Aligning graduate chemistry training with diverse career paths: insights from student perceptions of valued skills

Abstract

Chemistry graduate programs have often been criticized for their perceived overemphasis on preparing students for academic research careers, overlooking the broad range of professional skills necessary in other career sectors. This disparity highlights a need to examine the alignment of skill development in chemistry graduate programs with the varied demands of different career sectors. Further empirical evidence is needed to understand how professional skills are currently being valued and developed in chemistry graduate programs. This study is guided by socialization theory, which serves as a framework for understanding how graduate students acquire the values, attitudes, norms, knowledge, and skills necessary to perform in a professional role. This qualitative investigation examines the perceptions and experiences of 33 chemistry doctoral students from 10 doctorate-granting institutions in the United States to identify how professional skills are valued and developed in chemistry doctoral programs. This study aims to understand not only why graduate students value certain skills, but also how they perceive these skills are valued within their programs. Additionally, this work explores the experiences that shape the professional skill development of chemistry doctoral students. Findings suggest that students personally value professional skills based on their perceived importance for success within their program or future careers. Students’ perceptions of the value of professional skills held by community members (group members and department members) were heavily influenced by the presence of formal development opportunities.

---

Introduction

Preparing students for meaningful engagement and contributions to the professional field is one of the primary purposes of a graduate education in the chemical sciences (Antony, 2002, Shakhashiri, 2012). Unfortunately, the 2012 American Chemical Society (ACS) Presidential Commission, which was tasked with evaluating the current state of graduate education in the chemical sciences, concluded that “current educational opportunities for graduate students, viewed on balance as a system, do not provide sufficient preparation for their careers after graduate school” (Shakhashiri, 2012). In light of this finding, the commission recommended that graduate programs emphasize the development of professional skills, such as communication, collaboration, technical, and management skills, that are relevant and transferable to diverse careers (Shakhashiri, 2012). This recommendation aligns with concerns of employers, faculty, and recent graduates who have lamented that doctoral graduates in the sciences are ill-prepared (Quill, 1945, Glanville, 1971) and lack necessary skills to perform job duties (Murphy, 1947, Griffiths, 1995, Schultz, 1995, Committee on Professional Training, 2000). The deficiency in skills observed by employers suggests that doctoral education has favored the development of knowledge and skills that serve academic research careers over other careers (Sauermann and Roach, 2012, Shakhashiri, 2012, Thiry et al., 2015, Harshman, 2020, Cui and Harshman, 2023). Historically, research-based professorship careers have been seen as superior and thus more desirable (Harrington, 1970, Shakhashiri, 2012, Harshman, 2020). Despite this perspective, a large proportion of chemistry doctoral graduates enter the nonacademic sector (Linton et al., 2011, Harshman, 2020, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and National Science Foundation, 2021, Cui and Harshman, 2023). Indeed, national surveys of chemistry doctoral graduate students indicate that more than half of graduate students want to pursue industry careers (Kuniyoshi et al., National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and National Science Foundation, 2021) and many graduates ultimately obtain positions in this career sector (Linton et al., 2011, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and National Science Foundation, 2021, Cui and Harshman, 2023, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and National Science Foundation, 2024).

Different skill sets are deemed necessary for the diverse career pathways that chemists typically pursue. In an interview study conducted by the Harshman group, 31 doctoral chemists from the United States holding positions in academia, industry and government reported on the skills that are required to perform well in their careers (2020). While several skills were deemed necessary across all interviewed chemists (e.g., technical, communication, management, teaching, and critical thinking skills), the conceptualization and the extent to which these common skills were necessary differed between job sectors (Cui and Harshman, 2020). In a follow-up study, 412 chemists were surveyed about the degree to which they feel specific skills are necessary in their careers (Cui and Harshman, 2023). This study found that there were statistically significant differences between the degree to which skills that academic and non-academic chemists deemed to be needed for their careers (Cui and Harshman, 2023). In particular, there were significant differences in the necessity of interpersonal skills (e.g., teaching), securing funding and reputation, and project management as well as the type of subskills needed within each of these categories. Given that graduate programs are designed by chemistry faculty and that most faculty have limited to no experience with sectors outside academia, doctoral programs are prone to develop and value skills that are mostly relevant to academics rather than other sectors, (Sauermann and Roach, 2012, Shakhashiri, 2012, Thiry et al., 2015, Harshman, 2020, Cui and Harshman, 2023) and doctoral students are thus most likely to be exposed to, be trained in, and perceive value in these skills. However, few studies have investigated this latter point (Brauer et al., 2021). Therefore, the objective of this study is to capture chemistry graduate students’ rationale for their personal value of different professional skills, the value of professional skills that they perceive their research group and department hold, and to explore the experiences that students attribute to their development of different professional skills. These aims are addressed through the following research questions:

1. What rationale underlies graduate students’ valuation of professional skills?

2. What rationale underlies graduate students’ perceptions of the value of professional skills by their research group and department?

3. What experiences do chemistry doctoral students perceive contribute to their development of professional skills?

Answers to these questions will provide insight into strategies that chemistry programs and research groups can employ to better support graduate students in their development of professional skills that are relevant to careers beyond academia.

Socialization theory

It has been argued that not enough attention has been given to professional socialization in doctoral education (Tierney, 1997, Nyquist and Woodford, 2000, Weidman et al., 2001, Golde and Walker, 2006, Shakhashiri, 2012). Professional socialization is the process by which an individual learns the values, attitudes, norms, knowledge, and skills needed to perform in a professional role (Bragg, 1976, Weidman et al., 2001, Cui and Harshman, 2023). Socialization theory, developed by Weidman, Twale and Stein, is a useful framework to study the socialization of graduate students in higher education because this theory provides a holistic view of graduate students’ cognitive and affective growth through interactions between multiple socialization agents (2001). Socialization theory contains three main components: the stages of socialization, the core elements of socialization, and the dimensions of socialization processes.

Stages of socialization

Socialization theory outlines a four-stage developmental sequence through which students obtain and integrate knowledge and skills into their professional identity (Weidman et al., 2001). These stages include the anticipatory, formal, informal, and personal stage. Each developmental stage reflects different states of a student's cognitive and affective growth and commitment to a professional identity. While the goal of this study was not to characterize graduate students’ progression through these stages, we present this component of the theory here since we leveraged it to identify inclusion criteria when recruiting participants for this study.

In the anticipatory stage of socialization students are preparing to enter or have begun a graduate program and start to develop an understanding of the new roles and protocols they should follow (Weidman et al., 2001, Gardner, 2008). During the formal stage, students acquire knowledge through formal instruction such as coursework and research experiences and their fitness within the program is evaluated (Austin and Mcdaniels, 2006, Gardner, 2008). At this stage, students develop an understanding of the norms and values expected of a graduate student (Weidman et al., 2001). In the informal stage, students learn informal role expectations through interactions with faculty and peers. Through peer culture and support systems, students may develop a sense of social and emotional identification with their community and start shifting from a student mindset to that of a professional (Weidman et al., 2001, Gardner, 2008). In the personal stage, students internalize their individual and social roles. At this stage, students seek an identity outside of their department and become more involved in professional activities (Weidman et al., 2001, Gardner, 2008).

