Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral EducationTable of Contents for Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education. List of articles from the current issue, including Just Accepted (EarlyCite)https://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/2398-4686/vol/15/iss/1?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral EducationEmerald Publishing LimitedStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral EducationStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Educationhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/proxy/containerImg?link=/resource/publication/journal/b500696cd54bbbc1d105028ad85f2da2/urn:emeraldgroup.com:asset:id:binary:sgpe.cover.jpghttps://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/2398-4686/vol/15/iss/1?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestPersonal interest, supervisory and research community support and dropout intentions among Finnish PhD candidateshttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-09-2022-0062/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThis study aims to advance the understanding on individual variations in PhD candidates’ personal interest in their doctorate and supervisory and research community support, and several individual and structural attributes potentially having an impact on the profiles. The authors explored the interrelationship between personal interest – social support profiles, and nationality, gender, research group and study status and the risk of dropping out. A total of 768 PhD candidates from a research-intensive university in Finland responded to a modified version of the cross-cultural doctoral experience survey. Latent profile analysis was used to explore the individual variations in PhD candidates’ interest and support from the supervisor and research community. Three distinctive PhD interest-social support profiles were detected; the high interest–high support profile (74.4%, n = 570), the high interest–moderate support profile (18.2%, n = 140) and the moderate interest–moderate support profile (7.4%, n = 56). The profiles exhibited high to moderate levels of research, development and instrumental interest. Individuals in the high interest–moderate support and in the moderate interest–moderate support profiles were more prone to consider dropping out from their PhD than in the high interest–high support profile. The results indicate that by cultivating PhD candidates’ interest and providing sufficient supervisory and the research community offers a means for preventing candidates from discontinuing their doctorate. Hence, building a supportive learning environment that cultivates a PhD candidate’s personal interest is likely to reduce high dropout rates among the candidates.Personal interest, supervisory and research community support and dropout intentions among Finnish PhD candidates
Solveig Cornér, Lotta Tikkanen, Henrika Anttila, Kirsi Pyhältö
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.1-18

This study aims to advance the understanding on individual variations in PhD candidates’ personal interest in their doctorate and supervisory and research community support, and several individual and structural attributes potentially having an impact on the profiles.

The authors explored the interrelationship between personal interest – social support profiles, and nationality, gender, research group and study status and the risk of dropping out. A total of 768 PhD candidates from a research-intensive university in Finland responded to a modified version of the cross-cultural doctoral experience survey. Latent profile analysis was used to explore the individual variations in PhD candidates’ interest and support from the supervisor and research community.

Three distinctive PhD interest-social support profiles were detected; the high interest–high support profile (74.4%, n = 570), the high interest–moderate support profile (18.2%, n = 140) and the moderate interest–moderate support profile (7.4%, n = 56). The profiles exhibited high to moderate levels of research, development and instrumental interest. Individuals in the high interest–moderate support and in the moderate interest–moderate support profiles were more prone to consider dropping out from their PhD than in the high interest–high support profile.

The results indicate that by cultivating PhD candidates’ interest and providing sufficient supervisory and the research community offers a means for preventing candidates from discontinuing their doctorate. Hence, building a supportive learning environment that cultivates a PhD candidate’s personal interest is likely to reduce high dropout rates among the candidates.

]]>
Personal interest, supervisory and research community support and dropout intentions among Finnish PhD candidates10.1108/SGPE-09-2022-0062Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2023-06-02© 2023 Solveig Cornér, Lotta Tikkanen, Henrika Anttila and Kirsi Pyhältö.Solveig CornérLotta TikkanenHenrika AnttilaKirsi PyhältöStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education1512023-06-0210.1108/SGPE-09-2022-0062https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-09-2022-0062/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2023 Solveig Cornér, Lotta Tikkanen, Henrika Anttila and Kirsi Pyhältö.http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Standards needed? An exploration of qualifying exams from a literature review and website analysis of university-wide policieshttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-11-2022-0073/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestWhile known by many names, qualifying exams function as gatekeepers to graduate student advancement to PhD candidacy, yet there has been little formal study on best qualifying exam practices particularly in biomedical and related STEM PhD programs. The purpose of this study is to examine the current state of qualifying exams through an examination of the literature and exploration of university-wide policies. The authors conducted a literature review of studies on qualifying exams and completed an external evaluation of peer institutions’ and internal institutional qualifying exam requirements to inform our discussion of qualifying exams practices in PhD training at a research-intensive US institutions. This study identified the need for more research on qualifying exams to establish evidence-based best practices. The authors found a wide variety of qualifying exam formats, with little evidence in support for specific formats. The authors also found little evidence that student expectations are made clear. The lack of evidence-based best practices coupled with insufficient clarity for students has a real potential to disadvantage PhD students, particularly first generation, underrepresented minority, international and/or other trainees who are not privileged or socialized to navigate training environments with vague landmarks such as the qualifying exams. There are very few studies that evaluate qualifying exams in US doctoral education, particularly in STEM fields, and to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no analysis of campus-wide policies on qualifying exams reported. The lack of evidence for best practices and the need for to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of qualifying exams are discussed.Standards needed? An exploration of qualifying exams from a literature review and website analysis of university-wide policies
Jacqueline E. McLaughlin, Kathryn Morbitzer, Margaux Meilhac, Natalie Poupart, Rebekah L. Layton, Michael B. Jarstfer
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.19-33

While known by many names, qualifying exams function as gatekeepers to graduate student advancement to PhD candidacy, yet there has been little formal study on best qualifying exam practices particularly in biomedical and related STEM PhD programs. The purpose of this study is to examine the current state of qualifying exams through an examination of the literature and exploration of university-wide policies.

The authors conducted a literature review of studies on qualifying exams and completed an external evaluation of peer institutions’ and internal institutional qualifying exam requirements to inform our discussion of qualifying exams practices in PhD training at a research-intensive US institutions.

This study identified the need for more research on qualifying exams to establish evidence-based best practices. The authors found a wide variety of qualifying exam formats, with little evidence in support for specific formats. The authors also found little evidence that student expectations are made clear. The lack of evidence-based best practices coupled with insufficient clarity for students has a real potential to disadvantage PhD students, particularly first generation, underrepresented minority, international and/or other trainees who are not privileged or socialized to navigate training environments with vague landmarks such as the qualifying exams.

There are very few studies that evaluate qualifying exams in US doctoral education, particularly in STEM fields, and to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no analysis of campus-wide policies on qualifying exams reported. The lack of evidence for best practices and the need for to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of qualifying exams are discussed.

