The Changing Landscape of Doctoral Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: PhD Students, Faculty Advisors, and Preferences for Varied Career Options

The landscape of graduate science education is changing as efforts to diversify the professoriate have increased because academic faculty jobs at universities have grown scarce and more competitive. With this context as a backdrop, the present research examines the perceptions and career goals of advisors and advisees through surveys of PhD students (Study 1, N = 195) and faculty mentors (Study 2, N = 272) in science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines. Study 1 examined actual preferences and career goals of PhD students among three options: research careers, teaching careers, and non-academic careers in industry, and compared the actual preferences of students with what they perceived as being the normative preferences of faculty. Overall, students had mixed preferences but perceived that their advisors had a strong normative preference for research careers for them. Moreover, students who ranked research positions as most desirable felt the most belonging in their academic departments. Further analyses revealed no differences in career preferences as a function of underrepresented minority (URM) student status or first-generation (FG) status, but URM and FG students felt less belonging in their academic departments. Study 2 examined faculty preferences for different careers for their advisees, both in general and for current students in particular. While faculty advisors preferred students to go into research in general, when focusing on specific students, they saw their preferences as being closely aligned with the career preference of each PhD student. Faculty advisors did not perceive any difference in belonging between their students as a function of their URM status. Discrepancies between student and faculty perceptions may occur, in part, because faculty and students do not engage in sufficient discussions about the wider range of career options beyond academic research. Supporting this possibility, PhD students and faculty advisors reported feeling more comfortable discussing research careers with each other than either non-academic industry positions or teaching positions. Discussion centers on the implications of these findings for interpersonal and institutional efforts to foster diversity in the professoriate and to create open communication about career development.

The Doctor of Philosophy Experience of Athletic Trainers: Facilitators and Barriers to Anticipatory Faculty Socialization

CONTEXT

  It is important to understand the process whereby athletic trainers learn about their future roles, particularly when the roles can be complex and demanding. Little is known about the experiences of athletic training doctoral students, including facilitators and barriers to socialization as aspiring faculty members.

OBJECTIVE

  To investigate factors influencing the anticipatory socialization of athletic training doctoral students into future faculty roles.

DESIGN

  Qualitative study.

SETTING

  Universities with athletic training doctoral students.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

  We recruited 28 students (19 women, 9 men, age = 28 ± 3 years) with a minimum of 1 year of doctoral coursework completed and participating in an assistantship at the time of the study to reach data saturation. Participants were certified for 6 ± 3 years and represented 5 National Athletic Trainers' Association districts and 9 institutions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

  We completed semistructured, 1-on-1 telephone interviews with participants. We transcribed each interview verbatim and analyzed the data using an inductive approach. Peer review, multiple-analyst triangulation, and member checks ensured trustworthiness.

RESULTS

  We uncovered 4 themes from our analysis related to facilitators and barriers to professional socialization. Participants described comprehensive autonomous experiences in research that allowed them to feel confident they could sustain a scholarly agenda. Independent experiences and lack of pedagogy training yielded mixed preparedness relative to teaching responsibilities. Limited formal experience led to incomplete role understanding related to the service component of the professoriate. Finally, with regard to the administrative duties associated with athletic training faculty positions, participants noted a lack of direct exposure to common responsibilities.

CONCLUSIONS

  Role occupation in various aspects of the professoriate helped doctoral students prepare as future faculty members, although full role understanding was limited. Intentional exposure to research, teaching, service, and administrative expectations during doctoral experiences may facilitate the socialization of future athletic training faculty into academic roles.