Developing Stewards
Running head: Developing Stewards: Professional Identity in Doctoral Education
Developing Stewards: Professional Identity in Doctoral Education
Erin D. Crede, Megan L. Armbruster, Stephen M. Biscotte, Kerry L. Potter,
Jenny L. Watson, Sharon S. Williams, and Penny L. Burge
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
1
Developing Stewards
2
Abstract
Beginning with the framework for creating stewards of the discipline outlined by Golde and
Walker (2006), the aim of this study was to examine doctoral student identity development
through exploration of their lived experiences during graduate study. Using a phenomenological
approach, researchers conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with six doctoral students,
and data were analyzed using a constant comparative methodology. The results include the
presentation of a new model that integrates the characteristics of stewards of the discipline into
professional identity development. This model is based on three major themes, including:
knowledge generation: developing the research identity; knowledge transformation; developing
the teaching identity; and knowledge conservation: preserving the identity of a lifelong learner.
These results can be used to foster the holistic graduate programs to support the development of
well rounded doctoral students.
Developing Stewards
3
Developing Stewards: Professional Identity Development in Doctoral Education
While most doctoral programs have historically emphasized the importance of research,
students graduating with a PhD will be required to have additional skills regardless of their
chosen professional area. Whether entering business, industry, or an academic position, doctoral
recipients will be expected to communicate their investigative results as well as critically assess
the work of others. Existing research has revealed that while most doctoral programs
acknowledge the need for these additional skills, few studies have focused how to create an
environment that fosters holistic doctoral student development(Austin & Wulff, 2004).
Publications on programs that give graduate students teaching experience are wide spread
(Council of Graduate Schools, 2009; Csavina, 2002; Dziedzic, Janissek, & Tozzi, 2007; Kane et
al., 2007), but many of these programs address varying aspects of doctoral education without
adequately addressing the dynamic and ongoing nature of student development. Sweitzer (2009)
proposed a pair of models concerning professional identity development during graduate
education which highlight the growth of doctoral students as they meet the demands of graduate
study. While her study focuses on doctoral preparation for a faculty career, her results are
characterize a set of common skills required for a number of different positions. She found that
students are likely to begin to evaluate whether they agree with the goals of the program for
placement and weighting of academic roles which they have been socialized to accept (i.e.
percentage of time that should be allocated to research, teaching, and service). Sweitzer also
found that students viewed the roles as opportunities to develop and hone skills, therefore
making it less important to view one role as more important than another. She went on to explore
the factors that influenced the development of a professional identity, finding that one important
contributing factor was students’ perceptions about and their development in three key roles:
Developing Stewards
4
doctoral student, research assistant, and teacher. She concludes that more research is needed in a
variety of disciplines to understand the influence of students’ multiple relationships on
professional identity development (Sweitzer, 2009).
The purpose of this study was to investigate the development of the future stewards of the
discipline as they progress in their doctoral programs, with specific emphasis on examining how
graduate school experiences contribute to their identity as a teacher, research, and student. This
development was addressed by answering the following research question: How do student
experiences during doctoral education contribute to professional identity development?
The remaining sections in this paper support the purpose of this study, by first presenting
a description of the theoretical framework guiding this research. Following the theoretical
framework, we discuss the data collection and analysis using a phenomenological approach.
Next the results of the constant comparative analysis of this study’s results are presented. The
analysis leads to the development of a new model for doctoral student preparation. We conclude
with presentation of the models implications of the study and suggestions for future research.
Theoretical Framework
In order to develop a theoretical framework for this study we have drawn on two main
bodies of literature. The first is literature on professional identity development of doctoral
students (Cast, 2003; Colbeck, 2008; Stryker & Burke, 2000; Sweitzer, 2009), while the second
discusses doctoral students as the future stewards of the discipline (Golde & Walker, 2006). By
considering how professional identity development is influenced by the roles doctoral students
play and how these roles fit with the overall purpose of doctoral education (creating stewards of
the discipline), we establish a hybrid model through which individual identity development can
be explored. This model also serves as practical guide for graduate programs to create initiatives
Developing Stewards
5
to assess student development in all three areas, ensuring that doctoral programs are truly
fostering the development of stewards of the discipline.
