do not serve as formative or active learning opportunities since faculty rarely write feedback. In terms of opportunities for belonging, graduate students usually need to be part of a peer network as Fiona pointed out to “game the system” because the chemistry-content assessments are “random.” Based on these misalignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship occurs by policy agents having the power to legitimize only certain graduate students. Therefore, exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized students reinforce the imagined community of chemists and are reproduced in the preliminary exam milestone through the utilization of a curve; and the reliance on peer networks have traditionally disenfranchised women, Students of Colour, members of the LGBTQ+ community, first-generation students, and students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds (Sowell et al., 2015; Barber et al., 2021; Cech and Waidzunas, 2021; Cadena et al., 2023).

Coursework milestone

The coursework milestone refers to the number of classes and type of classes that graduate students take to support their development in advanced chemistry disciplines. Graduate students are required to take a minimum of 18-credit hours, which is roughly 6 courses with three credits each. Incoming graduate students who have received their Masters degree may be eligible to transfer 9-credit hours (i.e., three courses) at the discretion of the department and graduate school. All graduate students must take 9-credit hours (i.e., three courses) within their chemistry-content area and 9-credit hours outside of their chemistry-content area. For example, a graduate student in the physical chemistry division must take 9-credit hours in physical chemistry coursework such as computation, thermodynamics, and quantum chemistry as well as 9-credit hours in analytical, biochemistry, organic, inorganic, and/or chemistry education coursework. The course structure is semestrial (i.e., roughly 14 weeks) and the content is at the discretion of the faculty member teaching the course. The graduate student must maintain a minimum GPA of 2.5 out of a 4.0 scale at the end of the first two semesters of graduate study to continue in the graduate program. Graduate students are able to take coursework throughout their time in the graduate program; however, to pass candidacy (occurring roughly Fall of Year 3) the graduate student needs to have at minimum taken the 9-credit hours in their chemistry-content area.

Policy. The graduate student handbook indicates that the faculty advisor and advisory committee have an involved role in devising graduate students’ “Plan of Study,” which refers mainly to the coursework graduate students take:

Additionally, the graduate student handbook also indicates that there is oversight in how courses are structured:

The policy documents suggest two key features: (1) the faculty advisor and advisory committee play major roles in developing a Plan of Study and (2) the course offerings for each semester are observed by each division and the department head. The faculty advisor and the advisory committee are responsible for actively consulting with the graduate student to make sure the courses provide the best trajectory for the graduate student. The courses themselves also have oversight from the division and the department head and approved at least one semester in advance of the course being offered.

Policy agents. When asked about the number of credits that graduate students need to complete and their Plan of Study, Andrew offers:

In contrast, Fitzgerald says the following when asked about advisory committee support for coursework:

When asked about how courses are created in the department, Fiona explains how she decides the objectives of the graduate courses she teaches:

Felipe shares a similar sentiment with Fiona and mentions how he supports graduate students taking graduate courses to read and write science when asked about how he teaches the graduate courses:

The policy agents express that although the process of selecting coursework has become more automated than in previous years for the advisory committee (i.e., policy agent Andrew), the advisor does play a significant role in (1) supporting students to select courses that align with research; and (2) consider coursework as an opportunity to learn about reading, writing, and sharing science. The courses themselves are largely dependent on the faculty who are teaching them.

Boundary maintenance. Comparing writings, ambiguous alignment exists between the policies and policy agents for the coursework milestone. The policies describe that membership is granted by the advisory committee (faculty advisor and participating faculty) who determine the courses that the graduate students take. Although Andrew mentioned how the coursework selection process does not usually involve the complete advisory committee, Fitzgerald, Fiona, and Felipe said they mentor their graduate students on what courses to select as well as mentor graduate students in how to engage in the culture of chemistry. Because the faculty advisor is part of the advisory committee then citizenship and membership are aligned. In terms of competencies for belonging, Fitzgerald explained how he wants to support his graduate students to select coursework that aligns with the research they plan to pursue. Fiona corroborates Fitzgerald and adds that reading, writing, and sharing science are important competencies for belonging that she imparts to her graduate students taking the graduate courses that she teaches. In accordance, Fiona noted that other faculty who teach graduate courses only value the chemistry content that can be applied for passing the preliminary exams, which she deemed to be “wasting the potential to learn about like the culture of chemistry.” In terms of opportunities for belonging, Felipe distinguished that he teaches aspects of reading and writing that he acknowledges that other faculty overlook such as the grammar, punctuation, and word choice given that he was an international student whose first language was not English. Based on these alignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship occurs by both learning and legitimacy that support the policies and policy agents. Nevertheless, exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized students exist in the coursework milestone reinforce the imagined community of chemists and can be reproduced in terms of English proficiency, which may disenfranchise international graduate students, graduate students whose first language is not English, graduate students who grew up with a different grammar system such as Appalachian, Spanglish, or Black/African American vernacular (AAVE), and graduate students with disabilities. Based on these misalignments identified, the acknowledgement that graduate students should read, write, and disseminate chemistry in English but the disregard in universally teaching these practices reinforces whiteness and western values in chemistry (Sowell et al., 2015; Barber et al., 2021; Cech and Waidzunas, 2021; Cadena et al., 2023).

Candidacy exam milestone

The candidacy exam milestone refers to the assessment that graduate students undergo usually by the end of their fifth semester (Fall semester of their third year) of the graduate program unless an extension is granted by the Graduate Studies Committee. The candidacy exam has two distinct components: the written proposal and the oral presentation. The written proposal should be turned into the department approximately 14 business days prior to scheduling the oral presentation. Copies of the written proposal must be provided to each advisory committee member along with an additional copy for the department. To become a doctoral candidate, graduate students must have completed their preliminary exams, pertinent coursework, and successfully defended the written proposal as well as the oral presentation. Graduate students who do not complete the candidacy exam successfully are either asked to reattempt, complete a Master's, or leave the graduate program.