Core elements of socialization

Each stage of the socialization process contains three core elements that define the processes that lead students to acquire and commit to their professional identity: knowledge acquisition, investment, and involvement (Thornton and Nardi, 1975, Stein, 1992, Weidman et al., 2001, Austin and Mcdaniels, 2006). The first core element, knowledge acquisition, describes the process by which students acquire increasingly more complex and specialized knowledge. The second core element, investment, describes students’ commitment to something of personal value (e.g., time, energy, and money) to prepare for their professional role. The third core element, involvement, details students’ participation in some aspects of the professional role (e.g., interactions with others and conducting research). Using the formal stage of socialization as an example, students’ knowledge acquisition occurs primarily from formal instruction (i.e., coursework) in a doctoral program. Student investment at this stage may involve choosing to spend time and effort to complete coursework. Students may also be involved in professional activities such as starting a research project.

Dimensions of socialization processes

The socialization process of graduate students can be characterized through six polar dimensions (Weidman et al., 2001). These dimensions were originally identified by Van Maanen and Schein (1979) and later asserted by Tierney and Rhoads (1993). These six dimensions are listed in Table 1 with a brief description of each pole (adapted from Austin and Mcdaniels (2006)). The socialization process experienced by a novice may incorporate both aspects of a polar dimension (Austin and Mcdaniels, 2006). For example, major steps towards degree completion in a doctoral program (e.g., comprehensive exams, original research proposal, and dissertation defense) are usually clearly defined (sequential) and may be progressed through at a defined time (fixed). However, a student may engage in a variety (random) of additional experiences (e.g., internships, attending a conference, and being a mentor) which may occur at different times (variable) and to different extents. Thus, the socialization of graduate students may be both random, sequential, fixed, and variable.

Table 1 The six polar dimensions of socialization processes described in socialization theory (Austin and Mcdaniels, 2006)

Polar dimension	Pole descriptions
Collective ↔ Individual	Collective: common set of experiences encountered by all
	Individual: individuals encounter isolated experiences
Formal ↔ Informal	Formal: learning though specific experiences with developmental goals
	Informal: learning through informal peer culture and trial and error
Random ↔ Sequential	Random: steps and activities are not clearly specified
	Sequential: specific and unambiguous steps to achieve goal are specified
Fixed ↔ Variable	Fixed: fixed timeline of progression through steps
	Variable: variable timeline of progression through steps
Serial ↔ Disjunctive	Serial: presence of guidance from more senior members
	Disjunctive: lack of guidance from more senior members
Investiture ↔ Divestiture	Investiture: organization welcomes individual characteristics of novice
	Divestiture: organization does not value individual characteristics of novice

---

Both core elements and the dimensions of the socialization process informed the interpretation of the themes related to experiences and reasoning for valuation described by the study participants.

Methods

This study was conducted with approval from the Institutional Review Board for the Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia (Protocol #5016).

Sampling

We assumed that chemistry departments with different levels of research activity might differentially socialize their graduate students to professional skills. Therefore, we purposefully recruited chemistry doctoral students from chemistry programs ranked by U.S. News and World Report (n.d.) in the ‘Top 25’, ‘Middle 25’, and ‘below 100.’ Study participation was solicited by email through two different methods. First, graduate program coordinators from four institutions were contacted with a request to forward study invitations to students. Second, the public contact information of graduate students from 14 other institutions was collected from departmental websites. Study invitations were sent to the graduate students’ institutional email addresses.

We were interested in students with experience with both formal (e.g., course instruction) and informal (e.g., observation of and interactions with faculty and peers) knowledge acquisition, and thus sought to target graduate students within the informal and personal stages of socialization by applying the following inclusion criteria: participants had to be chemistry graduate students who had been members of their current research group for at least one year or recent chemistry graduates (within 6 months of graduation). This one-year experience requirement is to allow time for students to become familiar with the values and norms of their respective research group.

Participants

A total of 43 graduate students representing 10 institutions were interviewed. Five of these interviews were part of the pilot data set and were not included in this analysis. Three more interviews were excluded from the final data sample due to the previously described inclusion criteria. One participant was also excluded due to extensive uncertainty in the transcription and interpretation of the interview transcript. One additional interview was excluded due to the participant's extensive experience in multiple graduate programs and their inability to clearly articulate skill development in their current program. This resulted in a net total of 33 participants from 26 different research groups across 10 academic institutions (Table 3).

The average age of participants was 26.4 years with a range of 23 to 34 years. A recent ACS survey of U.S. chemistry graduate students reported relatively similar demographic breakdown with respect to gender (55.2% female, 41.6% male; n = 1814) and racial background (70.2% White, 20.7% Asian American/Pacific Islander; n = 1815) as the demographic breakdown of the participants in this study (Table 2) (Kuniyoshi et al., 2021).

Table 2 Participant demographics. Only identities with at least one participant are included. Other identities were available for the participants to choose from (see Table S2 in the ESI)

Demographic		Identity	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Gender		Woman	18	55
		Man	14	42
		Prefer not to say	1	3
Ethnicity		Asian	8	24
		Black or African American	1	3
		North African	1	3
		White	20	61
		Mixed Ethnicity	2	6
		Prefer not to say	1	3
Location of educational training	Outside of the United States	K12 education only	1	3
		Undergraduate education only	1	3
		K12 & Undergraduate education	3	9
	In the United States		28	85

---

Most participants completed three to four years of their doctoral studies at the time of the interview (Table 3). Minor differences could be seen in participant time in program and time as members of their current research group (see Table S1 in the ESI†). Differences were attributed to department policy on the timeline for research group assignment, students’ prior experience in research group as an undergraduate researcher, or a change in research advisor during the program.

Table 3 Characteristics of participants and sampled graduate programs. Number of research groups refers to the number of research groups that study participants belong to and not the number of research groups at each institution

Program rank	Institution	Program size	Number of research groups	Number of participants	Years of program completed by participants
					2	3	4	5+
1–25	A	>200	3	4	2	1		1
	B	>200	1	3		1	1	1
	C	100–150	3	3		1	2
	D	100–150	2	2		1		1
26–50	E	100–150	1	2		2
	F	100–150	1	1	1
	G	100–150	6	10	3	4	1	2
	H	>200	6	6		2	4
100–125	I	<100	1	1			1
	J	100–150	1	1		1
		Total	26	33	6	13	9	5

---

The average size of the research group, which includes undergraduate students, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and research scientists, was 14 members and range 2–35 members. The presence of undergraduate student members was reported in 20 (77%) research groups, and the presence of postdoctoral researchers and/or research scientists was reported in 12 (46%) research groups.

Interview protocol

The first section aimed to capture a student's motivation for pursuing graduate education, a description of their current research group, and student's perceptions of success in graduate school. Specifically, a semi-structured interview protocol was developed to explore graduate students’ experiences and interactions with different agents (i.e., advisors, peers, and program elements) of the socialization process. The interview protocol included three sections. The first section aimed to capture a student's motivation for pursuing graduate education, a description of their current research group, student's perceptions of success in graduate school, including the skills necessary for success and to perform in their research group. The second section consisted of a professional skill value sorting activity where students were asked to assign and rationalize the value assignment (i.e., really value, somewhat value, and do not value) of seven categories of skills (Table 4). Participants were asked to repeat this activity from three different perspectives: students were asked to assign first their perceptions of the value their department and research group had about each of these categories of skills, then their personal values of each category of skills. The third section of the interview captured experiences students thought to be helpful, limited, or not helpful in their development of the presented seven skill categories.