Professional Student Identity
To say that one is a student is to classify the self, but it does not explain what it means to
be a student (Burke, 2003). Internalized meanings may vary from person to person, but these
variations generally center on a commonly held set of core values and beliefs and that are part of
the general culture. These meanings are part of the self; they tell us what to expect of ourselves,
and because they are shared, they tell others how to respond to us (Burke). Roles are externally
defined by others expectations but individuals define their own internal identities as they accept
or reject social role expectations (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Developing a sense of shared
meanings across different roles may help doctoral students craft professional identities that
integrate being a teacher, researcher and service provider (Burke). Educating doctoral students to
find the synergy among their multiple academic identities a way of “re-professionalizing”
academic work- one student at a time (Colbeck, 2008).
Stewards of the Discipline
The preparation of graduate students for faculty careers was discussed by Golde and
Walker (2006) in detail in Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education, a publication of the
Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. In it, Golde (2006) presents the concept of graduate students as future “stewards of
the discipline,” or scholars who will “creatively generate new knowledge … and responsibly
transform those understandings through writing, teaching, and application.” She explained that
stewardship is not an innate quality, but one that can and should be developed, and therefore the
fundamental mission of doctoral education should be to develop these stewards of the discipline.
Developing Stewards
6
Leaders of doctoral programs will successfully develop a steward of the discipline when
graduate students who are competent in the following areas: knowledge generation, translation,
and conservation (Golde & Walker, 2006). Knowledge generation has characteristically been the
foundation of doctoral education. As Golde (2006) suggests the PhD is “first and foremost a
research degree” and the ability to contribute new knowledge to the field is the culminating
experience of completing a doctoral program. We expanded on this component of doctoral
education to consider what aspects of students’ development contribute to their success at
generating new knowledge, contribute to their identity as a researcher, and fulfill other roles.
Following knowledge generation, a steward of the discipline must be skilled at
conservation. Disciplines evolve continuously, and stewards “have responsibility for maintaining
the continuity, stability, and vitality of the field” (Golde & Walker, 2006). These graduates must
be able to critically assess knowledge and understand the foundations of the field. Stewards of
the discipline must be continuously active in their pursuit of knowledge, and this study takes
conservation a step further, examining what aspects of doctoral experiences contribute to
students developing the identity of a lifelong learner. The final aspect of a steward of the
discipline is the able to transform that knowledge. Transformation implies the importance of
representing and communicating ideas effectively; implying teaching in the broadest sense of the
word (Golde & Walker, 2006). Regardless of their final career aspirations, doctoral recipients
will be called upon to explain information and results to their stakeholders, either in written or
oral presentations. Whether working in a classroom or industrial setting, a steward must be able
to convey information and explain the value of their research, knowledge and skills. Doctoral
education presents a unique opportunity to develop this “teaching identity” through the
Developing Stewards
7
facilitation of undergraduate courses. We explored the experiences afforded doctoral students as
they develop their teaching identity and how this aids in their ability to transform knowledge.
The Hybrid Model: Identity Development as a Steward of the Discipline
This model was created by the researchers to ground the analysis of student experiences
during doctoral education in the combination of identity theory and the stewards of discipline
model. Using the literature as a guide we explored the nature of doctoral student experiences,
considering both the individual identities that students had prior to starting graduate school, and
those identities which may have stemmed from their role as a teacher, researcher and student.
We also considered the definitions put forth by Golde and Walker (2006) that describe the future
stewards of the discipline and examined these in light of our participants experiences. Interview
data was examined for theme with the previous literature in mind. The model shown in Figure 1
emerged from several coding iterations and was used to guide the final analysis of the data.