Policy. The graduate student handbook explicates the candidacy exam should have the following format for the written proposal:

The graduate student handbook also mentions how the structure of the oral presentation should go for the graduate students as well as the required attire:

Finally, the graduate student handbook describes the process following the candidacy exam whereby the graduate student can discuss with the advisory committee how they can be further supported in the graduate program by the department and/or their academic advisor:

The policy documents imply that there is a distinct outline for how to write the written proposal by having a statement of the problem, hypothesis to be tested, significance, evidenced superiority to other approaches, expected difficulties and solutions, as well as accomplishments from the proposed solutions. Additionally, the policy documents highlight how the oral presentation is a formal occasion whereby graduate students should dress professionally and serves as an opportunity for the graduate student to discuss the written proposal and general research with their advisory committee. Finally, following the oral presentation, the graduate student is meant to meet with the advisory committee excluding their academic advisor to discuss any issues about their experience in graduate school thus far.

Policy agents. When asked about how originality is determined by faculty, Frank says:

Fitzgerald supports Frank's ambivalence on how the candidacy exam is structured for the written proposal when asked to what extent the written proposal can be related to research:

In terms of the oral presentation, Fred describes some of the dynamics that exist within the advisory board to determine whether or not a graduate student passes:

These dynamics also exist between graduate students and their advisory committee. When asked about any challenges related to the candidacy exam mentioned by graduate students, Stella explains:

Accordingly, Stella adds her insights about the advisory committee meeting following the oral presentation:

When asked about how graduate students are advised to select faculty to serve on their advisory committee, Fiona shares that sometimes graduate students select advisory committee members based on a variety of factors:

The policy agents implied that there is variation in how the written proposal should be written in terms of length and in style. The length of the proposal ranges by division from 5 pages to 40 pages and have priorities regarding whether the idea for the written proposal should be problem-oriented or technique-oriented. Similarly, the idea for the written proposal has variable input from the faculty advisor according to Fitzgerald whereby some faculty try to help their graduate students by having the idea for the written proposal relate somewhat to their lab research. In terms of the oral presentation, Fred and Stella noted that aside from the graduate students’ presentation, there are dynamics such as tenure status and attire that impact whether graduate students will pass. Finally, Fiona explained that factors like gender, race, and ethnicity factor into how students select advisory committee members.

Boundary maintenance. Comparing writings, misalignment exists between the policies and the policy agents for the candidacy exam milestone. The policies describe that membership is granted to graduate students who follow the written proposal outline of having a statement of the problem, hypothesis to be tested, significance, evidenced superiority to other approaches, expected difficulties and solutions, as well as accomplishments from the proposed solutions. However, citizenship through passing the candidacy exam milestone is granted by the faculty advisors and advisory committee. Frank notes that the graduate students have their written proposals evaluated by the advisory committee from preferences between problem-oriented ideas and technique-oriented ideas. Therefore, competencies for belonging are determined by whether the graduate student can correctly anticipate what their advisory committee is looking for despite the advisory committee having inconsistent preferences. Accordingly, the policy document states that the idea for the written proposal must originate with the graduate student, but Fitzgerald explains that some faculty help their graduate students with the idea by relating it to their current research. Graduate students who have faculty advisors with this mentality have more opportunities for belonging than graduate students who don’t have these faculty advisors because the graduate student has the support of the faculty advisor. Similarly, Fred shared that he could assert his power as a full professor over non-tenured faculty to grant citizenship to graduate students by passing their candidacy exam. Concerningly, Fred also shares that some faculty will pre-determine whether or not they want a graduate student to pass candidacy regardless of the written proposal or oral presentation. Excerpts from Fred imply that competencies for belonging and opportunities for belonging are determined by the faculty advisor and advisory committee. Moreover, Stella explains that even what is considered appropriate attire is at the discretion of the advisory committee and not fully determined by the graduate student. Although the policy mentioning there is a counselling session following the oral presentation, Stella explains that the graduate students often feel “torn down” and are not able to talk about their grievances in that moment because they are scared. She finds that even if the graduate student passes the candidacy exam milestone, the actual event itself often contributes to their unhappiness and interest in leaving the graduate program. Fiona mentions that the advisory committee is a “big factor of whether or not you will pass [the candidacy exam] even if you have a good presentation and proposal,” presumably because of the dynamics among advisory committee members that Fred mentioned. As a result, Fiona acknowledges that she is asked to be on graduate students’ committees because she shares the same gender with graduate students, which she notes is similar for faculty who are from additional historically marginalized groups like first-generation scholars or BIPOC scholars. Based on these misalignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship occurs by policy agents having the power to legitimize only certain graduate students. Therefore exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized graduate students reinforce the imagined community and are reproduced if they cannot find advisory committee members that they are comfortable with and/or shared social location with such as gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, first-generation status, socioeconomic status, disability, LGBTQ+ community membership, and/or other systems of power especially given how much influence the advisory committee has on passing the candidacy exam milestone (Sowell et al., 2015; Barber et al., 2021; Cech and Waidzunas, 2021; Cadena et al., 2023).

Seminar milestone

The seminar milestone consists of a presentation either of literature or research findings that graduate students present in their divisional seminars that can last between 25 minutes to 50 minutes depending on the division. The exact criteria for the seminar are decided by each division. The seminar is open to people within the division, department, university, and even family or friends of the graduate student who is presenting. The seminar can occur any time after the graduate student has completed their first year in the program and is worth one credit hour to be graded.