]]>
Standards needed? An exploration of qualifying exams from a literature review and website analysis of university-wide policies10.1108/SGPE-11-2022-0073Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2023-07-25© 2023 Jacqueline E. McLaughlin, Kathryn Morbitzer, Margaux Meilhac, Natalie Poupart, Rebekah L. Layton and Michael B. Jarstfer.Jacqueline E. McLaughlinKathryn MorbitzerMargaux MeilhacNatalie PoupartRebekah L. LaytonMichael B. JarstferStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education1512023-07-2510.1108/SGPE-11-2022-0073https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-11-2022-0073/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2023 Jacqueline E. McLaughlin, Kathryn Morbitzer, Margaux Meilhac, Natalie Poupart, Rebekah L. Layton and Michael B. Jarstfer.http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Supervisors’ experiences of doctoral supervision in times of changehttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-01-2023-0004/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestEmpirical evidence on how supervisors have perceived the changes and the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on their supervision is scarce. This paper aims to examine how the changing landscape of doctoral education has affected supervision from the supervisors’ perspective. This survey addressed change, challenges and impact in supervisory responsibilities due to COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was completed by 561 doctoral supervisors from a large multi-field research-intensive university in Finland. Results show that supervisors estimated that their supervision had been negatively affected by the pandemic, but to a lesser extent than their doctoral candidates’ progress and well-being. In the changed landscape of supervision, the supervisors grappled with challenges related to recognising doctoral candidates’ need of help. Supervisors’ experiences of the challenges and the impact of changed circumstances varied depending on the field and the position of the supervisor, whether they supervised part- or full-time candidates, and the organisation of supervision. The slowed-down progression and diminishing well-being of doctoral candidates reported by supervisors is likely to influence supervision in a delayed way. Supervisors may be anticipating some issues with stalled studying and stress, but the question is the extent to which they are prepared to handle these as they emerge in supervision encounters. The fact that the experiences varied across field, position, organisation of supervision and the type of candidates (full or part time) suggests that support provided for supervisors to overcome challenges needs to be tailored and engineered. This study contributes to the literature on doctoral supervision by exploring the impact of transitioning to online supervision and the rapid changes in doctoral supervision as a consequence of the recent global pandemic.Supervisors’ experiences of doctoral supervision in times of change
Erika Löfström, Lotta Tikkanen, Henrika Anttila, Kirsi Pyhältö
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.34-48

Empirical evidence on how supervisors have perceived the changes and the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on their supervision is scarce. This paper aims to examine how the changing landscape of doctoral education has affected supervision from the supervisors’ perspective.

This survey addressed change, challenges and impact in supervisory responsibilities due to COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was completed by 561 doctoral supervisors from a large multi-field research-intensive university in Finland.

Results show that supervisors estimated that their supervision had been negatively affected by the pandemic, but to a lesser extent than their doctoral candidates’ progress and well-being. In the changed landscape of supervision, the supervisors grappled with challenges related to recognising doctoral candidates’ need of help. Supervisors’ experiences of the challenges and the impact of changed circumstances varied depending on the field and the position of the supervisor, whether they supervised part- or full-time candidates, and the organisation of supervision.

The slowed-down progression and diminishing well-being of doctoral candidates reported by supervisors is likely to influence supervision in a delayed way. Supervisors may be anticipating some issues with stalled studying and stress, but the question is the extent to which they are prepared to handle these as they emerge in supervision encounters. The fact that the experiences varied across field, position, organisation of supervision and the type of candidates (full or part time) suggests that support provided for supervisors to overcome challenges needs to be tailored and engineered.

This study contributes to the literature on doctoral supervision by exploring the impact of transitioning to online supervision and the rapid changes in doctoral supervision as a consequence of the recent global pandemic.

]]>
Supervisors’ experiences of doctoral supervision in times of change10.1108/SGPE-01-2023-0004Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2023-08-31© 2023 Erika Löfström, Lotta Tikkanen, Henrika Anttila and Kirsi Pyhältö.Erika LöfströmLotta TikkanenHenrika AnttilaKirsi PyhältöStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education1512023-08-3110.1108/SGPE-01-2023-0004https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-01-2023-0004/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2023 Erika Löfström, Lotta Tikkanen, Henrika Anttila and Kirsi Pyhältö.
Applying theory and research toward reducing suicidality among graduate students and postdoctoral scholarshttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-12-2022-0084/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThe purpose of this paper is to highlight suicide risk factors experienced by graduate students and postdoctoral scholars, and then outline suicide prevention strategies for these populations. Through analysis of literature and application of theory, the authors use the diathesis-stress model and Joiner’s (2005) interpersonal theory of suicidality to outline suicide prevention strategies specific to graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. The authors’ review of the literature and application of theory suggest that both individuals and groups can engage in suicide prevention strategies, specifically pertaining to reducing stressors unique to graduate students and postdoctoral scholars, as well as addressing feelings of thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness that can lead to the development of suicidality within these populations. Engaging in suicide prevention strategies can save lives and address the mental health conditions exhibited among graduate student and postdoctoral scholars. The authors offer a synthesis of good practices addressing suicide risk factors and prevention with attention to the stress-diathesis model and Joiner’s (2005) interpersonal theory of suicidality toward reducing suicidality among graduate students and postdoctoral scholars.Applying theory and research toward reducing suicidality among graduate students and postdoctoral scholars
Elizabeth A. Jach, Anthony P. Rinaldi
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.49-64

The purpose of this paper is to highlight suicide risk factors experienced by graduate students and postdoctoral scholars, and then outline suicide prevention strategies for these populations.

Through analysis of literature and application of theory, the authors use the diathesis-stress model and Joiner’s (2005) interpersonal theory of suicidality to outline suicide prevention strategies specific to graduate students and postdoctoral scholars.

The authors’ review of the literature and application of theory suggest that both individuals and groups can engage in suicide prevention strategies, specifically pertaining to reducing stressors unique to graduate students and postdoctoral scholars, as well as addressing feelings of thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness that can lead to the development of suicidality within these populations.

Engaging in suicide prevention strategies can save lives and address the mental health conditions exhibited among graduate student and postdoctoral scholars.

The authors offer a synthesis of good practices addressing suicide risk factors and prevention with attention to the stress-diathesis model and Joiner’s (2005) interpersonal theory of suicidality toward reducing suicidality among graduate students and postdoctoral scholars.