Table 4 Categories of professional skills

Technical skills	Interpersonal skills
• Broad-based knowledge of science	• Teaching or training others
• Knowledge of specialized area/field of research	• Lead, mentor, or providing guidance
• Techniques related to research area	• Seeking advice from advisors and mentors
Research skills	Collaboration skills
• Plan and execute experiments	• Working with or in a team
• Analysis and characterization of data	• Sharing research progress
• Problem solving	• Providing feedback
Management skills	Other skills
• Time management	• Creativity
• Working independently	• Attention to detail
• Planning and organizing projects	• Flexibility/adapting to change
• Managing people and delegating work	• Professionalism
Communication skills
• Oral presentations
• Written communications
• Communication with scientists and non-scientists

---

Skill categories

The seven skill categories presented in the professional skills value sorting activity were defined through three to four sample component subskills (Table 4). Skill categories were generated from common professional skills listed across three different sources. These sources aimed to represent professional skills recognized by a chemistry professional society (American Chemical Society, 2016), skills deemed necessary by professional chemists (Cui and Harshman, 2020), and skills used in an individual development plan in a chemistry doctoral program. As such, skill categories used herein do not represent an exhaustive or accurate list of the professional skills chemistry graduate students should develop but serve as a composite perspective of professional skills mentioned by representative parties to facilitate discussion with participants.

Data collection

Informed consent agreements were collected via a Qualtrics survey distributed in the study invitation emails. In-person pilot interviews were conducted in Spring 2022 by author J. K. M. J. Following the pilot interviews, the interview protocol was refined for clarity in language and with the addition of follow-up questions to elicit more thorough responses. The main study data collection was conducted through in-person or Zoom interviews in Spring 2022 and Spring 2023 by J. K. M. J. Interviews ranged 44–129 minutes in length. To decrease the length of the interviews, a portion of the first section of the interview protocol (i.e., students’ motivation for pursuing graduate education and descriptions of their current research group) was converted into a pre-survey for data collected in Spring 2023. In both data collection periods, a post-survey was conducted via Qualtrics to collect demographic information including gender, age, ethnicity, and educational history. Language of the demographic post-survey was modified between Spring 2022 and Spring 2023 data collection periods, and available gender categories were expanded. Professional skill value sorting activities were conducted in Microsoft PowerPoint and screen-captured via Zoom. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim using the transcription software Temi. Participants were compensated for their participation in the interview with a digital $20 gift card.

Data analysis

Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted using the qualitative data analysis software NVivo through a multi-stage coding process. The individual steps of data collection and analysis are summarized in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Research design timeline.

Analytic memos

In the first stage of data analysis, analytic memos were conducted by authors J. K. M. J. and M. S. on a portion (n = 6; 60%) of the Spring 2022 interview transcripts to inductively generate an initial codebook. This initial codebook contained codes that captured the skill category discussed, participants’ value assignment of the skill category, participants’ rationale for the value assignment, participants’ descriptions of experiences related to the development of these skill categories, and their usefulness in the development of these skill categories.

Coding of value perceptions and developmental experiences

In the second stage of data analysis, the initial codebook was iteratively refined by authors J. K. M. J., B. J. Y., and H. M. In each round of refinement, 2–4 transcripts were independently at the sentence-level coded by two raters. The entire interview transcript was coded by J. K. M. J. and B. J. Y. to capture the experiences related to skill development and participants’ perceptions of their helpfulness. The skill value sorting activity section of the interview protocol was coded by J. K. M. J. and H. M. to capture the value participants assigned to each skill category and their rationale for their value assignments. A coding comparison summary was generated by J. K. M. J. after each round. Each disagreement was discussed by the raters to refine the codebook and reach complete consensus. Codebook refinements included the addition, redefining, and grouping of codes. Each time a change occurred in the codebook, transcripts from prior rounds were reevaluated for the presence and fit of newly developed or redefined codes. Once no new codes were generated, transcripts continued to be independently coded by the two raters followed by a negotiated agreement to reach complete consensus. A summary of the codebook refinements made between rounds of coding is available in the ESI,† along with a finalized codebook (see Tables S2–S5, ESI†). Once all transcripts were coded, an additional evaluation was conducted by J. K. M. J. to review all coded passages for alignment with defined codes. Any potential misalignments were discussed with H. M. or B. J. Y. to finalize complete consensus. Examples demonstrating codebook application on sample passages can be found in the ESI† (see Tables S7 and S8).

Thematic analysis of value perceptions and developmental experiences

In the third stage of data analysis, post-coding analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel and R (version 4.3.2) (R Core Team, 2023). Final consensus coding of each transcript was converted into a matrix representation in Microsoft Excel using multi-layered conditional if-statements. These multi-layered conditional if-statements evaluated coded passages for every possible cross-coding combination to create a data matrix for each participant (a description of the cross-application of codes for each codebook section is available in Section D of the ESI†). The data matrices of each participant were compiled using R to create matrix sums representing the value codes and experience codes applied across the sample. These matrix sums were studied to elicit themes between participants. Only explicit, non-ambiguous rationales were included in thematic analysis. On average, participants provided non-ambiguous explanations for 88% of the 21 sorting tasks (i.e., seven skill categories per each of the three perspective levels). Prevalence of ambiguous explanations differed by perspective level being discussed (Department: 7%, Research Group: 13%, and Personal: 16%). Additional details on the proportion of participants who exhibited ambiguous rationales can be found in Table S3 of the ESI.†

Analysis of value perceptions by department

Since the department and research group are the communities in which the graduate students are socializing, the fourth stage of data analysis consisted of assessing the similarity of participants’ value perceptions within research groups and departments. Unfortunately, we were unable to collect enough data within research groups to identify patterns and thus only results related to departments are presented.

Trustworthiness

The trustworthiness of this work has been established through efforts to meet Lincoln and Guba's trustworthiness evaluation criteria of credibility, dependability, conformability, and transferability (1985).

Credibility

Credibility concerns the extent to which confidence can be placed in the accuracy of the presented findings (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Credibility was approached by providing the background, qualifications, and experience of the researchers through first-person positionality statements (see Section A in the ESI†) as well as employing tactics to ensure honesty of the participants (Shenton, 2004). These tactics included having interviews conducted by a chemistry graduate student to establish a rapport with participants through peership. The semi-structured interview protocol encourages participants to be honest by outlining efforts made to keep participants’ anonymity (i.e., only the interviewer will be informed of the participant's identity) as well as describing that the intent of the study was to collect a range of graduate student experiences and that there were no wrong answers.

Dependability

Dependability concerns the extent to which findings may be consistently found in similar contexts (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The dependability of this work is primarily established through an iterative inter-rater reliability coding process of negotiated agreement to reach full consensus for each coded passage within each interview transcript. An initial codebook was informed by independent analytic memos and discussion between authors J. K. M. J. and M. S. The initial codebook was then refined through rounds of independent coding of 1–4 transcripts per round. Full consensus coding of participant value perspectives was established between two raters (J. K. M. J. and H. M.) over 16 rounds. Full consensus coding of participant experiences was established between two raters (J. K. M. J. and B. J. Y.) over 22 rounds. Rounds that resulted in any refinements or changes to the established codebook were followed by an evaluation of all previously coded transcripts for alignment with newly established codes and/or altered definitions. A detailed description of codebook refinements made throughout the interactive rounds of the inter-rater reliability coding process is provided in the ESI† (Table S5).