Policy. The graduate student handbook explicates the following requirements:

The policy documents state the seminar requirements are entirely decided by the division and thus vary by division whereby the timing and content of the seminar must be approved by the advisory committee and the faculty member who is coordinating the divisional seminar for the semester in which the graduate student presents.

Policy agents. When asked about why the seminar requirements are different for each division, Amanda explains:

Felipe supports Amanda's claims about it being a learning experience for graduate students:

When asked about how students prepare for seminar, Fred explains how weekly group meetings are formative for graduate students to eventually work up to seminar:

The policy agents have described how the divisional differences exist because it is meant to be tailored for where the graduate student is in terms of research. The policy agents showcased how the seminar milestone is understood by faculty as a learning experience for graduate students whereby they provide opportunities to practice presentations in their group meetings. As Fred mentioned, the seminar is something that graduate students will have plenty of opportunities to either see or do.

Boundary maintenance. Comparing writings, alignment exists between the policies and policy agents for the seminar milestone. The policies describe that membership is granted to graduate students who give an oral presentation according to their division standards, which is consistent with how the policy agents conceptualize the seminar milestone. Therefore, membership and citizenship are aligned. Amanda, Felipe, and Fred explain that the seminar milestone is seen as a learning experience for graduate students given that they can practice it formatively during their group meetings. In terms of competencies for belonging, if the graduate student delivers any the presentation on their research or literature then they can equally pass the seminar requirement and receive feedback on their performances. There does not seem to be any restrictions on opportunities for belonging given that graduate students normatively receive an A for the semester they present for credit. Based on these alignments and misalignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship occurs by learning that aligns with the policies and policy agents. Therefore, there are no explicit exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized students in the seminar milestone that reinforce the imagined community of chemists that can be shown comparing writings. Given the presentation has to be in English, it may disenfranchise students whose first languages are not English; however, there have not been failed grades given for credit in seminar compared to the coursework milestone.

Dissertation defence milestone

The dissertation defence milestone is the final milestone that graduate students achieve in their journey to becoming PhD chemists. The dissertation defence takes place within a graduate student's final year of the graduate program by registering as a doctoral candidate for graduation. The dissertation itself is a written thesis that has a template given by the graduate school and could consist of a variety of formats depending on the department and division. To facilitate consistent formatting for the graduate school, a formatting appointment is required for graduate students to complete typically within three weeks of the oral defence. The oral defence is scheduled for two hours and can be either closed (i.e., only the graduate student and their advisory committee are present) or open i.e., the graduate student and advisory committee can invite people within the department, university, and even family or friends of the graduate student who is presenting. Passing is determined by the advisory committee following the oral presentation in a closed-door meeting with the graduate student; for open defences, the audience is asked to leave following questions. After completing the oral defence, graduate students make any final corrections to the written thesis and is approved with the thesis format advisor again. The written thesis should be deposited to the graduate school thesis office prior to the last day of classes for that semester.

Policy. The graduate student handbook describes the written thesis must have at least one published article in a peer-reviewed journal:

Accordingly, the graduate student handbook describes the oral defence in the following way:

The policy documents state that the written thesis must have at least one published, peer-reviewed article while the oral presentation describes how the graduate student will be assessed based on material from the written thesis as well as whatever topics the advisory committee is able to consider as related. The advisory committee consists of at least four faculty members but can have more that are not needed to be listed in a plan of study. Overall, there are very few details that describe what the actual written thesis and oral defence content should entail.

Policy agents. When asked about the pass rate for graduate students in their final defence, Andrew says:

Frank supports Andrew's idea that the graduate student defence is more of a rite of passage:

When asked how a faculty advisor knows when their graduate student is ready, Felipe shares:

Similarly, Fiona offers that also having a job lined up after graduation is a good indicator of readiness:

Fitzgerald has a contrasting opinion to Fiona's idea that jobs are an indicator of readiness:

Sarah describes some interactions she has had with graduate student regarding these discussions about faculty advisors determining readiness:

When asked about the written thesis and oral defence policies, Suzy provides a similar answer:

The policy agents describe the dissertation defence as a rite of passage that does not have high stakes given that rarely any graduate students fail their defence according to Andrew. Frank and Felipe explained that the faculty advisor would not allow a graduate student to reach their defence without having enough research to be successful. Fiona and Fitzgerald described factors that impact how they determine readiness for graduate students whether it be from a job lined up or finishing all research projects. Overall, Sarah and Suzy explained how the actual written thesis and oral defence are checkpoints that correspond with the graduate school but can be tailored to the graduate student at the discretion of the advisory committee.

Boundary maintenance. Comparing writings, ambiguous alignment exists between the policies and the policy agents for the dissertation defence milestone. To submit the written thesis and perform the oral defence, the policies and policy agents have aligned membership and citizenship in that if the graduate student met the requirements of having the dissertation in published form/manuscript published/in press to be published, as well as a related oral defence then the graduate student is able to pass the dissertation defence milestone. The format is in direct contrast to the candidacy exam milestone that grants citizenship based on factors not listed in the policy documents for membership. The policy agents describe independence, future job, or project completion as competencies for belonging leading up to the dissertation defence milestone with the caveat that the faculty advisor determines the criteria for those competencies. Based on these alignments and misalignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship is not clear because in some ways the transition occurs by learning that aligns with the policies and policy agents and in other ways the transition occurs by policy agents having the power to legitimize only graduate students who do not need to consider student visas, lapses in income, family planning, healthcare coverage, etc. Therefore, opportunities for belonging are limited by the faculty advisor for the graduate student, which could disfranchise historically marginalized students. Exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized students reinforce the imagined community of chemists and could be reproduced if the graduate student lacks compatibility with the faculty advisor, which has been highly documented in STEM for women, BIPOC students, first-generation students, students from the LGBTQ+ community, and students with disabilities (Sowell et al., 2015; Barber et al., 2021; Cech and Waidzunas, 2021; Cadena et al., 2023).

