Socialization and integration

The importance of social interaction between students, their peers, faculty and supervisors during doctoral degrees is one of the most consistently reported factors leading to successful progress, completion, and overall satisfaction (Bair & Haworth, 2004; Lovitts, 2001; Nettles & Millett, 2006). Peer and faculty interaction can be viewed to affect positive outcomes through two interrelated sources: socialization and integration. Socialization is defined as the process through which one acquires the values, beliefs, attitudes, habits, behaviour patterns, skills and knowledge of one's society, organisation, or group (Calhoun, 2002; Gardner, 2010a). Other authors term this process enculturation and similarly describe how important the learning process is whereby doctoral students come to know how to act in concordance with their departments and be productive (Boyle & Boice, 1998). However, in the context of doctoral students, the term socialization is employed far more frequently than

enculturation and will therefore be used to refer this process for the remainder of the thesis. Integration, on the other hand, refers to the frequency of interaction between a person, their social network, and the feelings of belonging and community which can often arise (Hoskins & Goldberg, 2005; Tinto, 1993) — they are, of course, related, as social integration can lead to socialization and vice-versa (e.g., Lovitts, 2001; Nettles & Millet, 2006). To reduce confusion it should be noted that both socialization and integration can occur through socializing, but to retain clarity regarding these

concepts the term interaction will be used to not confuse the processes of socialization with socializing.

There are many ways in which positive integration and socialization are arrived at by PhD students, though in essence all avenues centre on increased contact and the values of collaboration and support. For example, some scholars espouse learning communities or peer mentoring programs which match students with similar experiences or interests (Gardner, 2008; Wisker et al., 2007). Other avenues include research symposia and opportunities for informal contact with peers (Walker, 2008). Academicintegration, which also embodies the socialization of field specific norms and practices, can also occur through such peer networks though many researchers specifically emphasise the relationships between students, their supervisors and faculty (Austin, 2002; Earl-Novell, 2006), and the opportunities to conduct, write, and present research with these same individuals (Hoskins & Goldberg, 2005). Support, socialization and integration therefore aid students in developing both knowledge and skills necessary for scholarly activity and academic success.

For example, several studies place integration as essential to this cohort’s persistence (e.g., Daniels, 1975; Hoskins & Goldberg, 2005; Lovitts, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012) and in at least one study has been found to be the

strongest predictor in influencing persistence and time-to-degree — indeed, higher levels of support predicted quicker completion times (Abedi & Benkin, 1987). A review of 128 quantitative and qualitative studies concluded that students who interacted more frequently with their peers were more likely to complete than those with little contact (Bair & Haworth, 2004). Not surprisingly, satisfaction has also been found to be higher where students feel greater levels of formal and informal

integration with their peers and faculty (Gardner, 2010a; Nettles & Millett, 2006). In addition to practical and academic support, these impacts are likely to be derived from benefits to students’ socioemotional needs; that is, if students experience a greater sense of belonging, trust, community, and help, both their satisfaction and progress will be enhanced. Gardner (2007) and Janson, Howard, and Schoenberger-Orgad (2004), for instance, reported how the friendship, support, guidance, and mentoring they received from their peers was paramount to their positive experience of the degree.

Conversely, negative socialization experiences and lower levels of integration have been shown to impede students’ progress and satisfaction (Gardner, 2010b). Lovitts (2001) found that many students decided to leave as a result of being disillusioned by a culture of what students described as cold and pretentious

interactions amongst their peers, with one student reporting he felt himself becoming more arrogant and so left the program to avoid further socialization of these

unattractive traits. Lower levels of integration are also a contributing factor to the experience of social and intellectual isolation for doctoral students, an experience associated with decreased satisfaction and attrition (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000; Lovitts, 2001) which will be examined in more detail in forthcoming sections on isolation.

The level of integration and socialization students experience is, of course, not solely determined by one’s institution and the opportunities they provide but also the efforts and willingness of students themselves to be involved. Astin (1977, p.21) defined involvement as “the time and effort expended by the student in activities that relate directly to the institution and its program”. Bair and Haworth (2004, p. 497) expanded on these activities by including “graduate association meetings, academic activities, social activities, informal and formal meetings, and activities of the profession”. As such, involvement is an important concept as it implies not only the degree of contact or integration a student experiences through a variety of options, but also brings to attention the motivation students feel to actually make that contact.

In terms of how involvement affects student progress and completion, it is not surprising to see a similar trend emerge as seen in the research focusing on

integration, support, and socialization, all of which are based on social contact and interaction For example, Lovitts (2001) found that completers were more likely to attend informal events organised at their university, but, again, this was “partially a function of dispositions and partially a function of advisor type”, where advisor type refers to their tendency to encourage such involvement (p. 156). Involvement was also found to be a significant predictor in students’ progress through multiple stages of their degrees — that is, courses subsequent to a masters, the passing of examinations leading to candidacy, and completion of the doctorate, across 42 departments of 12 universities in the United States (Girves & Wemmerus, 1988). Indeed, the relationship between student involvement and progress, retention, and completion has received substantial research support (e.g., Bair & Haworth, 2004; Ferrer de Valero, 1996; Nerad & Cerny, 1991 May; Tinto, 1993).