Beyond knowledge and skills: rethinking the development of professional identity during the STEM doctorate

Hancock, Sally; Walsh, Elaine

doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.915301

Cited by 73 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Elsewhere, we proposed three reforms to the STEM doctorate -regular discussion groups, reflexive writing and non-academic work placements -to enable doctoral students to develop better informed professional identities (Hancock and Walsh 2014). The data presented in this paper further support our assertion that doctoral scientists need to command a greater understanding of the wider political, economic, social and cultural context in which they exist.…”

Section: Pedagogical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 61%

Purist or pragmatist? UK doctoral scientists’ moral positions on the knowledge economy

Hancock

Hughes²,

Walsh

2015

Studies in Higher Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Doctoral scientists increasingly forge non-academic careers after completing the doctorate. Governments and industry in advanced economies welcome this trend, since it complements the 'knowledge economy' vision that has come to dominate higher education globally. Knowledge economy stakeholders consider doctoral scientists to constitute particularly high-value human capital; primed to contribute to economic growth via the creation and application of scientific knowledge. Little is known, however, about doctoral scientists' awareness of, and attitudes towards, the knowledge economy. This paper reports a study of UK doctoral scientists, which reveals they are aware of, but ideologically divided towards, the knowledge economy. The knowledge economy relates to their scientific motivations, values, and aspirations in complex ways. Four moral positions emerge, ranging from 'anti' to 'pro' knowledge economy. We discuss the characteristics of each moral position, concluding with the need for doctoral scientists to adopt better informed and more flexible professional outlooks.

show abstract

Section: Pedagogical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 61%

Purist or pragmatist? UK doctoral scientists’ moral positions on the knowledge economy

Hancock

Hughes²,

Walsh

2015

Studies in Higher Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While there is not an agreed upon definition of professional identity in the higher education literature, based on the results of their meta-analysis, Trede, Macklin, and Bridges (2012) suggest three main characteristics for professional identity: (1) individuals develop "knowledge, a set of skills, ways of being and values" that are common among individuals of that profession, (2) these professional commonalities differentiate the individual from others in different professions, and (3) individuals identify themselves with the profession (p. 380). The authors also argue that faculty professional identity develops when individuals are students, and much of the research on professional identity focuses on the development of identity as undergraduate students (e.g., Nadelson et al, 2017;Hazari, Sadler, & Sonnert, 2013;Ryan & Carmichael, 2016), graduate students (e.g., Schulze, 2015;Gilmore, Lewis, Maher, Feldon, & Timmerman, 2015;Hancock & Walsh, 2016), and faculty (e.g., Abu-Alruz & Khasawneh, 2013; Barbarà-i-Molinero, Cascón-Pereira, & Hernández-Lara, 2017; Sabancıogullari & Dogan, 2015). Overall, the research suggests that there are both internal (e.g., beliefs, prior experiences) and external (e.g., social expectations, departmental contexts) factors that may influence faculties' professional identity (e.g., Abu-Alruz & Khasawneh, 2013;Samuel & Stephens, 2000;Starr et al, 2006).…”

Section: Professional Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The STEM Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS): development and exploratory results

Sturtevant

Wheeler

2019

IJ STEM Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: As institutions and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments emphasize faculty use of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs), various barriers and faculty perceptions hinder that process. While a large body of literature exists in this area, no survey instrument has been developed to comprehensively and systematically capture all these factors. We developed and piloted a survey instrument, the Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS), to delineate university STEM faculty perceptions of barriers to using EBIPs and examine the composition and sources of faculty professional identity, use of and dissatisfaction with these practices. Results: Initial pilot study results with a small, targeted sample (n = 69) shows how FIBIS can be used to understand factors that impact instructional practices. For our sample, we found that higher perceived departmental barriers and limited supports correlate with lower work identity. Even at a research university, we do not see a negative correlation between research and teaching identities; STEM faculty can have both, despite hypothesized tensions in the literature. We also found that sense of belonging and faculty community were descriptively higher for underrepresented minority than non-underrepresented minority faculty. As previous work has suggested, use of EBIPs varied by department. Finally, descriptive differences were seen in faculty barriers for those who were and were not satisfied with EBIPs. This suggests another layer to add to models of faculty decision-making regarding the use of EBIPs: dissatisfaction with implementing these practices once they are attempted. Further work is needed to confirm and understand these initial findings. Conclusions: Many of the exploratory findings from our pilot of FIBIS align with previous qualitative work, suggesting that FIBIS is a tool that can capture faculty identity, use of EBIPs, and barriers to instruction. While we do not intend to generalize our claims, the following suggestions for our institution may demonstrate how FIBIS can be used to try and reduce STEM faculty barriers to implementing EBIPs: (1) developing a strong teaching community (especially needed for persistence of faculty from underrepresented minorities), (2) helping faculty connect to the university as a whole, and (3) working with departments to better support implementation of EBIPs. The results presented and implications of these findings demonstrate the potential of FIBIS as a tool for examining factors that influence STEM faculty instructional practice. Future work includes further validating the FIBIS barriers component of the survey so that FIBIS can be used to identify and support change in institutions of higher education.

show abstract

“…The comprehensive UK-sector document The researcher development framework (Vitae, 2011), delivered following the Roberts (2002) report on UK STEM PhD graduate skills, lists 63 skills descriptors across four domains, and a similar framework of skills development for Australian Higher Degrees by Research is anticipated (McGagh et al, 2016). Commenting more broadly about professional identity and workplace behaviours, Hancock and Walsh (2016) point out the limitations of 'research career focused' models of development, such as the Roberts (2002) model, in the context of the changing nature of researcher careers. In answer to this known issue, researcher development professionals have utilised insight from graduates and from employers to supplement researcher 'skills training'.…”

Section: Concepts Of Value In Doctoral Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research graduates in Australia also go into a range of careers across business, academia, government, community and not-for-profit sectors, with almost 60% leaving academia within nine months of graduation (Guthrie & Bryant, 2015). Additionally, graduates are aware of the capital their knowledge-base affords them (Hancock & Walsh, 2016) and report positive impacts of their doctoral experience on their career progression and wider lives (Mellors-Bourne et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Was it worth it? A qualitative exploration into graduate perceptions of doctoral value

Bryan

Guccione

2018

Higher Education Research & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beyond knowledge and skills: rethinking the development of professional identity during the STEM doctorate

Cited by 73 publications

References 20 publications

Purist or pragmatist? UK doctoral scientists’ moral positions on the knowledge economy

Purist or pragmatist? UK doctoral scientists’ moral positions on the knowledge economy

The STEM Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS): development and exploratory results

Was it worth it? A qualitative exploration into graduate perceptions of doctoral value

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About