Summary of findings

In summary, this research sought to answer, “How do the graduate milestones in doctoral training (re)produce boundaries for belonging” by drawing on Yuval-Davis’ framework for belonging defined by competencies for belonging and opportunities for belonging that contribute to membership and citizenship. Specifically, institutional critique was then used to understand boundaries in belonging throughout the graduate milestones by noting the extent of alignment between writings (i.e., policies and policy agents) and how extent of alignment could reproduce exclusionary boundaries across race, socioeconomic status, gender, nationality, and other social locations to interpret the imagined community of chemists. The admissions milestone, preliminary exam milestone, and candidacy exam milestone have misalignment between the policies and policy agents whereas seminar milestone does have alignment between policy and policy agents that contribute to exclusionary boundaries; overall the coursework and dissertation defence milestones have ambiguous alignment (see Fig. 2). The findings highlight how despite having expectations for the graduate student milestones described in the policies, some policies are vague which allow policy agents like faculty to interpret the policies in ways that create exclusionary boundaries for belonging by only legitimatizing certain competencies for belonging or limiting the opportunities for belonging. Those exclusionary boundaries produce barriers for graduate students, and especially so for historically marginalized graduate students.

Fig. 2 Illustrates the postmodern mapping of the graduate student milestones.

Thus, the graduate milestones themselves do not serve as opportunities for socialization in the traditional sense because not all graduate students have access to the same resources. Considering the imagined community of chemists, excluding citizenship from graduate students who occupy these social locations contributes to the social stratification that exists in the professoriate and higher education broadly, whereby the wealthy elite in this country secure doctoral or terminal degrees in high-paying STEM fields (Posselt and Grodsky, 2017). Although the policies describe membership, graduate students were prescribed citizenship based on how the policy agents interpreted the policies. As a result of misalignment of writings for the admissions milestone, preliminary exam milestone, candidacy exam milestone, and partly the dissertation defence milestone, exclusionary boundaries could disenfranchise historically marginalized graduate students, especially when the competencies for belonging were centred around legitimacy rather than learning. For example, the seminar milestone was conceptualized as formative opportunities for graduate students to practice being chemists by communicating their research projects through a presentation and tailored for each graduate student depending on their division and their research. Consequently, the opportunities for belonging that graduate students had were based in learning as their experiences were appropriately differentiated. Accordingly, the coursework milestone was partly based in learning given that graduate students were also given formative opportunities to practice being chemists; however, exclusionary boundaries could still be reproduced, and in the case of the research context, English proficiency.

Furthermore, the admissions milestone, preliminary exam milestone, and candidacy exam milestones were perceived by the policy agents as opportunities for belonging only when graduate students demonstrated their legitimacy. The interplay between learning and legitimacy can be seen in the dissertation defence milestone where the actual logistics are conceptualized as low-stakes and an opportunity to display their learning. However, leading up to the dissertation defence milestone, the policy agents are looking for evidence of legitimacy from the graduate student through readiness for independence, career, or completion. This evidence of legitimacy is determined by the faculty advisor and only when recognized, the graduate student can finally receive their PhD Findings are not meant to present learning and legitimacy is diametrically opposed given that other frameworks have consolidated these constructs (e.g., Lave and Wenger, 1991; Calabrese Barton and Tan, 2020); however, when power over graduate students is greater than the power graduate students have themselves over their learning, such a problematic dichotomy can happen. Table 3 below summarizes the milestones, alignment, and boundary maintenance.

Table 3 Milestones, alignment, and boundary maintenance

Milestone	Extent of alignment	Boundary maintenance
Admissions	Misalignment	Legitimacy
Preliminary exam	Misalignment	Legitimacy
Coursework	Ambiguous	Learning & legitimacy
Candidacy exam	Misalignment	Legitimacy
Seminar	Alignment	Learning
Dissertation defence	Ambiguous	Learning & legitimacy

---

Discussion & implications

As aforementioned, the National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee outlined two major outcomes for all doctoral training programs to develop scientific literacy needed for original research and to develop professional skills necessary for communication and leadership (2018). According to the findings, doctoral training accomplishes these outcomes less through learning and more through legitimization that can reproduce exclusionary boundaries. The discussion below will contextualize how the findings highlight two problematic narratives in higher education: (1) the pervasiveness of neoliberalism (grit as merit) and (2) the perpetuation of systemic oppression (epistemic injustice).

Grit as merit: neoliberal politics

Neoliberalism in higher education refers to the process by which education is treated as a business and learning is viewed as transactional, often by applying market-driven models (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004; Cannella and Koro-Ljungberg, 2017). Specifically, Hammer and colleagues (2020) have described the culture of graduate education in STEM through a model of false scarcity, whereby unequal distribution of resources is not only the norm but also the intention. By creating false scarcity, the value of resources like grades are inflated and reduced as needed. Scarcity promotes hypercompetition and individualism as the only way that graduate students will learn through a meritocracy. However, the ideal of merit itself is socially constructed, contextualized, and challenged (Espeland and Sauder, 2007; Kraatz et al., 2020).