]]>
Applying theory and research toward reducing suicidality among graduate students and postdoctoral scholars10.1108/SGPE-12-2022-0084Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2023-09-05© 2023 Emerald Publishing LimitedElizabeth A. JachAnthony P. RinaldiStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education1512023-09-0510.1108/SGPE-12-2022-0084https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-12-2022-0084/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2023 Emerald Publishing Limited
Differences in support within the social science graduate admissions pipelinehttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-01-2023-0010/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThe purpose of this paper is to understand demographic group (race, first-generation college graduate, gender, age) differences among perceived family and faculty social and family financial support within the US graduate school admissions pipeline in the social sciences. Using data from a cross-sectional convenience sample survey (N = 99), this paper looks at ordinal social support variables (faculty member support, family social support and family financial support) by demographic groups. This paper uses a Mann–Whitney U test to compare first-generation status, race and gender and a Kruskal–Wallis H test to compare age groups. This paper finds that applicants over 27 years old had significantly less faculty support in the graduate admissions pipeline compared to other age groups; differences in faculty support across race were marginally significant (p = 0.057). Regarding family social support, this paper finds first-generation applicants, male applicants and applicants over 27 years old report lower levels of support. Finally, this paper finds first-generation applicants and applicants over 27 years old report lower levels of familial financial support. Previous literature on graduate admissions – published in this journal (Pieper and Krsmanovic, 2022) and others – does not consider experiences up to and before applicants hit the “submit” button on graduate applicants, which the authors term the graduate admissions pipeline. Instead, most previous literatures focus on faculty committees and validity of required application materials. Thus, this study begins to answer Posselt and Grodsky’s (2017) call to develop an understanding of applicant experiences and support within the graduate admissions pipeline.Differences in support within the social science graduate admissions pipeline
Michael L. Tidwell, Ellis S. Logan
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.65-81

The purpose of this paper is to understand demographic group (race, first-generation college graduate, gender, age) differences among perceived family and faculty social and family financial support within the US graduate school admissions pipeline in the social sciences.

Using data from a cross-sectional convenience sample survey (N = 99), this paper looks at ordinal social support variables (faculty member support, family social support and family financial support) by demographic groups. This paper uses a Mann–Whitney U test to compare first-generation status, race and gender and a Kruskal–Wallis H test to compare age groups.

This paper finds that applicants over 27 years old had significantly less faculty support in the graduate admissions pipeline compared to other age groups; differences in faculty support across race were marginally significant (p = 0.057). Regarding family social support, this paper finds first-generation applicants, male applicants and applicants over 27 years old report lower levels of support. Finally, this paper finds first-generation applicants and applicants over 27 years old report lower levels of familial financial support.

Previous literature on graduate admissions – published in this journal (Pieper and Krsmanovic, 2022) and others – does not consider experiences up to and before applicants hit the “submit” button on graduate applicants, which the authors term the graduate admissions pipeline. Instead, most previous literatures focus on faculty committees and validity of required application materials. Thus, this study begins to answer Posselt and Grodsky’s (2017) call to develop an understanding of applicant experiences and support within the graduate admissions pipeline.

]]>
Differences in support within the social science graduate admissions pipeline10.1108/SGPE-01-2023-0010Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2023-09-20© 2023 Emerald Publishing LimitedMichael L. TidwellEllis S. LoganStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education1512023-09-2010.1108/SGPE-01-2023-0010https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-01-2023-0010/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2023 Emerald Publishing Limited
Learning and (dis)connection: graduate students’ experiences seeking diversity, equity and inclusion education and engagement opportunitieshttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-03-2023-0026/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThe purpose of this study is to explore how US graduate students described their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) education and engagement experiences outside their academic departments. This study used a critical constructivist qualitative approach and methods (i.e. interviews) to explore how 44 graduate students across various disciplines and fields at two public research institutions in the USA described their DEI education and engagement experiences outside their departments. Students identified expanded DEI and professional knowledge as key learning outcomes, while also highlighting the benefits and negative effects of the identity-centered (dis)connection, community and personal fulfillment that came from these experiences. Given that DEI education and engagement opportunities addressed some students’ needs and were unsatisfactory for others, more scholarship on the nature of these experiences is needed to better understand factors that contribute to students’ desirable and undesirable outcomes. There are also practical implications for faculty who advise graduate students and administrators who are responsible for funding the campus spaces in which these experiences occurred (e.g. graduate colleges, identity-based student organizations). Few studies have explored graduate students’ participation in DEI education and engagement opportunities outside of their academic departments. Consequently, the efficacy of these initiatives, and the extent to which students benefit from them, warrant investigation. This study, thus, adds to researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding of this topic by highlighting the benefits and limitations of these experiences for graduate students.Learning and (dis)connection: graduate students’ experiences seeking diversity, equity and inclusion education and engagement opportunities
Jarett D. Haley, Amber N. Williams, Rosemary J. Perez, Claire K. Robbins
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.82-95

The purpose of this study is to explore how US graduate students described their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) education and engagement experiences outside their academic departments.

This study used a critical constructivist qualitative approach and methods (i.e. interviews) to explore how 44 graduate students across various disciplines and fields at two public research institutions in the USA described their DEI education and engagement experiences outside their departments.

Students identified expanded DEI and professional knowledge as key learning outcomes, while also highlighting the benefits and negative effects of the identity-centered (dis)connection, community and personal fulfillment that came from these experiences.

Given that DEI education and engagement opportunities addressed some students’ needs and were unsatisfactory for others, more scholarship on the nature of these experiences is needed to better understand factors that contribute to students’ desirable and undesirable outcomes. There are also practical implications for faculty who advise graduate students and administrators who are responsible for funding the campus spaces in which these experiences occurred (e.g. graduate colleges, identity-based student organizations).

Few studies have explored graduate students’ participation in DEI education and engagement opportunities outside of their academic departments. Consequently, the efficacy of these initiatives, and the extent to which students benefit from them, warrant investigation. This study, thus, adds to researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding of this topic by highlighting the benefits and limitations of these experiences for graduate students.

]]>
Learning and (dis)connection: graduate students’ experiences seeking diversity, equity and inclusion education and engagement opportunities10.1108/SGPE-03-2023-0026Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2023-09-29© 2023 Emerald Publishing LimitedJarett D. HaleyAmber N. WilliamsRosemary J. PerezClaire K. RobbinsStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education1512023-09-2910.1108/SGPE-03-2023-0026https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-03-2023-0026/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2023 Emerald Publishing Limited
Supporting STEM graduate students in strengthening their professional identity through an authentic interdisciplinary partnershiphttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0017/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestHistorically, graduate education’s goal was to prepare academics; now most science, technology, engineering and/or mathematics (STEM) graduate students (GSs) go on to nonacademic careers. STEM GSs must be equipped for success regardless of career aspirations, which can be done by strengthening GSs’ professional identities. This study aims to explore an interdisciplinary partnership designed to strengthen STEM GS professional identity. The STEM Partnership Project (SPP), asked STEM GSs to serve as disciplinary experts and teach STEM content to elementary teacher candidates (TCs) so the TCs could design and teach an elementary science lesson. GSs also enrolled in a one-credit course to support SPP participation and activities. Over five semesters, the authors collected data from 28 STEM GSs across different disciplines and degree programs in the form of course assignments, surveys and interviews. The SPP supported the development of a professional identity by having GSs serve as and feel like experts; increasing GSs’ sense of belonging in their field; increasing GSs’ self-confidence that they could (learn to) teach a wide variety of audiences; and raising GSs’ awareness of their ability to serve others via their field. The SPP’s outcomes were consistent across STEM disciplines, did not require GSs to take on large amounts of coursework, nor did it cost much beyond materials for the various lessons. Furthermore, the key components that strengthened GSs’ professional identities could be adapted for different contexts and institutions.Supporting STEM graduate students in strengthening their professional identity through an authentic interdisciplinary partnership
Julianne A. Wenner, Megan Frary, Paul J. Simmonds
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.96-116