Figure 1. Identity Development as a Steward of the Discipline
Developing Stewards
8
Our model for developing stewards of the discipline involves developing doctoral student
identity in three areas, each corresponding to one of the characteristics prescribed by the Golde
and Walker (2006). For students at many institutions, the identity most often developed during
doctoral study is the research identity; the PhD is after all, a research degree. Doctoral students
develop a student identity as a function of taking courses, but as we show later, there are other
experiences that can contribute as well. Finally there exists the doctoral student identity as
teacher, addressed nationwide by programs such as the Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) initiative
among other individual programs (Brannon & Zappe, 2009; Cho & Predebon, 1996; Council of
Graduate Schools, 2009; Crede & Borrego, 2009; Csavina, 2002). Unless the student is planning
on a faculty career or tasked with a teaching assignment, few students develop their identity as a
teacher. We argue that in order to create a steward of the discipline, doctoral students must
develop their professional identity in all three areas: student, researcher and teacher. Our model
also highlights areas where identities may interact. Our research shows that these may be
instances of conflict between competing roles, or times where a strong identity in one area
strengthens the development in others. We will discuss the development of this model further in
the results section.
Methods
In order to capture the experiences of doctoral students during their graduate education,
data was collected and analyzed using a phenomenological approach as described by (Creswell,
2009). This approach is appropriate when researchers seek to gather and interpret the lived
experiences and life stories of a selected group of people (Rossman, 2003). Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with six doctoral students representing a variety of disciplines. Data
Developing Stewards
9
were analyzed using a constant comparative methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) initially
guided by literature, followed by a more focused coding using the refined model.
Participants
The participants were chosen according to a pre-determined set of selection criteria.
Eligibility criteria included that participants have completed at least one year in a doctoral
program while teaching or co-teaching at least one course in addition to conducting research and
other student requirements. Participants were excluded if they had completed their doctoral
program before May 2007. There were six participants, ranging from 26 to 49 years of age and
currently working on or had completed doctoral programs within the last year in different
academic departments. A summary of the participants’ demographic information is presented in
Table 1.
Table 1
Summary of Participant Demographic Information
Name
Gender Age
Race
Marital Status
Department
Ann
Female 26
White
Married
Statistics
Elizabeth Female 49
White
Married
Business Administration
Ellen
Female 27
White
Single
Clinical Exercise Physiology
Jackie
Female 39
Mixed
Married
ED: Curriculum and Instruction
Joe
Male
26
White
Single
Aerospace Engineering
Melinda
Female 29
White
Single
Industrial & Systems Engineering
Data Collection
Developing Stewards
10
As discussed in the previous section, the primary data sources for this study were
doctoral students. The study participants were purposefully selected using the pre-determined
criteria, from as wide a range of academic backgrounds as possible. Permission to solicit the
participants for interviews was obtained through human subjects (IRB) review. Written consent
was obtained to audio record the interview for clarification and accuracy of direct quotations. To
ensure consistency, all interviews were conducted with the same interview protocol provided in
Table 2, with individual interviewers asking probing questions to garner additional details and
clarification. Field notes were taken during each of the interviews, following the
recommendations of Emerson et al (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). The textual data analyzed
as described in the following section was conducted with a combination of field notes and
complete transcriptions.
Table 2
Interview protocol questions
1. What factors influenced your decision to go to graduate school?
2. How do you balance the various activities required of a graduate student?
3. On a continuum ranging from exclusively teaching to exclusively researching,
where do you see yourself fitting and why?
4. How have your future goals changed as a result of the graduate school
experience?
5. Professionally, where do you see yourself in a couple years?
Data Analysis
Developing Stewards
11
The constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) was used to systematically
and reiteratively analyze the data and arrive at conclusions. Combining the stewards of the
discipline model with identity theory, and results highlighted in other sources (Walker, Golde,
Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) an
initial coding scheme was developed. A visual representation was created to begin grouping the
textual data into general categories and to determine the relationship among categories. Data
were re-coded and new categories were created as necessary to capture emerging themes and
relate them back to the research question and theoretical framework. From this analysis, three
themes evolved, as shown in Table 3, which serve as the major components of doctoral identity
development previously illustrated in Figure 1.