For example, the doctoral candidacy exam has been historically abstruse and unclear for students (Golde and Dore, 2001), and faculty tend to view the doctoral candidacy exam as an opportunity to implement ridiculously difficult exams to promote rigor (Guloy et al., 2020; Posselt and Liera, 2022). Using an ethnographic approach, Posselt (Posselt, 2014, 2016) has additionally found that what constitutes as academic readiness for graduate admissions is ever fluctuating and reflective of “faculty members’ nebulous, shifting ideals about student quality; how departmental, disciplinary, and personal priorities are woven into judgements of admissibility; and the implications of it all for the equity and the health of the academy” (Posselt, 2016, 2). Termed the “halo effect” (Paxton and Bollen, 2003; Villarreal et al., 2024), faculty strive to ensure ideals of merit by upholding unevaluated markers of prestige such as former university status, disadvantaging applicants who attend Minority Serving Institutions with majority BIPOC scholars (Villarreal et al., 2024). Therefore, the role of the doctoral candidacy exam has focused less on teaching students how to become practicing professionals and more on gatekeeping students in earning doctoral degrees (Feldon et al., 2022; Posselt and Liera, 2022). Ultimately, the combination of ambiguous language and tricky examinations has led to increased anxiety, depression, and other mental health concerns for graduate students (Posselt, 2021).

The findings highlight similar meritocratic ideas within the preliminary exam milestone whereby graduate students had to not only do well on the exam but also do better on the exam than their graduate student peers. Therefore, there is no incentive for graduate students to help each other study and prepare for the preliminary exams, creating exclusionary boundaries through false grade scarcity given that the physical chemistry division never enforced a curve (i.e., passing score above 50%). The findings from the preliminary exam milestone also showcase a reliance on grit and resilience, whereby graduate students should be accustomed to inconsistent and arbitrary expectations. Slater (2022) offered that normalizing resilience and grit only further contributes to social inequality because success is acknowledged only as overcoming certain barriers; however, racism, sexism, classism, and other systems of power are usually not understood as barriers because majority white, men often do not experience these barriers and discredit their role in disenfranchising historically marginalized students (Slater, 2022). Ultimately, most research on graduate admissions implicitly paints merit as an individual good—a characteristic that inheres in applicants to varying degrees according to possession of specific characteristics. As an alternative to resilience and grit, milestones like the preliminary exams should be reimagined as opportunities for formative assessment in which graduate students can learn through clear expectations as opposed to trial and error.

Equity without justice: epistemic injustice

A curriculum that does not foster diverse perspectives can socialize graduate students that ignore race, gender, language, culture, disability, socioeconomic status, and other exclusionary boundaries that then contribute to the imagined community of chemists. Gonzales et al. (2023) explained how epistemic injustice is pervasive within the U.S. doctoral education system through legitimacy politics since status often merits a person's status as a knower. Fricker (2007, 2017) first introduced the concept of epistemic injustice, denoting situations where knowledge is disregarded, which takes place in three forms: testimonial, hermeneutical, and contributory. In testimonial injustice, a person actively denies another person's audience/credibility as a knower while hermeneutical injustice describes when a person or an audience lacks the experiences, resources, and language to understand a knowledge claim (Fricker, 2017). In the process of legitimization, members are prescribed citizenship by assimilating to the practices of the imagined community. However, assimilation can suggest that members need to let go of their current practices to belong to the imagined community, which can disregard ways of being that are often problematic for knowledge production (Yuval-Davis, 2006). The goal should not be to encourage graduate students to simply assimilate but rather to question the boundary maintenance of this imagined community.

The findings highlight instances of testimonial injustices where faculty can deny if a graduate student is ready to defend their dissertation despite having readiness identifiers such as having a job lined up. Additionally, instances of hermeneutical injustice can be observed in the admissions milestone whereby the burden to recruit historically marginalized students often falls on the historically marginalized graduate students themselves to bring in students from their former institutions. Posselt (2016) shed light on the role of faculty discretion and evaluation in shaping structural inequities within disciplinary admissions processes, emphasizing the nebulous nature of faculty members' ideals about student quality, the influence of departmental, disciplinary, and personal priorities on judgments of admissibility, and the implications for equity and the academy's well-being. Finally, contributory injustice occurs when a person or an audience wilfully refuses to acknowledge or require other experiences, resources, and language to expand their own learning (Dotson, 2014). From the findings, examples of contributory injustice can be observed in the candidacy exam milestone whereby professionalism is defined from the faculty's expectations that can ignore how other cultures dress for formal occasions. As an alternative, Vincent-Ruz (2020) qualified the negotiation between the culture of chemistry and a learner's culture by drawing from Gloria Anzaldúa's idea of “border crossing” in which a learner leverages their cultural resources to make sense of social problems in chemistry. Ultimately, epistemic injustice disallows the imagined community of chemists to expand beyond Eurocentric values that centre whiteness; consequently, reproducing oppressive structures that maintain boundaries around disciplinary knowledge for historically marginalized students.

Conclusion & limitations

Taking an institutional critique approach, the goal of the employing such a methodology is to motivate activism to address a contextual problem (Porter et al., 2000). Since collecting and analysing the data, the findings from this study supported the Department of Chemistry at Peony University to make changes to their graduate program milestones to make them more inclusive. For the preliminary exam milestone, Peony University has decided to abolish the milestone entirely as opposed to using it as an opportunity to weed out graduate students. For the candidacy exam milestone, the department drew on Liera et al. (2023) to structure the candidacy exam to be aligned with writing a standard 15-page NSF or NIH grant proposal so that graduate students can learn these practices that are central to the culture of academic chemistry. Using such methodologies should be broadly used and considered for projects that are invested in promoting equity and justice as they benefit the participants and study contexts in the moment (Patel, 2015). Patel (2015) explained this shift in education research as moving from ownership to answerability. Pairing institutional critique with Yuval-Davis’ framework to understand the politics of belonging highlights the role that power plays in shaping these interactions, reifying the socio-constructivist nature of learning that moves beyond cognitivist-only perspectives. The overall study found that graduate student milestones can be interpreted differently by policy agents, which can lead to exclusionary boundaries that privilege legitimacy over learning. If graduate students are willing to ABD (all-but-dissertation), there is evidence to reevaluate higher education as an ominous mechanism for perpetuating social stratification. As a result, it is important for stakeholders invested in graduate education to evaluate how the structure of the graduate student milestones supports inclusive professional development.