Historically, graduate education’s goal was to prepare academics; now most science, technology, engineering and/or mathematics (STEM) graduate students (GSs) go on to nonacademic careers. STEM GSs must be equipped for success regardless of career aspirations, which can be done by strengthening GSs’ professional identities. This study aims to explore an interdisciplinary partnership designed to strengthen STEM GS professional identity.

The STEM Partnership Project (SPP), asked STEM GSs to serve as disciplinary experts and teach STEM content to elementary teacher candidates (TCs) so the TCs could design and teach an elementary science lesson. GSs also enrolled in a one-credit course to support SPP participation and activities. Over five semesters, the authors collected data from 28 STEM GSs across different disciplines and degree programs in the form of course assignments, surveys and interviews.

The SPP supported the development of a professional identity by having GSs serve as and feel like experts; increasing GSs’ sense of belonging in their field; increasing GSs’ self-confidence that they could (learn to) teach a wide variety of audiences; and raising GSs’ awareness of their ability to serve others via their field.

The SPP’s outcomes were consistent across STEM disciplines, did not require GSs to take on large amounts of coursework, nor did it cost much beyond materials for the various lessons. Furthermore, the key components that strengthened GSs’ professional identities could be adapted for different contexts and institutions.

]]>
Supporting STEM graduate students in strengthening their professional identity through an authentic interdisciplinary partnership10.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0017Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2023-10-09© 2023 Emerald Publishing LimitedJulianne A. WennerMegan FraryPaul J. SimmondsStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education1512023-10-0910.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0017https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0017/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2023 Emerald Publishing Limited
Living with the impact agenda – humanities academics negotiating and resisting the impact agenda as researchers and doctoral supervisorshttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0016/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestIn Denmark, there has been, over decades, an intensified political focus on how humanities research and doctoral education contribute to society. In this vein, the notion of impact has become a central part of the academic language, often associated with terms like use, effects and outputs, stemming from neoliberal ideologies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humanities academics are living with the impact agenda, as both experienced researchers and as doctoral supervisors educating the next generation of researchers in this post-pandemic era. Specifically, the authors are interested in the supervisor-researcher relationship, that is, the relationship between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda as researchers and then the way they tell their doctoral students to do likewise. The authors have studied how the impact agenda is accommodated by humanities academics through a series of qualitative interviews with humanities researchers and humanities PhD supervisors, encompassing questions of how they are living with the expectation of impact and how it is embedded in their university and departmental context. The study shows that there is no link between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda in relation to their own research work and then the way they tell their doctoral students to approach it. Within the space of their own research, the supervisors engage in resistance practices towards the impact agenda in terms of minimal compliance, rejection or resignation, whereas in the space of supervision, the impact agenda is re-inscribed to embody other understandings. The supervisors want to protect their students from this agenda, especially in the knowledge that many of them are not going to stay in academia due to limited researcher career possibilities. Furthermore, the paper reveals a new understanding of the impact agenda as having a relational quality, and in two ways. One is through a positional struggle, the reshaping of power relations, between universities (or academics) and society (or the state and the market); the other is as a phenomenon very much lived among academics themselves, including between supervisors and their doctoral students within the institutional context. This study opens up the impact agenda, showing what it means to be a humanities academic living with the effects of the impact agenda and trying to navigate this. The study is mapping and tracking out the many different meanings and variations of impact in all its volatility for academics concerned about it. In current, post-pandemic times, when manifold expectations are directed towards research and doctoral education, it is important to know more about how these expectations affect and are dealt with by those who are expected to commit to them.Living with the impact agenda – humanities academics negotiating and resisting the impact agenda as researchers and doctoral supervisors
Signe Skov, Søren Smedegaard Bengtsen
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, pp.-

In Denmark, there has been, over decades, an intensified political focus on how humanities research and doctoral education contribute to society. In this vein, the notion of impact has become a central part of the academic language, often associated with terms like use, effects and outputs, stemming from neoliberal ideologies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humanities academics are living with the impact agenda, as both experienced researchers and as doctoral supervisors educating the next generation of researchers in this post-pandemic era. Specifically, the authors are interested in the supervisor-researcher relationship, that is, the relationship between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda as researchers and then the way they tell their doctoral students to do likewise.

The authors have studied how the impact agenda is accommodated by humanities academics through a series of qualitative interviews with humanities researchers and humanities PhD supervisors, encompassing questions of how they are living with the expectation of impact and how it is embedded in their university and departmental context.

The study shows that there is no link between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda in relation to their own research work and then the way they tell their doctoral students to approach it. Within the space of their own research, the supervisors engage in resistance practices towards the impact agenda in terms of minimal compliance, rejection or resignation, whereas in the space of supervision, the impact agenda is re-inscribed to embody other understandings. The supervisors want to protect their students from this agenda, especially in the knowledge that many of them are not going to stay in academia due to limited researcher career possibilities. Furthermore, the paper reveals a new understanding of the impact agenda as having a relational quality, and in two ways. One is through a positional struggle, the reshaping of power relations, between universities (or academics) and society (or the state and the market); the other is as a phenomenon very much lived among academics themselves, including between supervisors and their doctoral students within the institutional context.

This study opens up the impact agenda, showing what it means to be a humanities academic living with the effects of the impact agenda and trying to navigate this. The study is mapping and tracking out the many different meanings and variations of impact in all its volatility for academics concerned about it. In current, post-pandemic times, when manifold expectations are directed towards research and doctoral education, it is important to know more about how these expectations affect and are dealt with by those who are expected to commit to them.