Conformability

Conformability concerns the extent to which findings can be attributed to the study context rather than the perspective and bias of the researchers (Guba, 1981). In addition to describing the qualifications of the investigators, positionality statements were used to establish conformability by providing transparency on researchers’ perspectives and influence upon the research process (see Section A in the ESI†). Recognition of identified study limitations and their potential effects are described within the Other Considerations section (below).

Transferability

Transferability concerns the extent to which findings may be applicable to other contexts (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Demographic breakdown of participants (Table 2) aligns with recent ACS survey of U.S. graduate students indicating that our sample is representative of the U.S. graduate student population (Kuniyoshi et al., 2021). However, as an exploratory study, our aim is to identify trends in chemistry graduate students perceived value of skills for future use in quantitative studies. As such, the transferability of this work is limited. While sampling of a range of U.S. News and World Report ranked institutions was used to represent participants that may experience a range of different research intensities, caution should be taken when attempting to apply this work to chemistry doctoral students as a whole or outside of the context of chemistry doctoral programs within the United States.

Results

Major themes found during the analysis of the interviews with the 33 chemistry graduate students are organized by research question. Each theme is presented with a description of the applied code, proportion of participants where the code was applied, and a representative quote. Numerical values (designated, n) represent the proportion of participants rather than the number of instances that the code was applied. As a qualitative study, these values seek to provide transparency rather than represent a quantitative description of graduate students’ perceptions. Presented quotes have been modified for clarity while preserving original meaning.

Values of professional skills

At the personal level, most participants valued all the skill categories (Fig. 2). Research and communication skills were the most often stated to be really valued. Few participants (n = 5) stated that they personally did not value a skill category (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Participants’ value assignment of each skill category at each level (Personal, Research Group, Department).

Most participants perceived that their research group really valued research and technical skills (n = 30; Fig. 2). However, overall, participants perceived that their group values most of the skill categories less than they did personally (Fig. 2). Indeed, while six of the skill categories were really valued by over 60% of the participants at the personal level, only two skill categories met that threshold at the research group level (Fig. 2). Moreover, more participants (n = 13) perceived a lack of value of a skill category by their research group in comparison to the personal level (n = 5; Fig. 4).

At the department level, a larger proportion of participants categorized skills under the ‘do not value’ assignment (n = 24, Fig. 4). The skill categories collaboration, management, and other skills were the most impacted by this decline in valuation (Fig. 2).

Taken together, these results show that graduate students perceive differences in the value their communities place on professional skills.

Commonalities of value perceptions within departments

Only two departments had a sufficient sample size to explore the extent to which graduate students are homogenously socialized to their departmental norms. As Fig. 3 indicates, graduate students within the same department had different perceptions about the skill categories that their department values. Departmental values and norms are potentially unclear to students and that student socialization is non-ubiquitous.

Fig. 3 Frequency of value assignment of skill categories at the department level. Only institutions with n > 4 were included.

Fig. 4 Types of rationale used to justify each value assignment (Really Value, Somewhat Value, Do Not Value) at each level (Department, Research Group, and Personal).

What rationale underlies graduate students’ own valuation of professional skills?

The most prominent rationales for participants’ personal valuation included students’ (1) perceptions that the skill category will contribute to their success, (2) reflections on their motivation to use or their actual use of a skill category, and (3) expectations regarding skills to be developed in graduate programs.

Role of skills in achieving success. Nearly all participants (n = 32) rationalized their personal value of one or more skill categories based on their perceptions of the extent to which the development of a skill will influence their ability to succeed in a task, in the graduate program, or in their future career (Fig. 4, Skill Relevance to Success). All 32 participants valued developing one or more skill categories because they felt it would contribute to their future success (Fig. 5, Helps Success). For example, Participant 8 explained that they really value research and technical skills as they felt it would be helpful for any future career they may enter:

Fig. 5 Prominent types of rationale (n > 50%) and associated common subcodes (n > 30%) participants use when explaining their value of different skill categories. Use of prominent value rationale at the Personal Level, Research Group level, and Department level. See Fig. S3 in the ESI,† for a complete list of subcodes. The sum of a row/column may be greater than the value in the Total Participants.

“I want to… develop those technical skills for whatever I do in the future. If I go into academia, if I go into industry or some national lab that, I can work in other labs and be seen as somebody who's like an expert in my field. Same thing with the research skills that would prepare me for the next job that I have.”

The relevance of a skill category to their future success was also used to rationalize participants’ low or lack of personal value of a skill category. Indeed, 14 participants rationalized that they valued a skill category less because they did not see it contributing to their future success (Fig. 5, No Impact). These participants perceived certain skills as unnecessary for their desired career, believed these skills could be developed in the future, or thought that success could be achieved without acquiring those skills. For example, Participant 11 stated that they somewhat valued research skills “because I don’t wanna go into a heavy in-lab research job …, it doesn’t matter that much.” Only 3 participants expressed high personal value for a skill category while expressing that they did not feel it would contribute to their future success.

Drive to engage with skill. Another prominent rationale for personal value concerned students’ introspection on their drive to engage with a skill (n = 29; Fig. 4, Student Drive). Participants who invested in or aspired to be involved in a skill rationalized that this demonstrated their personal value for that skill category (n = 18; Fig. 5, Student is Driven). For example, Participant 43 explained that for “communication skills: again, I'm gonna put as ‘really value’ just because that is something that I have been very intentionally developing since I came to grad school.” Alternatively, participants rationalized that their lack of active engagement (lack of investment) in opportunities to learn or practice a skill was indicative that they value the skill to a lesser degree (n = 13; Fig. 5, Student is Not Driven). For example, Participant 18 stated that they somewhat valued management skills because they do not seek leadership opportunities and would rather work independently:

“I don't consider myself as a manager of people and I didn’t anticipate that I would learn that or seek any opportunity to learn how to be a leader of others in graduate school or with a specific project. I feel like I have more of the mentality of I'd rather either just do it myself or have something that was mine.”

Expectations that the skill will be developed during graduate school. The third prominent rationale utilized at the personal level concerned students’ expectations regarding skill development during their doctoral program (n = 18; Fig. 4, Development Expectations). Participants typically explained that they expected to develop a particular skill during their program (n = 13; Fig. 4, Development Expected) and some further elaborate that they invested in a graduate education for this purpose. This rationale was primarily applied when discussing research or technical skills, as exemplified by Participant 7 who claimed that “I think your point by the end of grad school is that you have the technical skills to be an expert in whatever thing you want to. So, you’re baseline expected to be like decent at most technical skills.”

What rationale underlies graduate students’ perceptions of the value of professional skills by their research group?

Participants’ rationale for value assignment at the research group level centered around students’ (1) perceptions of how the development of a skill is formally provided and (2) observation of group members’ engagement with a skill. Participants also discussed their perceived expectations for a skill category (3) to support their future success and (4) to be developed within their research group.

Formalization of skill development. Skill formalization is defined as the formal method used to develop a skill. Methods include requirements (e.g., teaching assistantships, department seminars and dissertation defense), formal instruction (e.g., coursework), or facilitation (e.g., opportunities for students to practice and/or receive guidance). All participants discussed skill formalization to rationalize their perceptions of their research group's value of one or more skill categories. Participants discussed both the presence (n = 31) and absence (n = 23) of skill formalization (Fig. 4). The presence of skill formalization was more often associated with a perception of higher valuation of the skill. The dominant method of formalization was the facilitation of skill development (n = 30; Fig. 5, Facilitated). For example, Participant 41 perceived communication skills to be really valued by their research group “since we do have the different opportunities to present within our group and get feedback from other people in our group.” The absence of formalization was not associated with any particular skill category (Fig. 5) but did coincide with lower perceived value (Fig. 4).