Table 3
Summary of Coding Scheme Categories
Three Components of the
Stewards of the Discipline
Categories
Generation: Developing a
Consulting duties
Research Identity
Advisor’s priorities
Department priorities
Faculty models
Applied examples
Transformation: Developing
Preparation for class (lectures, office hours,
a Teaching Identity
open-door policy)
Faculty models
Developing Stewards
12
Departmental empowerment
Faculty colleagues
Passion for field
Preparation for career
Conservation: Preserving the
Coursework
Identity of a Lifelong Learner
Advanced degree
Pre-determined class schedule
Lifelong learner
Career
Guided by literature on creating the stewards of the discipline, we preformed a more
focused coding using the language given by the authors for generation, transformation, and
conservation. The research team coded each transcript separately, and then compiled codes into
the categories which comprised the corresponding themes shown in Table 3. The Generation
theme combined the five categories related to consulting duties, advisor’s priorities, department
priorities, faculty models, and applied examples. The Transformation theme had six categories
related to the student’s teaching identity. These categories were class preparation, faculty
models, departmental empowerment, faculty colleagues, passion for the field, and preparation for
career. The third theme of Conservation describes five categories that emerged from the coding
schemes, including: coursework, advanced degree, pre-determined class schedule, lifelong
learner, and career. Using the themes described in Table 3, a final visual representation of the
model was developed to guide the data analysis (Figure 1).
Limitations
Developing Stewards
13
The primary limitation in this study was the lack of diversity in the sample and the
limited time spent with each participant. Researchers acknowledged the fact that the participant
sample was based one of convenience and accessibility, which did not allow for more purposeful
sampling of a more ethnically and gender diverse population.
Results
The following sub sections detail the three major professional development themes that
comprise this model: Knowledge Generation-Developing a Research Identity, Knowledge
Transformation-Developing a Teaching Identity, and Knowledge Conservation-Preserving the
Identity of a Life Long Learner.
Theme 1: Knowledge Generation-Developing a Research Identity
Participants reported initially entering a graduate program in order to acquire certain
positions in current careers or because it was a necessity in their field. Although at the beginning
of their program, all the students already identified with a certain aspect of the program, whether
student, teacher or researcher, they soon found external influences further shaping a path in
research. Interpersonal interactions amongst doctoral students and their department members,
particularly their advisors, contributed to doctoral students’ development as professional
researchers. An advisor’s priorities often were reported to influence a student’s priorities and
caused a shift in the balance of identities between student, teacher and researcher. If an advisor
felt that research was more important to a students’ future career, then coursework or other
activities would take a lesser role.
Although all six participants’ experiences were quite different, each graduate student was
influenced by multiple external influences in how much time they dedicated towards research.
While some participants were party to external influences, such as their advisor, shaping their
Developing Stewards
14
priorities towards research, others struggled to identify as researchers because of external
influences outside of the world of academia. Family, although usually supportive regarding
graduate study, was a limiting factor in the students’ dedication to research. Jackie was stern in
her statement: “Well, I always told myself before I even started this program, I didn’t care what
happened; I was a mother first.” Ann corroborated the sentiment, saying, “I don’t want to spend
too much time on my research and teaching because I think I should probably go home at some
point and if I wasn’t married I think I would probably spend all day on campus.” While the
demands of family life at times limited the research of participants it was evident that family
members were also supportive of students. When discussing the hours spent working on her
doctoral program, Elizabeth stated, “My husband was very understanding. They’re in it
too…right there with us.”
Heavy emphasis on research development left some participants feeling a lack of
expertise in the other demands of academia. One participant reported that this became the
ultimate factor in career decisions leading towards research. Ellen stated,
I think if I wanted to go into a teaching position right now, I wouldn't be qualified to
teach. Because I don't have the course background of the courses I would have wanted to
take that were just never offered cuz we didn't have faculty to teach it. I mean it’s
definitely a possibility that the reason that I started to go towards the research side of
things is because I knew I wasn’t qualified to do the other things that I wanted to do when
I initially started.
Research and the generation of knowledge is an essential component of an academic life,
but sometimes can be overbearing and leave a student feeling incapable of achieving preparation
for other roles in academia, especially teaching and service. However, if students are offered
opportunities to combine research with their student and teacher identities, doctoral students will
be able to better meet the demands of either a teaching or research career. Doctoral students
Developing Stewards
15
often saw their research as benefiting other aspects of their doctoral education, including their
identity as a teacher.