]]>
Living with the impact agenda – humanities academics negotiating and resisting the impact agenda as researchers and doctoral supervisors10.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0016Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2024-03-11© 2024 Emerald Publishing LimitedSigne SkovSøren Smedegaard BengtsenStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Educationahead-of-printahead-of-print2024-03-1110.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0016https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0016/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2024 Emerald Publishing Limited
Decolonising doctoral education in an era of pandemichttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0018/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctoral education. Pandemics throughout history have generated new educational theories and practices, accelerated some trends and signalled the abrupt end of others. The unpredictable effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have particularly impacted upon First Nations and transcultural communities and People of Colour throughout the globe. A second significant recent global trend that occurred at the height of the pandemic was the reignited #BlackLivesMatter (#BLM) protest campaign. This campaign drew attention to the vast inequities faced by black, transcultural (migrant, refugee, culturally diverse and international) and Indigenous peoples and triggered rapid action in higher education institutions against racism and unconscious bias. This conceptual paper draws upon postcolonial/decolonial theory to demonstrate how the COVID pandemic and #BLM movement prompts us to revitalise doctoral education. These two issues have created renewed urgency around the need to decolonise higher education and a desire to transform the “business-as-usual” geopolitical power dynamics that continue to privilege Northern knowledge over culturally diverse knowledge systems from First Nations and transcultural contexts. A key site where special opportunities exist to effect this transformation lies in doctoral education. Doctoral education is a significant location of new knowledge creation and the development of the world’s future researchers. Applying post/decolonial theory enables one to rethink how doctoral education should be changed to work towards greater decolonisation. This study applies Santos’ ideas about “the sociologies of emergence” in the global South to think about how doctoral education should be reconstructed as a liberated zone of decolonisation and epistemic justice.Decolonising doctoral education in an era of pandemic
Catherine Manathunga
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, pp.-

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctoral education. Pandemics throughout history have generated new educational theories and practices, accelerated some trends and signalled the abrupt end of others. The unpredictable effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have particularly impacted upon First Nations and transcultural communities and People of Colour throughout the globe. A second significant recent global trend that occurred at the height of the pandemic was the reignited #BlackLivesMatter (#BLM) protest campaign. This campaign drew attention to the vast inequities faced by black, transcultural (migrant, refugee, culturally diverse and international) and Indigenous peoples and triggered rapid action in higher education institutions against racism and unconscious bias.

This conceptual paper draws upon postcolonial/decolonial theory to demonstrate how the COVID pandemic and #BLM movement prompts us to revitalise doctoral education.

These two issues have created renewed urgency around the need to decolonise higher education and a desire to transform the “business-as-usual” geopolitical power dynamics that continue to privilege Northern knowledge over culturally diverse knowledge systems from First Nations and transcultural contexts. A key site where special opportunities exist to effect this transformation lies in doctoral education. Doctoral education is a significant location of new knowledge creation and the development of the world’s future researchers.

Applying post/decolonial theory enables one to rethink how doctoral education should be changed to work towards greater decolonisation.

This study applies Santos’ ideas about “the sociologies of emergence” in the global South to think about how doctoral education should be reconstructed as a liberated zone of decolonisation and epistemic justice.

]]>
Decolonising doctoral education in an era of pandemic10.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0018Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2023-12-12© 2023 Emerald Publishing LimitedCatherine ManathungaStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Educationahead-of-printahead-of-print2023-12-1210.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0018https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-02-2023-0018/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2023 Emerald Publishing Limited
Graduate education and government policy in times of crisis: a case study of the United States during the COVID-19 pandemichttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-03-2023-0031/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThe purpose of this paper is to understand US federal government policy during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and the connections to graduate education. Using the multiple streams framework, the paper outlines these actions through various streams (problems, policy and political) and perspectives (defining problems, articulating options and mobilizing responses). The primary sources of data collected for this study were US federal government policies from March 2020 through May 2021. Policies were examined through introduction, implementation and alteration (when possible) within the specific time period of the study. The policies outlined in this paper were connected to the US Department of Education, and to a lesser extent, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies. Data analysis was a two-fold process. First, the individual policy was considered as a single case and second, a cross-case comparison occurred across the multiple cases. Analysing the study’s data in the problem stream provides a strong indicator of how the pandemic was perceived as a challenge for US graduate education. The pandemic served as a focusing event and illuminated the connections of graduate education to key institutional functions, including research and teaching. Broadly, US federal policy actions in this area focused on giving institutions resources and flexibility to support graduate students and allow them to continue their academic work while also seeding funding and incentives to continue the movement of knowledge, activities and people in the research pipeline. Actions in the policy stream aligned with the decentralized nature of the US higher education system and allowed for choice by academic institutions within the parameters of options. This paper extends extant literature related to policy-making and graduate education to consider policy-making during a time of crisis. The paper offers methodological and conceptual ideas for consideration in future research.Graduate education and government policy in times of crisis: a case study of the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic
Karri Holley, Joretta Joseph
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, pp.-

The purpose of this paper is to understand US federal government policy during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and the connections to graduate education. Using the multiple streams framework, the paper outlines these actions through various streams (problems, policy and political) and perspectives (defining problems, articulating options and mobilizing responses).

The primary sources of data collected for this study were US federal government policies from March 2020 through May 2021. Policies were examined through introduction, implementation and alteration (when possible) within the specific time period of the study. The policies outlined in this paper were connected to the US Department of Education, and to a lesser extent, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies. Data analysis was a two-fold process. First, the individual policy was considered as a single case and second, a cross-case comparison occurred across the multiple cases.

Analysing the study’s data in the problem stream provides a strong indicator of how the pandemic was perceived as a challenge for US graduate education. The pandemic served as a focusing event and illuminated the connections of graduate education to key institutional functions, including research and teaching. Broadly, US federal policy actions in this area focused on giving institutions resources and flexibility to support graduate students and allow them to continue their academic work while also seeding funding and incentives to continue the movement of knowledge, activities and people in the research pipeline. Actions in the policy stream aligned with the decentralized nature of the US higher education system and allowed for choice by academic institutions within the parameters of options.

This paper extends extant literature related to policy-making and graduate education to consider policy-making during a time of crisis. The paper offers methodological and conceptual ideas for consideration in future research.