Group members’ engagement with skill. The second most common rationale concerned participants’ observations of whether others in their research group used a skill (n = 26; Fig. 4, Others’ Engagement with Skill). Participants often perceived their group as valuing a skill category when they observed others engaging in those skills (Fig. 5, Others’ Engage in Skill). Comparatively, some participants interpreted the lack of engagement by others in the skill as an indication that the group valued less this skill (n = 7; see Fig. S3 in the ESI,†Others Do Not Engage in Skill). Participants most frequently mentioned other's engagement with a skill when discussing their perception of the value their research group places on collaboration skills (Fig. 5), as illustrated with Participant 8's comment:

“The majority of our projects are collaboration with other groups so, I would say that we definitely care about collaboration … we definitely find it important to collaborate with others … If a project is large enough, we may have multiple people working on that same project in different portions of it and then sharing, providing feedback, all of those kinds of things. So that's something that happens very often.”

Role of skills in achieving success. Participants felt that research and technical skills were valued by their research group since they contribute to the success of their research endeavors (n = 24; Fig. 5). Participant 32 explained:

“I think they're valued in our lab because they bring the most benefit to the lab in the mind of the advisor. So, research skills, technical skills, both of them will contribute to things like your ability to be published. It'll contribute to your advancement of our knowledge of the field we're in or even just the lab's understanding of the field we're in.”

Expectations that the skill will be developed within their research group. Participants perceived that research and technical skills were expected to be developed within their research group (Fig. 5, Development Expected) as exemplified by Participant 36 who stated:

“…you need [technical skills] to be able to research in the lab and it's also the same as I guess our boss kind of being our PI [primary investigator] [and] requiring that of us too, you know, being able to be competent in those things. You can't do science really without being competent in those things I would say.”

Participants perceived that the expectations for the development of these skills were set either by their research advisor or more generally held by the research group as a whole. Participants inferred these expectations through the research tasks performed within their group and the perception that the nature of graduate school is to perform these tasks.

What rationale underlies graduate students’ perceptions of the value of professional skills by their department?

The primary rationale that participants evoked to justify their perceptions of their department's value of skills was (1) skill formalization (n = 33; Fig. 2). Other prominent rationales included the idea that (2) the department is not responsible for the development of a skill category and (3) participants’ observations of department members engaging with a skill category.

Formalization of skill development. An approximately equal number of participants utilized skill formalization as a rationale in terms of its presence (n = 30) and absence (n = 27) in their doctoral program (Fig. 4). When rationalizing perceived value through skill formalization, participants typically discussed the presence of formal program requirements (n = 29; Fig. 5). For example, Participant 42 perceived communication skills to be really valued in their department “because of the fact that third year students have to give a departmental seminar. So [communication skills are] like built into the requirements.” Many participants also mentioned the department's facilitation of skill development through opportunities to practice or receive guidance (n = 19; Fig. 5, Facilitated). For example, Participant 33 stated that:

“In terms of other skills? Yes, I would say that's somewhat value. Like especially the professionalism. There are many like events about careers things… So, our department will invite alumni [to] go back to our departments and give a talk about their like career choice, some events like that. And they also organize some like resume workshop or like mock interviews, things like that.”

When participants perceived a skill category as not being highly valued by the department, they cited a lack of skill formalization as the rationale. In particular, they perceived that the development of the undervalued skill category was not facilitated (n = 20), not taught (n = 16), or not a requirement (n = 10; Fig. 5). For example, Participant 38, whose rationale was assigned the Not Facilitated subcode, explained that they believe that their department does not value collaboration skills because guidance from and interactions with their committee members were infrequent:

“I saw most of those professors for the first time during my presentation. So, if kind of the collaboration and sharing the progress and so on from like other people outside of the group was valued, then it would be kind of more expected for me to ask for feedback on my presentation or on my research or anything. But the way it is right now, we have the IDPs [individual development plans] once a year, and I have to send my filled-out PDF to the two other members that are in chemistry on my committee, and they send me a signature. I don't even know if they read it and that's it.”

Departments expect other parties to support skill development. Participants rationalized that the development of a skill is seen by the department as the responsibility of another party, such as the student's research group (n = 17; Fig. 5, Research Group Responsibility) or the individual student (n = 5; see Fig. S3, Student Responsibility, ESI†), rather than the department itself. The responsibility of skill development was primarily used to rationalize a lower perceived valuation of management, interpersonal, and collaboration skills (Fig. 5). For example, Participant 10 stated that the department only somewhat values management skills since the nature of this category of skills varies between research groups, and the department does not have collective guidelines set:

“I know that there are some labs in which management is more of working independently… and I know that there are other labs where it is ‘you are working for me as if I was your boss’, and some people like either, but I don't think that's something that's super well focused on from a department level… For instance, we're not told that you need an undergrad or you need to mentor someone. Of course, the idea in labs is that you will eventually mentor someone, whether it be an incoming grad student or an undergrad or what have you, but still, I don't think it's something that's focused on from the department level.”

Department members’ engagement with skill. A third prominent rationale was participants’ observation of other members of the department engaging with a skill category (n = 18; Fig. 4, Other's Engagement with Skill). Participants utilized both the presence (n = 11) and absence (n = 10) of others engaging in a skill (Fig. 5). The presence of skill engagement was primarily used to rationalize the perceived value of collaboration skills. For example, Participant 15 explained their classification of collaboration skills as really value with:

“…there are a lot of collaborations going on in this department and with other departments. I think that I see posters hanging around and it's like, ‘oh, hey, look at our work we're doing and also look at our collaborators’ and there's always a bunch of like collaborators listed.”

Common rationales for perceived valuation of professional skills across perspective levels

Graduate students leveraged similar rationales to explain their perceptions of the values of professional skills by various entities, including themselves. Themes in value rationales utilized across levels are summarized in Table 5 with connections to core elements and dimensions of socialization when applicable.

Table 5 Connections between themes in value rationale utilized and socialization theory

Value rationale	Core element	Perspective level
		Department	Research group	Personal
Formalization of skill development	Knowledge acquisition	Students look for the presence of formal, collective requirements related to the skill.	Students look for the presence of formal practice opportunities in the skill and serial feedback from experienced members.
Expectations for skill development	Knowledge acquisition and investment		Students perceive that there is an expectation to develop technical and research skills.
Engagement with skill and student drive	Investment	Students look for whether themselves or members of their community engage in the use of the skill.
Role of skills in achieving success	N/A		Students look for whether the skill will support their own and/or their research group's future successes.

---

What experiences do graduate students perceive to contribute to their development of professional skills?

Throughout the interview, participants provided, both prompted and unprompted, examples of experiences that contributed or did not contribute to their professional skill development. When an experience was mentioned, the interviewer prompted the participant to describe the experience and explain whether the experience was helpful. Each experience was classified in four levels of helpfulness: helpful, limited (e.g., absent or infrequent), not helpful, and ambiguous helpfulness (i.e., either the participant was not clear on whether the experience was helpful, or it was difficult to infer based on the analysis of the interview transcript). Experiences were organized in categories (i.e., experience types) based on their similarities (Fig. 6). Below we describe the most commonly mentioned experience types that occur within the purview of a graduate program. Within each of these experience types, we focus on experiences that at least 20 participants referred to.