Theme 2: Knowledge Transformation-Developing a Teaching Identity
As discussed in the generation theme, study participants not only described their interest
in research as a motivation to pursue a PhD, but they also emphasized their interest in teaching,
which falls under our theme of knowledge transformation. Study participants spoke about how
teaching contributed to their motivation to enroll in graduate education and how the practice of
teaching during graduate school has contributed to their future career goals. In the words of
Melinda, “I worked for a couple of years and did research and decided I really liked that and I
also really enjoyed anytime I got to teach so I became interested in an academic career.” This
motivation provided the impetus for Melinda to choose a doctoral program where she knew she
would be involved in knowledge generation and transformation of student learners. The idea that
she would like to get experiences in both research and teaching enabled Melinda to craft her
doctoral program toward her strengths and her weaknesses, as well as prepare her for her future
career. Another study participant, Jackie spoke to her interest in teaching as motivation to start a
doctoral program, “I’m an occupational therapist by discipline and I worked in clinical practice
for 10 years before and then decided I wanted to teach.” These examples demonstrate a desire of
students entering into doctoral programs to give back to the profession by transforming the
knowledge learned in the field to future generations of students.
Several study participants noted that their dedication to teaching classes in graduate
school provided an opportunity to incorporate lessons from the research they were studying in
their labs. Study participant, Joe, noted,
In teaching you learn, and then you relearn things that you forgot. You look at things in
kind of a different way, and I actually applied some of the things that I taught in my class
Developing Stewards
16
to my research…Then it’s not just ‘here’s the equation’ but its ‘here’s the equation,
here’s how you apply it’ and then continue to expand.
This application of learning in the field to the study in the classroom demonstrates that future
teachers are well-versed on how to incorporate the fundamental keys of the profession.
Elizabeth, who worked in industry and was on faculty at a community college while completing
her doctoral program discussed incorporating her research activities into teaching meant that she
was not “having two separate lives all of the time.” When students are able to use one identity to
support the other, knowledge gains and student satisfaction and engagement with the program
may be increased. However, when students are confronted with conflicting identities, they may
simply choose to exit the role (Cast, 2003). Providing students with a multitude of experiences
related to their knowledge generation and transformation identities through research and teaching
activities will increase students’ level of comfort with both.
Another study participant, Ellen, commented on what an external motivator, her advisor,
thought of the practice of teaching’s influence on department priorities, noting that teaching was
important, but research should still come first. The notion of balancing priorities was mentioned
by all of the research participants, with several discussing the shift of priorities between their
roles of researchers, teachers, and students as they progressed in their degree programs. For
example, one study participant commented on how she used to spend a considerable amount of
time on teaching, but has become more efficient with practice. As Melinda came more
comfortable with the material and style that she was going to teach, she did not need to spend the
same amount of time on preparation for classes. She is now able to focus more on her research
and her service projects. As students develop skills in other areas of doctoral education, they will
be able to use all of their time more efficiently. As shown by Melinda’s comment, the efficiency
she learned through teaching enabled her to devote more time to her research and service
Developing Stewards
17
activities, indicating that time spent broadening one identity can yield dividends to their other
identities as time progresses. For example, time spent working on your transformation identity
does not always mean time lost on research.
Finally, in the area of transformation, the participants’ self-identity shifted as they
progress in their degree programs. A few study participants described feeling like a junior faculty
member and a peer to the other faculty in the department. These perceptions came to the
forefront for these participants after having the opportunity to teach classes. For example,
Melinda commented,
New faculty members forget that I am not a faculty member and a lot of the faculty
members also have started referring to me almost as another faculty member. The
teaching and full-time, really being an instructor…has changed their perception of me
which also has affected me, as well.
Another study participant, Joe, noted the change as well. His ability to teach has changed the
way that the faculty members interact with him, noting that he doesn’t feel “that they view me as
a student anymore.” As doctoral students become more comfortable with their multiple roles,
faculty members do not see them as students anymore because they are exhibiting more of the
qualities desired in a steward of the discipline.
