Theory of Doctoral Student Professional Identity - Essay Example

Theory Of Doctoral Professional Identity al Affiliation Discussion - Week 4: Synthesizing the Literature Synthesis OfThe Research About My Final Project: Themes, Correlations, Or Discrepancies In the discussion of the theory of doctoral students’ professional identity, most researchers agree that in the pursuit of their doctoral education, students face academic and other stressors that define the themes of socialization and professional identity development. In the pursuit of their academics, doctoral students have to satisfy academic expectations such as performing well, growing their academic knowledge, and aligning their knowledge with accordance with the practical and real picture in the field for better services. However, little or no research has been carried out to focus on relating the experiences of these students to their developing individualities as scholars and academics (Sweitzer 2009). Consequently, the use of the term ‘identities’ with doctoral students gets more obscure since little significance is paid to the process of its construction. In such obscured meaning, most doctoral programs continue to emphasize the role of research for students graduating with PhD while forfeiting the need for extra skills required in the attainment of their professional identity. During their socialization, doctoral students are expected by the community to work hard and pay them back for supporting them by attaining better grades (Gersick, Bartunek and Dutton 2000). This introduces pressure on the students as they seek to meet the expectations of the community. An important question to guide this study will be: “what factors and experiences, during doctoral education, influence students’ professional identity development?” Answers to this question sheds light on the identity of doctoral students as scholars and academics who can creatively generate new knowledge and are reliable to transform such comprehension through application, teaching, and writing. References Gersick, C., Bartunek, J., & Dutton, J. (2000). Learning From Academia: The Importance Of Relationships In Professional Life. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1026-1044. Sweitzer, V. (2009). Towards a Theory of Doctoral Student Professional Identity Development: A Developmental Networks Approach. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 1-34. Discussion - Week 5: Theoretical Framework A Brief Description Of The Theories Selected and Explanation of How They Provide A Theoretical Framework For the Final Project The two identified theories are identity theory and social identity theory, and Erikson’s psychological theory. While social identity theory is founded on structural symbolic interactions, social identity theory commenced with the social categorization. Though the two theories comprise of numerous overlapping concepts, each has an agenda, tradition, and central point of focus. A major difference is that as social identity theory focusses more on the aspects of group behaviour, intergroup relations, contextual responsiveness, and a clearer differentiation between group and role (Stets and Burke 2000). Conversely, the identity theory seeks to emphasize more on behaviour, specifically by drawing upon underlying sociocognitive processes like role taking, dissonance minimization and self-verification, role taking, reflected assessments. Furthermore, identity theory’s lessened focus on the sociocognitive element causes less attention to the self responsiveness that arises from immediate contextual cues, despite that this theory depends on social processes and events continuing during any interaction. Nonetheless, social identity theory and identity theory distinctly explore varying sociocognitive processes. According to Sokol (2009), the social identity theory and the identity theory borrow heavily from Erikson’s psychosocial theory of development that focus on identity development from the perspective of a lifespan. For my research, the identity theory explores more of Erikson’s identity development theory from an adult perspective, particularly during the process of attaining doctoral education. Since different researchers identify differently with Erikson’s identity development theory, the social identity and identity theories will facilitate in identifying a shared professional identity amongst institutions offering doctoral education (Gibson, Dollarhide and Moss 2010). In summary, both social identity and identity theory advocate for major themes of self-categorization, and identification (McCall and Simmons 1978). References Gibson, D., Dollarhide, C., & Moss, J. (2010). Professional Identity Development: A Grounded Theory of Transformational Tasks of New Counsellors. Counsellor Education and Supervision, 50, 21-38. McCall, G., & Simmons, L. (1978). Identities and Interactions. New York: Free Press. Sokol, J. (2009). Identity Development Throughout the Lifetime: An Examination of Eriksonian Theory. Graduate Journal of Counselling Psychology, 1(2), 1-10. Stets, J., & Burke, P. (2000). Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237. WEEK#4 Application: Theory of Doctoral Student Professional Identity Introduction Whereas majority of the doctoral programs previously emphasized the role of research, for students graduating with PhD, there has been a neglect of other additional skills required to blend with students’ academic work to enhance the development of their professional identity. Furthermore, though few doctoral programs recognize the need to have extra skills within doctoral program’s students, there has been little research focussed on how to establish an environment where such factors are fostered for holistic development of student identity (Crede, et al. 2011). The additional skills play a crucial role as they enable students to establish research identity; define their teaching identity; facilitates transformation of knowledge; and encourage knowledge preservation. While seeking to develop doctoral students’ teaching, research and knowledge preservation skills, doctoral programs focus more on the general idea of social category which in this case is a PhD holder or doctoral graduate. The doctoral students then put in all efforts to belong and meet the defining characteristics of the category, thus forming self-definitions that are part of the self-concept (Hogg, Terry and White 1995). This way, most doctoral programs manage to produce graduates who describe and prescribe to the membership of that group in terms of how they feel, think, and behave. In addition, social identity translates to a salient basis of self-regulation within that given context. Unlike social identity theory, identity theory seeks to explain social conduct through the reciprocal associations between the society and self (Burke, Owens and Serpe, Advances in Identity Theory and Research 2003). For the doctoral student, identity theory is linked to the symbolic interactions affects social conduct through its influence on the individual. In addition, the identity theory also acknowledges relationships between the multidimensional aspect of self and the wider social structure. The role of identity theory in identifying the factors that influence the attainment of doctoral professional identity is that it forms the basis for predicting role-related conduct. This basis permits the tendency to focus on individualistic consequences of identity-based process (Burke and Jan 2009). Role-identity is crucial as doctoral students are expected to interact with distinct groups whose opinions matter to them, while displaying distinct selves during interactions with different groups. Role identities are self-definitions applied to people by themselves as a result of the structural positions they occupy and through the process of self-definition as a member of a given social category, in this case the doctoral students. The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors that influence professional student identity. This objective aims at differentiating the fact that saying one is a student is just a classification of self and not an explanation of what it means being a student interacting with the society and people around them while moving towards attaining personal academic goals (Burke, Owens and Serpe 2003). However, the classification of self cause internalized meanings that vary from one person to the other, though centrally placed within core beliefs and values held as part of the general culture. Since such meanings are part of self, they inform individual what to expect of themselves and tell show the other people to respond to the individual. References Burke, P., & Jan, S. (2009). Identity Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burke, P., Owens, T., & Serpe, R. (2003). Advances in Identity Theory and Research. Boston: MA Springer. Crede, E., Armbruster, M., Biscotte, S., Potter, K., Watsion, J., Williams, S., & Burge, P. (2011). Developing Stewards: Professional Identity in Doctoral Education. Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Hogg, M., Terry, D., & White, K. (1995). Social Psychology Quarterly, 255-269. WEEK#5 Application: Final Project Theoretical Framework In order to understand the factors and experiences that influence doctoral students’ professional identity development, various theories have been referenced and they include Erikson’s identity theory, identity theory and social identity theory. A description and rationale for each theory Identity Theory Based on the concept of identity theory, this paper seeks to establish the impact of relationships and define how and why relationships are crucial within doctoral programs (Gersick, Bartunek and Dutton 2000). Gersick, Bartunek, & Dutton (2000) the major social interactions that influence doctoral students are peers and academic advisors, and this affects the student’s experience. However, Sweitzer (2009) highlights that besides peers and faculty influence, students also rely on external academic community yet this has mostly been left out when evaluating doctoral students’ professional growth. The inclusion of external and internal standpoints and voices within graduate education was evaluated by Wulff and Austin (2004). In their edition of Paths to the Professioriate Wulff and Austin (2004) point out that such inclusion would not only benefit graduate education, but would also inform the present understanding of experience, thus improving education in general. Strengths of Identity Theory The identity theory brings out or uncovers the relationships, beyond the those of peers and academic advisors, that are crucial to the success of doctoral students (Wulff and Austin 2004). If such