Fig. 6 Common experiences that participants connected to skill development.

Research experiences. Experiences that occur within the context of a research group were mentioned by all participants (n = 33; Fig. 6). Attending group meetings and performing general research activities were largely seen as helpful for skill development. For example, Participant 17 explained that,

“In group meetings when I am giving the presentation, that's a good opportunity to develop certainly my oral [presentation] skills and more broadly, I think not also just my oral [presentation] skills in how am I talking about my own experiments that I'm doing, but how am I talking about the work of others that maybe I'm less – I might be a little less familiar with.”

Training received from members of the research group (serial knowledge acquisition) had mixed reviews with some participants seeing them as helpful (n = 20) and others as limited (n = 14; Fig. 6). Among the participants who had a helpful training experiences, Participant 22 described how these experiences helped them learn techniques and critically evaluate their application:

“So, first time I get here I really don't know a lot of techniques if you will. So, there's a lot of people who help me along the way where they basically teach me from scratch, but at the same time they also kind of like encourage me to ask questions, and they would sometimes ask me questions that are like, ‘so why do you want to learn this? Why? What kinda result do you expect? And when you get the result, what do you think you can do with it?’ You know? And it's kind of helped me to think, not just, oh, I need to learn this skill, but more like, okay, what can I get from this?”

Training experiences that were classified as limited either never occurred or occurred very infrequently. For example, Participant 21 described receiving little training in management skills:

“I'm gonna say somewhat values and that's because my advisor is so hands off that he's not really training you in things like time management and working independently. It's sort of like sink or swim. So I think he does kind of value it in the sense of like you are the master of your fate but you're not really getting much training in it.”

Program features. Experiences that occur within the context of the wider doctoral program, such as coursework, department-facilitated training/workshops, and program exams, were also commonly connected to skill development. Experiences that occur within the classroom, a formal and collective mode of knowledge acquisition, were discussed by most participants but received mixed reviews (n = 27; Fig. 6, coursework). Indeed, most of these participants described these experiences as helpful (n = 20) while other participants described them as having limited helpfulness (n = 13; Fig. 6). Of note, coursework was the only experience that was commonly described as not helpful (n = 12; Fig. 6). Helpful coursework experiences were almost exclusively used to describe the development of technical, research, and communication skills (see Fig. S5 in the ESI†). For example, Participant 15 described that a course taught by their research advisor was relevant for their research:

“I came out with a much better understanding of so many concepts that I had known before, but like I hadn't known the specifics of them before. So, I got just kind of this very deep kind of command of the material that I was working with and that allowed me to ask better questions. That allowed me to make better hypotheses and kind of decide on experiments and decide on different variables to change in my experiments based on my kind of deeper understanding of how everything was working.”

Participants who discussed coursework experiences as limited (n = 13; Fig. 6) expressed the absence of coursework addressing specific content. Of the participants who found a coursework experience to be not helpful for their development (n = 12; Fig. 6), most did not clearly relate the coursework experience to a particular skill expressing that they found the experience to be generally unhelpful (n = 9). Explanations for this unhelpful classification included perceptions that their department did not value coursework, an inapplicability of course material, and ineffective instruction. Participant 33 commented that they learned nothing in a particular course and that coursework in graduate school is “just designed to meet the so-called course requirement we should have, and no one is really paying attention to it.” Participant 37 explained further that “because we are required to take five chemistry courses, I'll say they're not so related to our research. And some of the materials are just not so useful and they're not enjoyable. So, they are not super helpful in my career and research.” Instructional complaints focused on faculty members’ ineffective practices in the classroom. Participant 36 states that “I think that a lot of them [the instructors] are very knowledgeable people, but I don't think that they're very good teachers…. the teaching was just sort of dismal.”

Interactions with community members. Interactions between participants and more experienced program members (i.e., groups members, advisor, committee members) outside of interactions that occur within the context of another coded experience also served as serial developmental experiences. Interactions between participants and research group members were largely considered to be helpful in skill development (n = 22; Fig. 6). As exemplified by Participant 2, group members may be helpful in a variety of different ways:

“I've interacted with a few different group members who have been really instrumental in helping me develop my technical skills for different analytical methods and interpreting the data from that. So that's been fun and then I think on the whole, the group is really supportive in that if you're writing a grant application or whatever and you just like want someone to look it over, people are really helpful about giving feedback and like helping phrase things or helping to further interpret data and that sort of thing. Um, and so I would say on the whole our group is really collaborative and I'm really thankful for that.”

Participants’ interactions with their advisors were also discussed as helpful (n = 20; Fig. 6). However, a portion of participants noted the infrequency of these interactions (n = 13). Participant 33 described that members of their research group and a collaborating research group feel that instruction from their advisor is absent:

“So, we are a really large research group of twentyish people. And we really don't, I think we really don't get any instruction from my advisor. Like both of our groups mention that we don't really get much instruction from our advisor. I think he just, his role is just to get all the funding and like pay us so that we don't starve to death. So, his role just really to get enough funding to help this group operate. Yeah, I think that's most of our opinion.”

Committee member interactions also received mixed reviews with a large portion of the participants classifying them as limited in helpfulness (n = 15; Fig. 6). These mixed reviews are exemplified by Participant 37 who described that while they felt meetings with their committee members were helpful, the time allotted for committee meetings was too short:

“[I] only had two interactions with my committee throughout the four years… I'll say that both interactions are actually not long enough. They're like two hours each. But I think they're actually both helpful to me. Because in my second-year defense I presented my research data and then one of the committee members, [they] asked me a bunch of questions that I was not able to answer. And [they] said that ‘I think you should devote more time into theory to learn about the theory before you do all those kind of experiments.’ I totally agree with [them] and I devoted myself to physics and learn a bunch of theory and we actually are publishing a new paper on theory this year. So, I think that's definitely very helpful.”

Discussion

Graduate students personally value professional skills that they perceive will support their success within their program or potential careers

The most prominent rationale for participants’ valuation of a skill category was their perception of the usefulness of utilizing it for their success in their graduate program and/or current or future aspects of their professional role. Something that did not transpire in this work and that should be investigated further is how graduate students come to know which skills are essential for their success. Indeed, prior research has shown that skills are conceptualized differently within different contexts. A recent survey of professional chemists indicated significant differences in the type and nature of skills most valued by academic and non-academic chemists (Cui and Harshman, 2023). For example, non-academic chemists reported a greater need for project and people management skills than academic chemists. In comparison, academic chemists reported a greater need to maintain their reputation through developing professional relationships and securing funding (Cui and Harshman, 2023). Graduate students may not be aware of such nuances. The 2013 ACS Graduate Student Survey reported that few respondents stated that their advisor provided academic (39%) and non-academic (26%) career information (Kuniyoshi et al., 2014). Indeed, multiple studies in the past decade have commented on the limitations of STEM doctoral students’ career knowledge and preparation (O'meara et al., 2014, Thiry et al., 2015, Ganapati and Ritchie, 2021). STEM PhD graduates greatly desire this aspect of graduate programs to be developed. In a recent survey, nearly half of the respondents (n = 40; 45%) identified career path awareness and preparation as the most important area for improvement of doctoral student professional development (Ganapati and Ritchie, 2021). Therefore, chemistry graduate programs should develop strategies to communicate explicitly to doctoral students the different type of skills that different chemical job sectors favor.