Nevertheless, there are several limitations of the work: (1) the study took place at a R-1, public-Midwestern university that may have different faculty and graduate student priorities for research that dichotomize learning and legitimacy; (2) the study findings could not be member-checked given the nature of the study to reveal moments of exclusion; and (3) the study presented does not include the perspectives of the graduate students, which would have enhanced interpretations of learning in the graduate program milestones. Although the goal of institutional critique is not generalizability (Porter et al., 2000), having one study context does limit how findings can be easily applied to other institutional types. Similarly, member-checking in all contexts may not be appropriate if participants would retaliate against other participants or in doing research that uncovers uncomfortable truths (Hallett, 2013; Harvey, 2015). Typically, ethnographic approaches do not have the same measures of reliability like performing interrater reliability because the researcher develops trustworthiness by participating in the research context (Oswald and Dainty, 2020). Finally, the graduate student perspectives were intentionally not included in this study given the scope of the study was to understand the structure of the graduate program milestones from the perspective of the stakeholders in response to Weidman and Stein's (2003) work. Future works will seek to centre the stories of the graduate students and illuminate their perspectives on the graduate student milestones and their own professional development in becoming PhD chemists.

Author contributions

As the sole author, JEN had a role in the conceptualization, data curation, analysis, project administration, resources, writing original draft, reviewing, and editing.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to Institutional Review Board restrictions.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Acknowledgements

There is no funding to declare. I would like to acknowledge and thank my writing group Casey E. Wright, Beata Johnson, and Athena Lin for their continued feedback and encouragement to publish my work. Thank you also to Jon-Marc G. Gregory Rodriguez, Meng-Yang Matthew Wu, and Geraldine Cochran for additional feedback on this manuscript. Thank you to Peony University for including me in efforts to transform the graduate milestones that are aligned with evidence from my research. Finally, thank you to Reviewers 1 & 2 for deeply engaging with my work and providing edits that have elevated the overall communication and presentation of these ideas.

