The long anticipated retirement of significant numbers of senior faculty members is occurring at a time when societal expectations of academic institutions are expanding. Parents, employers, and legislators are interested in the quality of teaching provided by colleges and universities. Learning outcomes are emphasized, including traditional subject matter expertise and skills as well as abilities to use technology effectively, integrate and apply knowledge, and solve open-ended problems. Legislators and community leaders call for greater attention by faculty members to apply knowledge to solve societal problems. These same constituencies expect university research to aid local and regional economic development. All of these expectations take place for the most part within tight financial constraints. Without doubt, the individuals replacing retiring faculty members must demonstrate a wider array of talents than their predecessors, as well as higher levels of productivity (Fairweather, 1996; Massy & Wilger, 1995). In this context, the experiences of new faculty (Boice, 1992; Sorcinelli & Austin, 1992; Rice, Sorcinelli, & Austin, 2000) are characterized by stress, pressure, and uncertainty. Institutional leaders who hire new PhD graduates for faculty positions, analysts of higher education, and potential faculty members, including graduate students, raise questions about the appropriateness of graduate program preparation for the changing workplace contexts that the next generation of faculty will face. My thesis is that the socialization process in graduate school must change substantially for new faculty members to work effectively in the ever changing world of higher education. Assessing the quality of the PhD experience as preparation for the professoriate is complex. Many PhDs will work outside of academe instead of becoming professors. Moreover, much of the structure of graduate programs serves as much to make the institutions work effectively as to prepare graduate students for future professional roles. Graduate students serving as teaching assistants provide much of the undergraduate instruction at the typical large university. The research mission of the American university depends in part upon the work of graduate students who serve as research assistants for professors. Although teaching and research responsibilities surely can provide training opportunities for the future faculty, these assistantship roles sometimes are structured more to serve institutional or faculty needs than to ensure a high quality learning experience for graduate students. A graduate student teaching Freshman English, for example, might already have taught the class several times and could benefit from a different teaching experience. This article examines doctoral education as socialization for the professoriate. It addresses the question of whether or not the graduate school preparation process is adequate and appropriate given the academic workplace these scholars will enter. In the first section I discuss key points from the literature on preparation for the faculty career, arguing that the doctoral experience is the first stage of the academic career. In the second section, I examine the workplace context into which PhD graduates will move for employment. The argument here is that the academic workplace is significantly different from that which has characterized higher education in the past. In the third section I analyze graduate education as experienced by graduate students. I use data from a four-year qualitative, longitudinal study that examined the graduate school experience of a group of individuals preparing to be faculty members. In the fourth section I compare key findings from this qualitative study with findings from othe r recent quantitative studies of PhD students to identify discrepancies between the academic workplace context into which new faculty will be hired and the graduate school socialization process. …

http://www.csub.edu/~isumaya/GST%20305/Austin2002.pdf

Preparing the Next Generation of Faculty: Graduate School as Socialization to the Academic Career

A review of various models of the relationship between research and teaching in universities is presented, and the evidence necessary to assess each model is outlined. A meta-analysis of 58 studies demonstrates that the relationship is zero. Suggestions for future directions are provided, and it is argued that a major goal could be to adopt strategies that enhance the relationship between research and teaching.

The Relationship Between Research and Teaching: A Meta-Analysis

Engineering education research (EER) has been on the fast track since 2004 with an exponential rise in the number of Ph.D.s awarded and the establishment of new programs, even entire EER departments. The National Research Council’s Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER) report (National Research Council, 2012) captures the state-of-the-art advances in our understanding of engineering and science student learning and highlights commonalities with other science-based education research programs. The DBER report is the consensus analysis of experts in undergraduate education research in physics, chemistry, biology, geosciences, astronomy, and engineering. The study committee, chaired by Susan Singer, also included higher education researchers, learning scientists, and cognitive psychologists. A central aspect of the DBER report is the focus on and application of research in the education, learning, and social-behavioral sciences to science and engineering curricula design and teaching methods. Froyd, Wankat, and Smith (2012) identified five major shifts in engineering education in the past 100 years: 1. A shift from hands-on and practical emphasis to engineering science and analytical emphasis 2. A shift to outcomes-based education and accreditation 3. A shift to emphasizing engineering design 4. A shift to applying education, learning, and social-behavioral sciences research 5. A shift to integrating information, computational, and communications technology in education

Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in

Doctoral student attrition in the United States has reached alarming proportions, with reported rates of approximately 50% across disciplines (Nettles and Millett 2006). Attrition rates of underrepresented populations have been reported at higher rates across disciplines (Council of Graduate Schools 2004), pointing to a disparate experience for these students. Socialization has been shown to be a determining factor in doctoral student success and retention (Turner and Thompson 1993) while not necessarily reflecting how the socialization experience differs by disciplinary and institutional contexts. Through this qualitative study I sought to understand the effects of the socialization process upon doctoral student success and retention in the disciplines of chemistry and history at two institutions. Results highlighted a disparate experience for women, students of color, students with families, part-time students, and older students. Suggestions for policy, practice, and further research are included.

/pdf/fitting-the-mold-of-graduate-school-a-qualitative-study-of-og7gmjefyv.pdf

Fitting the Mold of Graduate School: A Qualitative Study of Socialization in Doctoral Education

Little is known about the process of doctoral student attrition. Relying on theories of socialization and integration, this paper examines the cases of three students who left their doctoral programs. Their experiences show that academic integration pla
ys a greater role in attrition than social integration. Furthermore, the academic integration process can be ruptured, particularly when a student-advisor relationship ends. The paper also questions the idea that degree completion equals success and tha
t attrition equals failure.

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Student Descriptions of the Doctoral Attrition Process

(1986). Perspectives on the Professional Socialization of Women Faculty. The Journal of Higher Education: Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 20-43.

Perspectives on the Professional Socialization of Women Faculty: A Case of Accumulative Disadvantage?.

As one aspect of a study of individual and organizational conditions contributing to faculty vitality, career socialization experiences and current career attitudes of three faculty generations were compared for two groups of tenured university faculty members. The first group was a representative sample drawn from the fields of the humanities, biological sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences. The second was a selected sample of faculty from the same areas who had been identified by judges as highly active in teaching, research, and service. The analyses focus on differences in the professional socialization experiences and career attitudes of the two groups that appear to be indicative of career success. Within these groups the generational trends are also examined.

Professional Socialization and Contemporary Career Attitudes of Three Faculty Generations.

American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled

In recent higher education literature, faculty members have been described as in need of help [see, for example, 8, 17]. Faculty are characterized as demoralized and immobilized, and it is reported that their productivity is diminished and their futures are constricted. The ready "solutions" that are often offered consist of voluntary faculty development programs, of which varied types have evolved [13, 18, 31]. However, the reality of the above described conditions and the effectiveness of the development programs have been difficult to establish and, perhaps more importantly, faculty participation has tended to be limited and diffident [12]. Moreover, almost all such programs have been focused on voluntary individual development with attention primarily to instructional skills. In this article we propose an approach that addresses the institutional environment and the responsibilities of the institution for development of its faculty in the full range of dimensions including scholarship with which it is concerned. Drawing on data from an institutional study in a major research university, this article indicates that, although many of the concerns about current faculty vitality may be exaggerated, needs for institutional response still exist. We show that although faculty vitality in the main is currently quite high, a significant proportion of faculty are still experiencing problems of morale, job satisfaction, and professional productivity. In addressing the continuing needs of faculty who vary on vitality indicators, we argue for both an expanded

Shirley M. Clark

Papers

Perspectives on the Professional Socialization of Women Faculty: A Case of Accumulative Disadvantage?.

Professional Socialization and Contemporary Career Attitudes of Three Faculty Generations.

American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled

The Case for an Institutional Perspective on Faculty Development.

Faculty Vitality and Institutional Productivity: Critical Perspectives for Higher Education