]]>
Graduate education and government policy in times of crisis: a case study of the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic10.1108/SGPE-03-2023-0031Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2024-02-29© 2024 Emerald Publishing LimitedKarri HolleyJoretta JosephStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Educationahead-of-printahead-of-print2024-02-2910.1108/SGPE-03-2023-0031https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-03-2023-0031/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2024 Emerald Publishing Limited
Addressing structural mentoring barriers in postdoctoral training: a qualitative studyhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-04-2023-0033/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestStructural mentoring barriers are policies, practices and cultural norms that collectively disadvantage marginalized groups and perpetuate disparities in mentoring. This study aims to better understand structural mentoring barriers at the postdoctoral training stage, which has a direct impact on faculty diversity and national efforts to retain underrepresented groups in research careers. A diverse sample of postdoctoral scholars (“postdocs”) from across the USA were asked to participate in focus groups to discuss their training experiences. The authors conducted five 90-min focus groups with 32 biomedical postdocs, including 20 (63%) women and 15 (47%) individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (URG). A social-ecological framework was used to categorize both the upstream and downstream manifestations of structural mentoring barriers, as well as mentoring barriers, overall. Notable structural barriers included: academic politics and scientific hierarchy; inequalities resulting from mentor prestige; the (over) reliance on one mentor; the lack of formal training for academic and non-academic careers; and the lack of institutional diversity and institutional mentor training. To overcome these barriers, postdocs strongly encouraged developing a network or team of mentors and recommended institutional interventions that create more comprehensive professional development, mentorship and belonging. For postdoctoral scientists, structural mentoring barriers can permeate down to institutional, interpersonal and individual levels, impeding a successful transition to an independent research career. This work provides strong evidence for promoting mentorship networks and cultivating a “mentoring milieu” that fosters a supportive community and a strong culture of mentorship at all levels.Addressing structural mentoring barriers in postdoctoral training: a qualitative study
W. Marcus Lambert, Nanda Nana, Suwaiba Afonja, Ahsan Saeed, Avelino C. Amado, Linnie M. Golightly
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, pp.-

Structural mentoring barriers are policies, practices and cultural norms that collectively disadvantage marginalized groups and perpetuate disparities in mentoring. This study aims to better understand structural mentoring barriers at the postdoctoral training stage, which has a direct impact on faculty diversity and national efforts to retain underrepresented groups in research careers.

A diverse sample of postdoctoral scholars (“postdocs”) from across the USA were asked to participate in focus groups to discuss their training experiences. The authors conducted five 90-min focus groups with 32 biomedical postdocs, including 20 (63%) women and 15 (47%) individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (URG).

A social-ecological framework was used to categorize both the upstream and downstream manifestations of structural mentoring barriers, as well as mentoring barriers, overall. Notable structural barriers included: academic politics and scientific hierarchy; inequalities resulting from mentor prestige; the (over) reliance on one mentor; the lack of formal training for academic and non-academic careers; and the lack of institutional diversity and institutional mentor training. To overcome these barriers, postdocs strongly encouraged developing a network or team of mentors and recommended institutional interventions that create more comprehensive professional development, mentorship and belonging.

For postdoctoral scientists, structural mentoring barriers can permeate down to institutional, interpersonal and individual levels, impeding a successful transition to an independent research career. This work provides strong evidence for promoting mentorship networks and cultivating a “mentoring milieu” that fosters a supportive community and a strong culture of mentorship at all levels.

]]>
Addressing structural mentoring barriers in postdoctoral training: a qualitative study10.1108/SGPE-04-2023-0033Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2023-11-28© 2023 W. Marcus Lambert, Nanda Nana, Suwaiba Afonja, Ahsan Saeed, Avelino C. Amado and Linnie M. Golightly.W. Marcus LambertNanda NanaSuwaiba AfonjaAhsan SaeedAvelino C. AmadoLinnie M. GolightlyStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Educationahead-of-printahead-of-print2023-11-2810.1108/SGPE-04-2023-0033https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-04-2023-0033/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2023 W. Marcus Lambert, Nanda Nana, Suwaiba Afonja, Ahsan Saeed, Avelino C. Amado and Linnie M. Golightly.http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Tapping into early PhD aspirations to advance gender equity in computing: predicting PhD interest among upward transfer studentshttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-06-2023-0057/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestSupporting community college transfer students represents a critical strategy for broadening participation in STEM. In addition to being a racially diverse group, students who pursue STEM degrees by way of community college report frequent interests in graduate study and academic careers. Thus, supporting and expanding transfer students’ PhD interests can help to diversify the STEM professoriate. This study aims to identify the experiences that predict PhD interests among students who transferred into the computer science major from a community college. Relying on longitudinal survey data from over 150 community college transfer students throughout their first year at their receiving four-year university, we used regression analysis to identify the post-transfer college experiences that predict early interest in PhDs. We found that receiving information about PhDs from a professor strongly predicted PhD interest among transfer students. Relationships with other variables indicate that the provision of information about graduate school was more likely to occur for students who participated in undergraduate research experiences than for those participating in internships. Descriptive data document inequities in who has access to these types of experiences. This paper provides new insight into how STEM departments can develop targeted efforts to ensure that information about PhD training is equitably available to all transfer students. Working to ensure that faculty equitably communicate with students about PhD opportunities may go a long way in countering potential deterrents among transfer students who may be interested in such pathways.Tapping into early PhD aspirations to advance gender equity in computing: predicting PhD interest among upward transfer students
Jennifer M. Blaney, David F. Feldon, Kaylee Litson
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, pp.-

Supporting community college transfer students represents a critical strategy for broadening participation in STEM. In addition to being a racially diverse group, students who pursue STEM degrees by way of community college report frequent interests in graduate study and academic careers. Thus, supporting and expanding transfer students’ PhD interests can help to diversify the STEM professoriate. This study aims to identify the experiences that predict PhD interests among students who transferred into the computer science major from a community college.

Relying on longitudinal survey data from over 150 community college transfer students throughout their first year at their receiving four-year university, we used regression analysis to identify the post-transfer college experiences that predict early interest in PhDs.

We found that receiving information about PhDs from a professor strongly predicted PhD interest among transfer students. Relationships with other variables indicate that the provision of information about graduate school was more likely to occur for students who participated in undergraduate research experiences than for those participating in internships. Descriptive data document inequities in who has access to these types of experiences.

This paper provides new insight into how STEM departments can develop targeted efforts to ensure that information about PhD training is equitably available to all transfer students. Working to ensure that faculty equitably communicate with students about PhD opportunities may go a long way in countering potential deterrents among transfer students who may be interested in such pathways.