Notes and references

1. Agboka G. Y., (2021), “Subjects” in and of research: Decolonizing oppressive rhetorical practices in technical communication research, J. Tech. Writ. Commun., 51(2), 159–174.
2. Allen K.-A., Kern M. L., Rozek C. S., McInerney D. M., and Slavich G. M., (2021), Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research, Aust. J. Psychol., 73(1), 87–102.
3. Baker V. L. and Pifer M. J., (2011), The role of relationships in the transition from doctoral student to independent scholar, Stud. Contin. Educ., 33(1), 5–17.
4. Baneres D., Rodríguez-Gonzalez M. E., and Serra M., (2019), An early feedback prediction system for learners at-risk within a first-year higher education course, IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol., 12(2), 249–263.
5. Barber P. H., Shapiro C., Jacobs M. S., Avilez L., Brenner K. I., Cabral C., et al., (2021), Disparities in remote learning faced by first-generation and underrepresented minority students during COVID-19: insights and opportunities from a remote research experience, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 22(1), ev22i1–2457.
6. Baumeister R. F. and Leary M. R., (1995), The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation, Psychol. Bull., 117(3), 497–529 DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
7. Bettencourt G. M., Friedensen R. E., and Bartlett M. L., (2021), Re-envisioning doctoral mentorship in the United States: A power-conscious review of the literature, Int. J. Dr Stud., 16, 237.
8. Blockett R. A., Felder P. P., Parrish III W., and Collier J., (2016), Pathways to the professoriate: Exploring Black doctoral student socialization and the pipeline to the academic profession, West. J. Black Stud., 40(2), 95–110.
9. Brauer D. D., Mizuno H., Stachl C. N., Gleason J. M., Bumann S., Yates B., et al., (2022), Mismatch in Perceptions of Success: Investigating Academic Values among Faculty and Doctoral Students, J. Chem. Educ., 99(1), 338–345 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00429.
10. Brodin E. M., (2018), The stifling silence around scholarly creativity in doctoral education: Experiences of students and supervisors in four disciplines, High. Educ., 75, 655–673.
11. Burt B. A., (2020), Broadening participation in the engineering professoriate: Influences on Allen's journey in developing professorial intentions, J. Eng. Educ., 109(4), 821–842 DOI:10.1002/jee.20353.
12. Cadena M. A., Amaya C., Duan D., Rico C. A., García-Bayona L., Blanco A. T., et al., (2023), Insights and strategies for improving equity in graduate school admissions, Cell, 186(17), 3529–3547.
13. Calabrese Barton A. and Tan E., (2020), Beyond equity as inclusion: A framework of “rightful presence” for guiding justice-oriented studies in teaching and learning, Educ. Res., 49(6), 433–440.
14. Cannella G. S. and Koro-Ljungberg M., (2017), Neoliberalism in higher education: Can we understand? Can we resist and survive? Can we become without neoliberalism? Cult. Stud. Crit. Methodol., 17(3), 155–162.
15. Cech E. A. and Waidzunas T. J., (2021), Systemic Inequalities for LGBTQ Professionals in STEM. Sci. Adv., 7(3), eabe0933.
16. Cui Q. and Harshman J., (2023), Reforming Doctoral Education through the Lens of Professional Socialization to Train the Next Generation of Chemists, JACS Au, 3(2), 409–418 DOI:10.1021/jacsau.2c00561.
17. Dall’Alba G., (2009), Learning Professional Ways of Being: Ambiguities of becoming, Educ. Philos. Theory, 41(1), 34–45 DOI:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00475.x.
18. Donkor B. and Harshman J., (2023), Learning Goals and Priorities Identified by an Examination of Chemistry Graduate Handbooks, J. Chem. Educ., 100(10), 3774–3783 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00062.
19. Dotson K., (2014), Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression, Soc. Epistemol., 28(2), 115–138 DOI:10.1080/02691728.2013.782585.
20. Espeland W. N. and Sauder M., (2007), Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds, Am. J. Sociol., 113(1), 1–40.
21. Feldon D. F., Wofford A. M., and Blaney J. M., (2022), PhD Pathways to the Professoriate: Affordances and Constraints of Institutional Structures, Individual Agency, and Social Systems, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Springer, vol. 38, pp. 1–91.
22. Fricker M., (2007), Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, Clarendon Press.
23. Fricker M., (2017), in Kidd I. J., Medina J., and Pohlhaus Jr G. (ed.), Evolving concepts of epistemic injustice, Routledge, pp. 53–60.
24. Furstenberg A.-L. and Nichols-Casebolt A., (2001), Hurdle or building block: Comprehensive examinations in social work doctoral education, J. Teach. Soc. Work, 21(1–2), 19–37.
25. Gardner S. K., (2007), “I Heard it through the Grapevine”: Doctoral Student Socialization in Chemistry and History, High. Educ., 54(5), 723–740 DOI:10.1007/s10734-006-9020-x.
26. Gardner S. K., (2008), “What's too much and what's too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education, J. High. Educ., 79(3), 326–350.
27. Gillies R. M. and Ashman A. F., (2013), Socialization and learning, Coop. Learn. Soc. Intellect. Outcomes Learn. Groups, 1, 1–9.
28. Golde C. M. and Dore T. M., (2001), At cross purposes: What the experiences of today's doctoral students reveal about doctoral education.
29. Goldman C. A. and Massy W. F., (2001), The PhD Factory: Training and Employment of Science and Engineering Doctorates in the United States, ERIC.
30. Gonzales L. D., Pasque P. A., Farris K. D., and Hansen J. M., (2023), Epistemic Injustice and Legitimacy in US Doctoral Education: A Systematic Review of Literature, Rev. Educ. Res., 00346543231187628.
31. Grusec J. E. and Hastings P. D., (2014), Handbook of socialization: Theory and Research, Guilford Publications.
32. Guloy S., Hum G., and O’Neill D. K., (2020), Voices at the gate: Faculty members’ and students’ differing perspectives on the purposes of the PhD comprehensive examination, Assess. Eval. High. Educ., 45(2), 279–291.
33. Hallett R. E., (2013), Dangers of member checking, Role Particip. Educ. Res. Ethics Epistemol. Methods, 29–39.
34. Hammer J., To A., and Principe Cruz E., (2020), Lab Counterculture, Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, pp. 1–14 DOI:10.1145/3334480.3381824.
35. Hanson J., Loose W., and Reveles U., (2022), A qualitative case study of all-but-dissertation students at risk for dissertation noncompletion: A new model for supporting candidates to doctoral completion, J. Coll. Stud. Retent. Res. Theory Pract., 24(1), 234–262.
36. Harshman J., (2021), Review of the Challenges that Face Doctoral Education in Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 98(2), 259–269 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00530.
37. Harvey L., (2015), Beyond member-checking: a dialogic approach to the research interview, Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 38(1), 23–38 DOI:10.1080/1743727X.2014.914487.
38. Jeong S., Litson K., Blaney J., and Feldon D. F., (2020), Shifting gears: Characteristics and consequences of latent class transitions in doctoral socialization, Res. High. Educ., 61, 1027–1053.
39. Johnson T. W., (2022), From Equity Talk to Equity Walk: Expanding Practitioner Knowledge for Racial Justice in Higher Education, J. Public Manag. Soc. Policy, 29(1), 12.