Knowledge transformation, translated for this study in the aspect of teaching, is an
essential aspect of the participants’ intent to pursue doctoral-level education. During the course
of their PhD programs, they were provided the opportunity to teach in the classroom while
researching in the field. Based on these experiences, participants gained a further interest in
pursuing a degree as a faculty member and developed an identity befitting a future member of a
university faculty. Authentic experiences, such as balancing research and teaching roles, moved
doctoral students closer to the role of steward of the discipline.
Developing Stewards
18
It should also be noted that knowledge transformation does not only occur through
students that have teaching assignments, but was a common theme among all of our participants.
For those students that never intend to pursue a faculty career other methods of knowledge
transformation may be more appropriate. Knowledge transformation, as defined for this study,
requires that students be able to transform knowledge. This could also be accomplished through
professional publications, conference presentations, or giving a seminar to the graduate student
body. If true teaching experience is desired, allowing doctoral students to giver several lectures
to a class will also help foster a more complete transformation identity. Regardless of the
method chosen, ensuring that doctoral students have multiple experiences transforming
knowledge is a requirement for preparing stewards of the discipline.
Theme 3: Conservation-Preserving the Identity of a Lifelong Learner
According to Golde and Walker (2006), a critical component of the doctoral process and
becoming a steward of the discipline is conservation of the ideas, foundations, values, and
practices within a given discipline. This includes learning historical components of the
profession, having an appreciation for becoming a lifelong learner, and being open to
constructive critique and mentoring offered by the faculty. Participants in the study collectively
highlighted the value of their personal experiences of having been a doctoral student with both
teaching and research responsibilities. Participants spoke of feeling competent in their fields of
study when recognized as departmental peers and having opportunities to interact professionally
with mentors. Establishing strong relationships was also described as a highlight - a considerable
component of the process as a lifelong learner
They also collectively indicated feeling empowered to pass along the information they
have learned as a doctoral student which has earned them considerable respect versus being what
Developing Stewards
19
Jackie called, “simply a student.” Joe stated that, “I get the impression that my advisor at least
respects the stuff that I have done so I think that plays a lot into it…they definitely look at you
different. That’s the impression that I get, that they have a different attitude toward me.” The
notion that faculty members look at the graduate students differently as they get progress in their
fields in consistent with the students being seen as more of a member of a the professional
community and less of a student. One of the primary objectives of a community is to impart the
norms, values and knowledge of the profession to its aspiring members (Wenger, 1998). As
doctoral students add to their conservation identity, combined with their generation and
transformation identities, faculty members begin to view them not only as stewards of the
discipline, but the newest members of their professional community.
Some participants expressed the value of being mentored by esteemed professionals as a
way to learn from others’ mistakes without having to experience them all first-hand. This is a
very important quality for a lifelong learner. They are then able to pass that knowledge along by
mentoring to younger students using their transformation identity. Several found it to be a
rewarding way to share their knowledge with others. Ann said, “It’s fun to see people get
it…I’ve always been a tutor and that one-on-one contact and seeing when someone gets [it]. I
miss that in the classroom.” These examples give evidence to the fact that some of the
participants desire to give something back to the profession by passing on their experiences to
contribute to the field, which is also a value of knowledge transformation. The value of a
knowledge conservation identity during a doctoral program cannot be reiterated enough, as
evidenced by one participant combining all three identity elements,
I watch [the faculty] and think that’s the kind of questions I need to be asking my
students, pushing them more into critical thinking, a little deeper. I always am watching it
from two levels when I’m working with my professors. I’m watching how they’re doing
things as well as trying to be the student.
Developing Stewards
20
This experience highlights how one doctoral student used her identity as a student to
increase her understanding of what it meant to have an identity as a teacher. Several other
participants commented along similar lines, noticing that research, teaching and student identities
were not “mutually exclusive” and that success in one did not necessarily mean they were
lacking in the other.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of graduate students in doctoral
programs and how this affected their development as a teacher, researcher and student. This was
done through semi-structured interviews with six different doctoral students. External influences
such as advisor philosophies and demands from personal life heavily influence how the student
prioritizes their identities during their graduate study. An important aspect, research identity,
was affected by different external influences which either had a negative or positive impact on
the participants and their future career decisions. As students progressed through their doctoral
program, additional influential factors that contributed to their development included the
relationship between themselves and the existing faculty members. As doctoral students develop
the three facets of identity presented in this study, faculty members in the department began to
view the student as more of a junior colleague. Individual identities did not develop in isolation,
creating potential problems for students with conflicting identity beliefs. On the other end, many
students used the overlap between teaching and research to strengthen their identity in the other.