]]>
Tapping into early PhD aspirations to advance gender equity in computing: predicting PhD interest among upward transfer students10.1108/SGPE-06-2023-0057Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2024-02-07© 2024 Emerald Publishing LimitedJennifer M. BlaneyDavid F. FeldonKaylee LitsonStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Educationahead-of-printahead-of-print2024-02-0710.1108/SGPE-06-2023-0057https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-06-2023-0057/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2024 Emerald Publishing Limited
The entangled becoming in humanities doctoral educationhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-08-2023-0074/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestInstitutional framings of doctoral education mostly do not recognize the existential dimension of doctoral experience. This paper aims to offer an expanded understanding of experiences of doctoral researchers in the humanities with the concept of entangled becoming. This concept is developed through an existential lens by using Søren Kierkegaard’s philosophy – particularly his emphasis on emotions such as passion, anxiety and despair – and Denise Batchelor’s derived concept of vulnerable voices. The conceptual framing is used for an empirical study based on ethnographic interviews with 10 doctoral researchers and supplementary observational notes from fieldwork at a university in Denmark. Two of the interview cases were selected to showcase variation across lived experiences and how doctoral researchers voice their entangled becoming. Common experiences such as loneliness, insecurity(ies), vulnerability(ies) or passion for one’s research were identified across the interviews. On the other hand, this study shows that each doctoral journey in the humanities envelops a distinct web of entanglements, entailing distinct navigation, that makes each case a unique story and each doctoral voice a specific one. Combining an existential philosophical perspective with a qualitative study, the paper offers an alternative perspective for doctoral education. It connects the humanities doctoral experience to the broader condition of human existence and the sophisticated uniqueness of each researcher’s becoming.The entangled becoming in humanities doctoral education
Hatice Nuriler, Søren S.E. Bengtsen
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, pp.-

Institutional framings of doctoral education mostly do not recognize the existential dimension of doctoral experience. This paper aims to offer an expanded understanding of experiences of doctoral researchers in the humanities with the concept of entangled becoming. This concept is developed through an existential lens by using Søren Kierkegaard’s philosophy – particularly his emphasis on emotions such as passion, anxiety and despair – and Denise Batchelor’s derived concept of vulnerable voices.

The conceptual framing is used for an empirical study based on ethnographic interviews with 10 doctoral researchers and supplementary observational notes from fieldwork at a university in Denmark. Two of the interview cases were selected to showcase variation across lived experiences and how doctoral researchers voice their entangled becoming.

Common experiences such as loneliness, insecurity(ies), vulnerability(ies) or passion for one’s research were identified across the interviews. On the other hand, this study shows that each doctoral journey in the humanities envelops a distinct web of entanglements, entailing distinct navigation, that makes each case a unique story and each doctoral voice a specific one.

Combining an existential philosophical perspective with a qualitative study, the paper offers an alternative perspective for doctoral education. It connects the humanities doctoral experience to the broader condition of human existence and the sophisticated uniqueness of each researcher’s becoming.

]]>
The entangled becoming in humanities doctoral education10.1108/SGPE-08-2023-0074Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2023-12-07© 2023 Emerald Publishing LimitedHatice NurilerSøren S.E. BengtsenStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Educationahead-of-printahead-of-print2023-12-0710.1108/SGPE-08-2023-0074https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-08-2023-0074/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2023 Emerald Publishing Limited
The influence of supervisors and peers on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success at Kenyan universitieshttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-09-2022-0059/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestGiven declining tuition funds and government grants, Kenyan universities need to develop strategies, including increased research grants and collaborations, to diversify their income sources. Well-managed doctoral students can boost a university’s teaching and research outputs. However, numbers of students enrolled in doctoral programmes at Kenyan universities are low, and graduation rates and time-to-graduate statistics are disturbing. Research undertaken elsewhere underline the important role played by supervisors and peers in facilitating students’ sense of belonging and their success. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the influence of supervisory and peer support on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success at Kenyan universities. In this cross-sectional study, data were gathered through an online questionnaire from 614 students admitted to doctoral programmes at Kenyan universities between 2010 and 2018. We used multi-item scales to collect data on PhD students’ self-efficacy, supervisory and peer support and a sense of belonging. Structural equation modelling results revealed that PhD students’ modes of study and self-efficacy were significantly associated with the quality of supervision, peer support and a sense of belonging. However, only age, a sense of belonging and the quality of supervision were directly linked to their success. This study contributes to the literature on doctoral-level education, responding to the need for research on the influence of relationships with supervisors and peers on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success, especially in developing countries.The influence of supervisors and peers on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success at Kenyan universities
Hyrine Mueni Matheka, Ellen P.W.A. Jansen, Cor J.M. Suhre, Adriaan W.H. Hofman
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, pp.-

Given declining tuition funds and government grants, Kenyan universities need to develop strategies, including increased research grants and collaborations, to diversify their income sources. Well-managed doctoral students can boost a university’s teaching and research outputs. However, numbers of students enrolled in doctoral programmes at Kenyan universities are low, and graduation rates and time-to-graduate statistics are disturbing. Research undertaken elsewhere underline the important role played by supervisors and peers in facilitating students’ sense of belonging and their success. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the influence of supervisory and peer support on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success at Kenyan universities.

In this cross-sectional study, data were gathered through an online questionnaire from 614 students admitted to doctoral programmes at Kenyan universities between 2010 and 2018. We used multi-item scales to collect data on PhD students’ self-efficacy, supervisory and peer support and a sense of belonging.

Structural equation modelling results revealed that PhD students’ modes of study and self-efficacy were significantly associated with the quality of supervision, peer support and a sense of belonging. However, only age, a sense of belonging and the quality of supervision were directly linked to their success.

This study contributes to the literature on doctoral-level education, responding to the need for research on the influence of relationships with supervisors and peers on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success, especially in developing countries.

]]>
The influence of supervisors and peers on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success at Kenyan universities10.1108/SGPE-09-2022-0059Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2024-03-29© 2024 Hyrine Mueni Matheka, Ellen P.W.A. Jansen, Cor J.M. Suhre and Adriaan W.H. Hofman.Hyrine Mueni MathekaEllen P.W.A. JansenCor J.M. SuhreAdriaan W.H. HofmanStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Educationahead-of-printahead-of-print2024-03-2910.1108/SGPE-09-2022-0059https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-09-2022-0059/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2024 Hyrine Mueni Matheka, Ellen P.W.A. Jansen, Cor J.M. Suhre and Adriaan W.H. Hofman.http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
From rhetoric to reality: shaping doctoral education in China for global higher educationhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-09-2023-0083/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestAlthough doctoral education has experienced substantial development in recent decades, it remains an elite, hence fragile, dimension of university policy and practice. This study aims to articulate perspectives to guide the next phase of strengthening and growth. Working from theoretical and empirical research conducted in China, including scholarship on workforce ecosystems, education design and the student experience, this study contributes a framework with qualitative insights which clarify the goals and experiences of doctoral education in ways that will render it more relevant, effective and contributing. The paper identifies areas for doctoral reform to ensure career readiness, including three distinctive outcomes and four indispensable experiences. This study advances a doctoral design framework which can render transparent the substance of programs and prompt program coordinators to develop and ensure career relevance.From rhetoric to reality: shaping doctoral education in China for global higher education
Juan Zhang, Xi Gao, Xi Hong, Hamish Coates
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, pp.-

Although doctoral education has experienced substantial development in recent decades, it remains an elite, hence fragile, dimension of university policy and practice. This study aims to articulate perspectives to guide the next phase of strengthening and growth.