40. Keup J. R., Petschauer J. W., Groccia J. E., Hunter M. S., Garner B., Latino J. A., et al., (2023), The first-year seminar: Designing, implementing, and assessing courses to support student learning and success, Stylus Publishing, LLC.
41. Kostohryz K., (2016), The doctoral comprehensive examination in counselor education: Faculty members’ perception of its purposes, J. Couns. Prep. Superv., 8(3), 6.
42. Kraatz M. S., Flores R., and Chandler D., (2020), The value of values for institutional analysis, Acad. Manag. Ann., 14(2), 474–512.
43. Lave J. and Wenger E., (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press.
44. Leary M. R. and Kelly K. M., (2009), Belonging motivation, Handb. Individ. Differ. Soc. Behav., 400409.
45. Levine J. M. and Moreland R. L., (1994), Group socialization: Theory and research, Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol., 5(1), 305–336.
46. Liera R., Rodgers A. J., Irwin L. N., and Posselt J. R., (2023), Rethinking doctoral qualifying exams and candidacy in the physical sciences: Learning toward scientific legitimacy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 19(2), 020110.
47. Maccoby E. E., (2007), Historical overview of socialization research and theory, Handb. Soc. Theory Res., 1, 13–41.
48. Mantai L., (2022), Social support and identity development in the journey from PhD'student’to’researcher’and beyond.
49. McLaughlin J. E., Morbitzer K., Meilhac M., Poupart N., Layton R. L. and Jarstfer M. B., (2023), Standards needed? An exploration of qualifying exams from a literature review and website analysis of university-wide policies, Stud. Grad. Postdr. Educ., 15(1), 19–33.
50. Nardo J. E., (2021), Case for Narrative Inquiry: Understanding the Experiences of Elena, A Historically Minoritized Graduate Student in Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 99(1), 113–121.
51. National Academies of Sciences E. and Medicine, (2018), Graduate STEM education for the 21st century, National Academies Press.
52. Nelson T., (2021), Of inclusion, belonging, and missed connection in higher education.
53. Oswald D. and Dainty A., (2020), Ethnographic research in the construction industry: a critical review, J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 146(10), 03120003.
54. Patel L., (2015), Decolonizing Educational Research: From Ownership to Answerability, 1st edn, Routledge.
55. Paxton P. and Bollen K. A., (2003), Perceived quality and methodology in graduate department ratings: Sociology, political science, and economics, Sociol. Educ., 71–88.
56. Peeples T., (1999),’Seeing’the WPA with/through Postmodern Mapping, Rose Weiser, 153–167.
57. Perez R. J., Robbins C. K., Harris Jr L., and Montgomery C., (2020), Exploring graduate students’ socialization to equity, diversity, and inclusion, J. Divers. High. Educ., 13(2), 133.
58. Porter J. E., Sullivan P., Blythe S., Grabill J. T., and Miles L., (2000), Institutional critique: A rhetorical methodology for change, Coll. Compos. Commun., 610–642.
59. Posselt J. R., (2014), Toward inclusive excellence in graduate education: Constructing merit and diversity in PhD admissions, Am. J. Educ., 120(4), 481–514.
60. Posselt J. R., (2016), Inside graduate admissions: Merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping, Harvard University Press.
61. Posselt J. R., (2018), The diversity bargain and other dilemmas of race, admissions, and meritocracy at Elite Universities.
62. Posselt J., (2021), Discrimination, competitiveness, and support in US graduate student mental health, Stud. Grad. Postdr. Educ., 12(1), 89–112.
63. Posselt J. R. and Grodsky E., (2017), Graduate education and social stratification, Annu. Rev. Sociol., 43, 353–378.
64. Posselt J. and Liera R., (2022), Doctoral candidacy and qualifying exams: A guide to contexts, costs for equity, and possibilities of transformation.
65. Slater G. B., (2022), Terms of endurance: Resilience, grit, and the cultural politics of neoliberal education, Crit. Educ., 13(1), 1–16.
66. Slaughter S. and Rhoades G., (2004), Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education, Jhu Press.
67. Smaldone A., Heitkemper E., Jackman K., Joanne Woo K., and Kelson J., (2019), Dissemination of PhD dissertation research by dissertation format: A retrospective cohort study, J. Nurs. Scholarsh., 51(5), 599–607.
68. Sowell R., Allum J., and Okahana H., (2015), Doctoral initiative on minority attrition and completion, Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools, ch. 3, pp. 14–31.
69. Stachl C., Hartman E., Wemmer D., and Francis M., (2019), Grassroots Efforts To Quantify and Improve the Academic Climate of an R1 STEM Department: Using Evidence-Based Discussions To Foster Community, J. Chem. Educ., 96(10), 2149–2157.
70. Twale D. J., Weidman J. C., and Bethea K., (2016), Conceptualizing socialization of graduate students of color: Revisiting the Weidman-Twale-Stein framework, West. J. Black Stud., 40(2), 80–94.
71. Villarreal C., Posselt J. R., Hernandez T. E., and Rudolph A. L., (2024), Bridging the gap: A sequential mixed methods study of trust networks in graduate application, admissions, and enrollment, J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng., 30 DOI:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2023045735.
72. Vincent-Ruz P., (2020), What Does It Mean to Think Like a Chemist? in Integrating Professional Skills into Undergraduate Chemistry Curricula, ACS Publications, pp. 57–79.
73. Walker G. E., Golde C. M., Jones L., Bueschel A. C., and Hutchings P., (2009), The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century, John Wiley & Sons.
74. Walton G. M. and Brady S. T., (2017), The many questions of belonging, Handb. Competence Motiv. Theory Appl., 2, 272–293.
75. Warikoo N. K., (2016), The diversity bargain: And other dilemmas of race, admissions, and meritocracy at elite universities, University of Chicago Press.
76. Warikoo N., (2018), The diversity bargain: and other dilemmas of race, admissions, and meritocracy at elite universities, Int. Stud. Sociol. Educ., 27(4), 457–458.
77. Weidman J. C. and Stein E. L., (2003), Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms, Res. High. Educ., 44, 641–656.
78. 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, Volume 28, Number 3, Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series, Jossey-Bass, Publishers, Inc.
79. Wilkins-Yel K. G., Arnold A., Bekki J., Natarajan M., Bernstein B., and Randall A. K., (2022), “I can’t push off my own mental health”: Chilly STEM climates, mental health, and STEM persistence among Black, Latina, and White graduate women, Sex Roles, 86(3–4), 208–232.
80. Winkle-Wagner R., Johnson S. D., Morelon-Quainoo C., and Santiague L., (2010), A sense of belonging: Socialization factors that influence the transitions of students of color into advanced-degree programs, On becoming a scholar, Routledge, pp. 179–199.
81. Wright C. E., (2023), Methods Matter: Learning From Institutional Ethnography And Intersectionality To Inform Interview Research Methods For Social Justice In Stem Education, J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng., 29(4), 1–27 DOI:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2022043390.
82. Xu Y. J., (2014), Advance to and persistence in graduate school: Identifying the influential factors and major-based differences, J. Coll. Stud. Retent. Res. Theory Pract., 16(3), 391–417.
83. Yuval-Davis N., (2006), Belonging and the politics of belonging, Patterns Prejudice, 40(3), 197–214.

---