relationships exist, identity theory is used to understand the interactions with various individuals and how such interactions influence the development of the faculty career conception. Limitations of Identity Theory Despite the crucial contribution of the identity theory in this paper, the theory is limited to individualistic outcomes of identity-related processes. This translates to mean that where two laws are identical, then they are expected to share their non-intensional attributes. Social Identity Theory The focus of this theory is that each person has the knowledge that they are members of a given group or category. In the case of doctoral students, social group refers to a set of individuals holding common social identification or views. In this condition, doctoral students regard themselves as belonging to an identical social category. More often, students gain their professional identity by comparing themselves with others and then categorizing the peers. According to Stets & Burke (2000), persons or peers identified as having behaviors similar to self are grouped as an in-group division while those with differing personalities are out-group. This process is referred to as self-comparison. Another way of professional identity development involves self-categorization that arises from self-esteem or the evaluative component, and psychological or commitment elements as a way of empirically scrutinize what links them. Unlike the process of social comparison, self-categorization is the accentuation of perceived identical between the others and self. Strengths of Social Identity Theory Accentuation is not limited to some attitudes, values and beliefs, as it happens to all, regardless of their style of speech, affective reaction, and behavioral norms amongst others (Hogg, Terry and White 1995). Limitations of Social Identity Theory Conversely, social identity process is not a one-size-fit-all process of social identity professional identity development. Here, the emphasis is on the selective implementation of the effect of prominence, particularly regarding the dimensions that will cause results that are self-satisfying. A good example is a person’s self-esteem that is reinforced by the evaluation of the dimensions of in-group and out-group for negative or positive judgment of the group. Erikson and Self-Identity Theory According to the (Seven Countries Services 2015) Erikson used the term crisis to define a series of internal conflicts associated with each development stage. The emphasis by Erikson was that, the personality of a person is defined by how they resolve crisis and so is their future development. This theory can be used to identify the characters of doctoral students in their first year and the findings used to predict students who are likely to proceed with the program till the end. The limit of Erikson’s development is on the doctoral students’ professional identity development and not in childhood or adolescent developments. According to Jelenic (2013), it is not established identities such as “doctor”, during one’s childhood or adulthood that cause each doctor to be identified in the same way. However, it is effective exploration-led exhaustive comprehension and self-knowledge that caused individuals to make better decisions. Strengths of Erikson and Self-Identity Theory As adults, doctoral students are expected to adhere to well-defined objectives concerning their chosen career, given their experience in the field, informed sense of purpose, and well-founded morals and ideals. Limitations of Erikson and Self-Identity Theory Erikson’s identity theory is limited to the fact that some adults rediscover themselves in deep into adulthood and decide to adopt a different meaning of their lives given arising experiences and changes. The limitation arises given that one is expected to have an understanding of their career from an early age, such that they can successfully engage in it upon enrolment (Cramer, Flynn and LaFave 1997). Besides failure to accommodate adulthood rediscovery and change, Erikson’s theory fails to balance its focus on both girls and boys, by paying more attention to boys, and childhood and infancy than in adult life. This is despite that it is a lifespan theory (Carol 2001). References Carol, W. (2001). Erikson on Development in Adulthood : New Insights From The Unpublished Papers: New Insights From The Unpublished Papers. United States: Oxford University Press. Cramer, C., Flynn, B., & LaFave, A. (1997). Erik Eriksons 8 Stages of Pychosocial Development. United States: Jill Krementz. Gersick, C., Bartunek, J., & Dutton, J. (2000). Learning From Academia: The Importance Of Relationships In Professional Life. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1026-1044. Jelenic, M. (2013). Identity Status: The Impact on Academic Performance. UNLV Theses, Paper 1933. Seven Countries Services. (2015). Hope Happens Here. Retrieved from http://www.sevencounties.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=41163&cn=1310 Sweitzer, V. (2009). Towards a Theory of Doctoral Student Professional Identity Development: A Developmental Networks Approach. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 1-34. Wulff, D., & Austin, A. (2004). Paths To The Professoriate: Strategies For Enriching The Preparation Of Future Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Read More