Working from theoretical and empirical research conducted in China, including scholarship on workforce ecosystems, education design and the student experience, this study contributes a framework with qualitative insights which clarify the goals and experiences of doctoral education in ways that will render it more relevant, effective and contributing.

The paper identifies areas for doctoral reform to ensure career readiness, including three distinctive outcomes and four indispensable experiences.

This study advances a doctoral design framework which can render transparent the substance of programs and prompt program coordinators to develop and ensure career relevance.

]]>
From rhetoric to reality: shaping doctoral education in China for global higher education10.1108/SGPE-09-2023-0083Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2024-01-31© 2024 Emerald Publishing LimitedJuan ZhangXi GaoXi HongHamish CoatesStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Educationahead-of-printahead-of-print2024-01-3110.1108/SGPE-09-2023-0083https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-09-2023-0083/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2024 Emerald Publishing Limited
Building a community of practice through a doctoral research grouphttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-10-2023-0098/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThe purpose of this paper is to highlight the role an intentional and cohesive research group for doctoral researchers and supervisors can play in surfacing and de-mystifying many of the implicit doctoral literacy practices involved in doctoral study. This participatory, collaborative project, involving 11 doctoral researchers and three supervisors, was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, doctoral researchers and supervisors engaged in a discussion which resulted in a shared concept map. The concept map was then used as a prompt for stimulated recall interviews in which the participants reflected on the connections and peer learning afforded by the research group. Drawing on ideas from Communities of Practice theory, the data revealed that the research group, including both supervisors and doctoral students, developed knowledge, relational connections and an awareness of a range of doctoral literacies. This paper makes suggestions for how those in doctoral education can develop and embed research groups into institutional practices. This study demonstrates the significant role a research group which is structured, intentional and guided plays in supervisors’ and doctoral students’ development of doctoral literacies and the fundamental intellectual and relational connections afforded by participating in such communities.Building a community of practice through a doctoral research group
Marion Heron, Doris Dippold, Karen Gravett, Adeeba Ahmad, Samaher Aljabri, Priyanki Ghosh, Raniah Kabooha, Mohammad Makram, Dina Mousawa, Ayesha Mudhaffer, Beyza Ucar Longford, Lingyu Wang, Junyi Zhou, Fengmei Zhu
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, pp.-

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the role an intentional and cohesive research group for doctoral researchers and supervisors can play in surfacing and de-mystifying many of the implicit doctoral literacy practices involved in doctoral study.

This participatory, collaborative project, involving 11 doctoral researchers and three supervisors, was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, doctoral researchers and supervisors engaged in a discussion which resulted in a shared concept map. The concept map was then used as a prompt for stimulated recall interviews in which the participants reflected on the connections and peer learning afforded by the research group.

Drawing on ideas from Communities of Practice theory, the data revealed that the research group, including both supervisors and doctoral students, developed knowledge, relational connections and an awareness of a range of doctoral literacies.

This paper makes suggestions for how those in doctoral education can develop and embed research groups into institutional practices.

This study demonstrates the significant role a research group which is structured, intentional and guided plays in supervisors’ and doctoral students’ development of doctoral literacies and the fundamental intellectual and relational connections afforded by participating in such communities.

]]>
Building a community of practice through a doctoral research group10.1108/SGPE-10-2023-0098Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2024-02-29© 2024 Emerald Publishing LimitedMarion HeronDoris DippoldKaren GravettAdeeba AhmadSamaher AljabriPriyanki GhoshRaniah KaboohaMohammad MakramDina MousawaAyesha MudhafferBeyza Ucar LongfordLingyu WangJunyi ZhouFengmei ZhuStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Educationahead-of-printahead-of-print2024-02-2910.1108/SGPE-10-2023-0098https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-10-2023-0098/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2024 Emerald Publishing Limited
International students’ experiences in graduate programs during COVID-19 and recent sociopolitical climate in the USAhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-11-2022-0072/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThis study aims to examine the unique lived experiences of international graduate students in light of COVID-19 and the recent sociopolitical climate in the USA (e.g. Black Lives Matter movement, protests against anti-Asian hate crimes and gun violence). The authors used an exploratory qualitative design embedded within a constructivist/interpretivist paradigm. A total of 31 international health service psychology graduate students completed an online survey, 17 of whom participated in a 60-min one-on-one semi-structured interview. Participants reported facing a range of difficulties (e.g. travel ban/inability to spend time with family, visa-related concerns, racism, decreased support) during the global pandemic and the recent sociopolitical climate in the USA. A total of 48 themes were identified and organized into six domains: COVID-19-related stress and worry, experiences of racism/discrimination, coping mechanisms, support received, recommendations for programs and higher learning institutions and advice for other international graduate students. The recent sociopolitical climate in the US exacerbated some of the preexisting inequities for international graduate students due to their international student status and the global pandemic. Although few in number, students also spoke about some positive changes as a result of these major historical and political events. Implications for graduate education, clinical practice and policymaking are discussed.International students’ experiences in graduate programs during COVID-19 and recent sociopolitical climate in the USA
Pankhuri Aggarwal, Erica Szkody, Eleni Kapoulea, Katharine Daniel, Kirsten Bootes, Jennifer Boland, Jason Washburn, Amy Peterman
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, pp.-

This study aims to examine the unique lived experiences of international graduate students in light of COVID-19 and the recent sociopolitical climate in the USA (e.g. Black Lives Matter movement, protests against anti-Asian hate crimes and gun violence).

The authors used an exploratory qualitative design embedded within a constructivist/interpretivist paradigm. A total of 31 international health service psychology graduate students completed an online survey, 17 of whom participated in a 60-min one-on-one semi-structured interview.

Participants reported facing a range of difficulties (e.g. travel ban/inability to spend time with family, visa-related concerns, racism, decreased support) during the global pandemic and the recent sociopolitical climate in the USA. A total of 48 themes were identified and organized into six domains: COVID-19-related stress and worry, experiences of racism/discrimination, coping mechanisms, support received, recommendations for programs and higher learning institutions and advice for other international graduate students.

The recent sociopolitical climate in the US exacerbated some of the preexisting inequities for international graduate students due to their international student status and the global pandemic. Although few in number, students also spoke about some positive changes as a result of these major historical and political events. Implications for graduate education, clinical practice and policymaking are discussed.

]]>
International students’ experiences in graduate programs during COVID-19 and recent sociopolitical climate in the USA10.1108/SGPE-11-2022-0072Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education2023-11-28© 2023 Emerald Publishing LimitedPankhuri AggarwalErica SzkodyEleni KapouleaKatharine DanielKirsten BootesJennifer BolandJason WashburnAmy PetermanStudies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Educationahead-of-printahead-of-print2023-11-2810.1108/SGPE-11-2022-0072https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SGPE-11-2022-0072/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2023 Emerald Publishing Limited