Graduate students’ perceptions of the value that their department and research group place on professional skills are based on the formal development opportunities that these entities provide

Graduate students in this study highlighted the importance of the formal side of the formal ↔ informal dimension of knowledge acquisition in the socialization process. Participants’ perceptions of the value that their research group and department placed on a skill category was predominantly based on the extent to which the development of the skill category was explicitly addressed at these levels. This formalization could take the form of coursework, collective program requirements or opportunities to practice skills (e.g., presentations at group meetings). When these formal opportunities were absent, participants judged that their research group or department did not value the skill category. It is thus paramount that research groups and doctoral programs review the skill that their formal activities aim to develop and develop formal processes to help students develop missing skill that are favored by different job sectors. It would also be advantageous to make the skills that aimed to be developed in the research group and doctoral program more explicit to graduate students. The graduate student handbook has been thought of as the premiere document for students to obtain information regarding rules, procedures to be followed, and to introduce program elements (Donkor and Harshman, 2023). However, recent work conducted by Donkor and Harshman found that most chemistry graduate program handbooks do not provide explicit learning goals of program elements (Donkor and Harshman, 2023). Expressing the purpose and goals of program requirements and tasks to students within this document may serve as a method to communicate to students the values that the department place on various skills.

Graduate students’ use their observations of community members’ engagement in a skill to inform their perceptions of other's values

Participants also demonstrated the value of the informal side of the formal ↔ informal dimension of knowledge acquisition in the socialization process. Participants were keen observers of their community members’ involvement in aspects of their professional role and deducted from their observations the skills that were most valued. These observations of community involvement served as an informal mode of knowledge acquisition. This value rationale was especially present at the research group level. Research advisors should be aware of the skills and values that are being reinforced within their labs. While traditionally graduate education has relied on the cognitive-apprenticeship model, where a student primarily receives knowledge and skills from their advisors (Collins et al., 1991, Busby and Harshman, 2021), several studies have identified that other sources play a significant role in students’ development of knowledge, skills, and values (Gardner, 2007, Boden et al., 2011, Muetzel, 2015, Busby and Harshman, 2021). One could postulate that these other sources, such as near-peer training where students learn from fellow group members, may take a more predominate role in knowledge transfer than advisor–advisee interactions. With increasing research group sizes, direct instruction from advisors may be increasingly difficult to achieve. Indeed, a previous study has shown that a relationship may exist between research group sizes in engineering graduate programs and how learning occurs (Crede and Borrego, 2013). It was found that in large research groups (20+ members), student–advisor interactions were less frequent and student–student interactions predominated (Crede and Borrego, 2013). The knowledge in this case could be several steps removed from the advisor and may differ from the knowledge, skills, and values an advisor may wish to perpetuate.

Experiences that graduate students found helpful in their skill development revolved around learning from others with more experience and expertise

Participants’ descriptions of limited experiences highlighted their desire for guidance from experienced members of their department (i.e. research group members, advisor, and committee members). This brings to attention to the serial ↔ disjunctive dimension of students’ graduate education. Participants mentioned opportunities to learn from others in their community as largely helpful in their development. Participant noticing of the absence of opportunities to receive knowledge serially suggests their desire for additional opportunities. When participants perceived that their skills development was not formalized or was left to the responsibility of another party, such as themselves, knowledge acquisition may be considered largely disjunctive. Without guidance, the thought processes of an expert may not be readily visible to students and students may be unfamiliar with how to seek and utilize available resources (Collins et al., 1991). It may be prudent to consider opportunities provided to students to access the knowledge of experienced members within their community.

Graduate students’ experiences within a department are non-ubiquitous

Participants often mentioned social learning experiences, such as group meetings and receiving training from group members, were helpful in their skill development. This is in line with socialization theory, which theorizes students’ development through observations and engagement with their community members. However, our results indicated that participants within the same department did not necessarily perceive their department similarly. The difference in perceived valuation indicates that students’ experiences and socialization within a department are non-ubiquitous. Initial iterations of socialization theory have been criticized to function under the assumption that student success in the socialization process is measured in their ability to assimilate to the values and standards of the normative culture (Antony, 2002, Wofford and Blaney, 2021). In the most recent iteration of socialization theory leveraged in this study, Weidman, Twale, and Stein have acknowledged that socialization occurs in a bidirectional way wherein “the outcome of socialization is not the transfer of a social role, but identification with and commitment to a role that has been normatively and individually defined” (2001, p. 36). However, several studies have questioned the equitability of socialization opportunities for students from traditionally underrepresented populations (Sallee, 2011, Felder et al., 2014, Ramirez, 2017). The normative culture of academia is encompassing of the experiences of those who have been traditionally welcomed as members (i.e., white men) and continue to represent the typical full professor (Gardner, 2008, National Center for Education Statistics, 2023).

Furthermore, scientific norms perpetuated in the socialization process have been thought to be reflective of larger systemic influences such as capitalism and sexism (Wofford and Blaney, 2021). The experiences of students who do not fit the majority profile of graduate education are not entirely normative due to differences in minoritized status (Gardner, 2008). Students of minoritized statuses may need to confront normative conceptions more often than those of the majority when shaping their professional identity within their professional program. Departments should consider what opportunities are currently provided to promote social interactions between members and the accessibility of these opportunities. Caution should be taken in expressing the need for particular program elements within chemistry doctoral training. According to the 2012 ACS Graduate Education Commission, “there is room for greater variation in program design than has been recently typical in American graduate education in the chemical sciences. We believe that our field would benefit from more venturesome design and greater experimentation” (Shakhashiri, 2012, p. 6). Doctoral programs should not seek to design specific elements to cover the development of all potential career relevant skills. Programs should consider the goals of a doctoral education in chemistry, the specific educational goals and values of their department, and the needs of their students when considering program reforms. Therefore, programs should assess their current program experiences to identify opportunities to enhance practical learning and better prepare students for diverse career trajectories.

Other considerations

There are several considerations to note in this study. First, participants’ conceptualization of skill categories and component skills may differ from each other. While examples of component skills were provided for each skill category, it is possible that participants did not share the same conceptions. Second, this work serves as an exploratory study to identify graduate students’ conceptions of the value of skills and developmental experiences. While the sample size of this work is small, the collected demographic information has indicated that it is representative of the national chemistry graduate student population. However, a broader study should be conducted to provide support for the generalizability of the findings for this study. Third, while efforts were made to ensure that participants felt comfortable to provide honest responses, it is possible that participants may have felt pressured to present their department and research group in a favorable light, or alternatively, express dissatisfaction with their department or research groups. To mitigate these concerns, replication of this study is needed to collect additional information and capture these potential biases.

Conclusion

Informal and formal socialization processes play an important role in informing graduate students’ perceptions of the value of professional skills by members of their community. For example, informal observations of others’ engagement with different skills played an important role in informing their perceptions of the values held within their research group. The presence and structuring of formal program elements were readily used to inform students’ perceptions of their departments’ values. Research advisors and departments should clearly define their developmental goals for their graduate students as well as consider how these goals are being met and communicated to their students. Our findings also highlight the influence of graduate students' career aspirations in their personal valuation of and willingness to invest resources to develop professional skills. This further underscores the importance of explicit communication of the skill development goals of doctoral program elements or individual research programs and their relevance to different job sectors. Importantly, our results demonstrate the non-ubiquitousness of students’ experiences and perceptions thereby underscoring the need to move beyond a one-size-fits-all for program design and instead consider the diversity of the graduate student body and their aspirations in enacting program changes.