Identifying the multiple identities students develop during graduate education highlights
the importance of creating an environment where all identity beliefs flourish. Carrying the
discipline into the future requires that students develop as researchers, teachers, and lifelong
learners. This article serves as a basis for developing assessment measures for doctoral
Developing Stewards
21
programs, and as a guideline for advisors, department heads and other faculty members involved
in the training of future doctoral students.
Implications
In response to the findings in this study, future research should be focused on the
assessment of doctoral programs that create an authentic experience through holistic practice in
the field and in the classroom. It emerged that the six students’ participation in knowledge
generation, knowledge transformation, and conservation created a total experience that prepared
them for future careers in academia. Those students who did not have the holistic experiences
noted these frustrations and remarked that they did not feel prepared to enter a faculty position.
While we chose to focus our study on doctoral students considering faculty careers, this model
can be interpreted in light of research career aspirations by substituting other transformation
experiences such as conference presentations, publications and graduate seminars. Regardless of
the future career, a steward of the discipline should have experience in knowledge generation,
knowledge transformation and knowledge conservation prior to leaving doctoral study.
Developing Stewards
22
References
Austin, A. E., & Wulff, D. H. (2004). The challenge to prepare the next generation of faculty. In D. Wulff &
A. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future
faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brannon, M. L., & Zappe, S. (2009). Preparing Graduate Students to Teach: A Seminar on Teaching for
Graduate Assistants in Engineering. Paper presented at the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition, Austin, Texas.
Burke, P. J. (2003). Introduction. In P. J. Burke, T. J. Owens, R. Serpe & P. A. Thoits (Eds.), Advances in
identity theory and research. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Cast, A. (2003). Identities and Behavior. In P. Burke, T. Owens, R. Serpe & P. Thoits (Eds.), Advances in
Identity Theory and Research. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher.
Cho, P., & Predebon, W. (1996). A Teaching Assistant Training Program with a Focus on Teaching
Improvement and Graduate Student Development. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual
Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from http://soa.asee.org/paper/conference/paperview.cfm?id=12921
Colbeck, C. S. (2008). Professional identity development theory and doctoral education. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 2008(113), 9-16.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2009). Preparing Future Faculty Program. from http://www.preparingfaculty.org/
Crede, E. D., & Borrego, M. (2009). Preparing Graduate Engineering Students for Academia: Assessment
of a Teaching Fellowship. Paper presented at the 2009 ASEE Conference and Exposition.
Retrieved from http://soa.asee.org/paper/conference/paper-view.cfm?id=10753
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3 ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage
Csavina, K. R. (2002). The Preparing Future Faculty Program at Arizona State University and Its Role in
Preparing Graduate Engineering Students for the Professoriate. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &
Exposition, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Dziedzic, M., Janissek, P. R., & Tozzi, M. J. (2007). A Graduate Course in Faculty Development. Paper
presented at the 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicaco: University of
Chicago Press.
Golde, C. M. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In C. M. Golde & G. E. Walker (Eds.),
Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education (pp. 3-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Golde, C. M., & Walker, G. E. (Eds.). (2006). Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education (First ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kane, R., Kerley, M., Paris, J., Bodner, J., Rockland, R., & Gonzalez-Lenahan, C. (2007). An Integrated
Approach to Teaching Assistant Training and Orientation. Paper presented at the 2007 ASEE
Annual Conference.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory (2 ed.). London: Sage.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 63(4), 284-297.
Sweitzer, V. B. (2009). Towards a theory of doctoral student professional identity development: A
developmental networks approach. Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 1-33.
Developing Stewards
23
Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The Formation of Scholars
(First ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Wenger, E. (1998). Cultivating Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity: Cambridge
University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.