Data availability

To maintain confidentiality of human participants, raw data supporting the findings of this study is not publicly available. Findings of this study are supported with the data provided within the article. Additional materials supporting this article (positionality statements, interview details, codebook with code definitions, and expanded results figures) are provided within the ESI.†

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. American Chemical Society, (2016), ChemIDP, American Chemical Society. Available: https://chemidp.acs.org/[Accessed 2022-03-01].
2. Antony J. S., (2002), Reexamining doctoral student socialization and professional development: moving beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation, in Smart J. C., (ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, New York: Agathon.
3. Austin A. E. and Mcdaniels M., (2006), Preparing the professoriate of the future: graduate student socialization for faculty roles, Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, New York: Agathon.
4. Boden D., Borrego M. and Newswander L. K., (2011), Student socialization in interdisciplinary doctoral education, High. Educ., 62, 741–755.
5. Bragg A. K., (1976), The Socialization Process in Higher Education, ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 7, Washington, DC: The George Washington University.
6. Brauer D. D., Mizuno H., Stachl C. N., Gleason J. M., Bumann S., Yates B., Francis M. B. and Baranger A. M., (2021), Mismatch in perceptions of success: investigating academic values among faculty and doctoral students, J. Chem. Educ., 99, 338–345.
7. Busby B. D. and Harshman J., (2021), Program elements’ impact on chemistry doctoral students’ professional development: a longitudinal study, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22, 347–363.
8. Collins A., Brown J. S. and Holum A., (1991), Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible, Am. Educ., 15, 6–11.
9. Committee on Professional Training, (2000), Survey of PhD Recipients in Chemistry Part 2. Analysis of Written Comments. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
10. Crede E. and Borrego M., (2013), Learning in Graduate Engineering Research Groups of Various Sizes, J. Eng. Educ., 101, 565–589.
11. Cui Q. and Harshman J., (2020), Qualitative Investigation to Identify the Knowledge and Skills That U.S.-Trained Doctoral Chemists Require in Typical Chemistry Positions, J. Chem. Educ., 97, 1247–1255.
12. 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, 409–418.
13. Donkor B. and Harshman J., (2023), Learning Goals and Priorities Identified by an Examination of Chemistry Graduate Handbooks, J. Chem. Educ., 100, 3774–3783.
14. Felder P. P., Stevenson H. C. and Gasman M., (2014), Understanding race in doctoral student socialization, Int. J. Doctor. Stud., 9, 21–42.
15. Ganapati S. and Ritchie T. S., (2021), Professional development and career-preparedness experiences of STEM PhD students: gaps and avenues for improvement, PLoS One, 16, e0260328.
16. Gardner S. K., (2007), “I heard it through the grapevine”: doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history, High. Educ., 54, 723–740.
17. Gardner S. K., (2008), Fitting the mold of graduate school: a qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education, Innov. High. Educ., 33, 125–138.
18. Glanville J., (1971), Graduate education in chemistry. A personal view, J. Chem. Educ., 48, 669.
19. Golde C. M. and Walker G. E., (2006), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline-Carnegie essays on the doctorate, John Wiley & Sons.
20. Griffiths P. A., (1995), Reshaping Graduate Education, Issues Sci. Technol., 11, 74–79.
21. Guba E. G., (1981), Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries, Ectj, 29, 75–91.
22. Harrington G. W., (1970), Diversifying the doctorate, J. Chem. Educ., 47, 594–596.
23. Harshman J., (2020), Review of the Challenges that Face Doctoral Education in Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 98, 259–269.
24. Kuniyoshi C., Martin N., Schiavone C., Schlatterer J. and Stevens T., (2021), The 2019 ACS Graduate Student Survey Report, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
25. Kuniyoshi C., Sostaric J. and Kirchhoff M., (2014), The 2013 ACS graduate student survey, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
26. Lincoln Y. S. and Guba E. G., (1985), Naturalistic inquiry, Beverly Hills, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
27. Linton J. D., Tierney R. and Walsh S. T., (2011), Publish or perish: How are research and reputation related? Serials Rev., 37, 244–257.
28. Muetzel A. M., (2015), Experiential Learning & Engagement: The Role of Professional Development and Engagement in the Graduate Assistant Experience, PhD Thesis, Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College.
29. Murphy W. J., (1947), Chemistry and chemical engineering curricula in the postwar era, J. Chem. Educ., 24, 376.
30. National Center for Education Statistics, (2023), Full-time faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, and academic rank: Fall 2020, fall 2021, and fall 2022. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics.
31. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and National Science Foundation, (2021), Survey of Doctorate Recipients. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.
32. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and National Science Foundation, (2024), Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), in National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (ed.), Directorate Profiles, National Science Foundation.
33. Nyquist J. D. and Woodford B. J., (2000), Re-envisioning the PhD: What concerns to we have?, Seattle: University of Washington.
34. O'meara K., Jaeger A., Eliason J., Grantham A., Cowdery K., Mitchall A. and Zhang K. J., (2014), By design: How departments influence graduate student agency in career advancement, Int. J. Doctor. Stud., 9, 155.
35. Quill L. L., (1945), Some problems of the department of chemistry in state-supported universities, J. Chem. Educ., 22, 68.
36. Ramirez E., (2017), Unequal socialization: interrogating the Chicano/Latino (a) doctoral education experience, J. Divers. High. Educ., 10, 25.
37. R Core Team, (2023), R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
38. Sallee M. W., (2011), Performing masculinity: considering gender in doctoral student socialization, J. High. Educ., 82, 187–216.
39. Sauermann H. and Roach M., (2012), Science PhD career preferences: levels, changes, and advisor encouragement, PLoS One, 7, e36307.
40. Schultz W., (1995), Chemistry PhD Education. Chem. Eng. News Archive, 73, 6–7.
41. Shakhashiri B., (2012), Advancing graduate education in the chemical sciences, Washington, DC: The American Chemical Society.
42. Shenton A. K., (2004), Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects, Edu Inform., 22, 63–75.
43. Stein E. L., (1992), Socialization at a protestant seminary, PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh.
44. Thiry H., Laursen S. L. and Loshbaugh H. G., (2015), “How do I get from here to there?” An examination of PhD science students’ career preparation and decision making, Int. J. Doctor. Stud., 10, 237.
45. Thornton R. and Nardi P. M., (1975), The dynamics of role acquisition, Am. J. Sociol., 80, 870–885.
46. Tierney W. G., (1997), Organizational socialization in higher education, J. High. Educ., 68, 1–16.
47. Tierney W. G. and Rhoads R. A., (1993), Enhancing Promotion, Tenure and Beyond: Faculty Socialization as a Cultural Process. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6., Washington, DC: The George Washington Univeristy.
48. U.S. News and World Report, U.S. News & World Report: Best Chemistry Programs [Online], Available: https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/chemistry-rankings [Accessed 2023-05-01].
49. Van Maanen J. E. and Schein E. H., (1979), Toward a theory of organizational socialization, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alfred P. Sloan School of Management.
50. 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, ERIC.
51. Wofford A. M. and Blaney J. M., (2021), (Re) shaping the socialization of scientific labs: understanding women's doctoral experiences in STEM lab rotations, Rev. High. Educ., 44, 357–386.

---

Footnote

† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d4rp00317a

---