The Pendulum of PhD Student Role Identity
David M. Penn
Walden University

April 12, 2015

The Pendulum of PhD Student Role Identity
Bansel (2011) noted that as citizens traverse through life, each individual develops a framework of his or her own role identity and how the interpretation of identity interacts within the interpersonal, societal, and academic landscape (pp. 544). This development of role identity owes its genesis to the social-psychological disciplines as emergent and ephemeral rather than a static concept (p. 550). Jazvac-Martek (2009) asserted that the defining of academic identities is integral to the pursuit of all aspects of life but especially salient when focused on the PhD student, an area that lacks significant research and data (pp. 253-554). Barnacle and Mewburn (2010) contend that what the PhD track commitment requires, as a lifestyle, is an evolution in how we as students see ourselves and how we see our emerging roles in society (pp. 433-444).
Jazvac-Martek (2009) compares the doctoral student’s journey is a transformative “rite-of-passage” for those who seek to embed academic inquiry into every aspect of his or her life and utilize the knowledge gleaned to further the common good of society as scholar-practitioners (pp. 253-262). According to Jazvac-Martek (2009), she reported that there needs to be perspicuous and prescribed support structures in doctoral education so that the doctoral students may come to understand his or her identity as a professional steward of the discipline. PhD students will encounter many challenges that if approached with the right perspective, attitude and integrity will be able to adapt accordingly (Jazvac-Martek, p. 255). Thus lending to the concept that the learner strives to hold or alter identity based on necessity. For example, Jazvac-Martek (2009) draws attention to the fact that the basic concept of identity is a complex phenomenon that has its roots in copious cross-disciplinary and academic fields and may serve to be the cause of confusion as to what truly contributes to, and are key influencers of, an individual’s identity (p. 256). Jazvac-Martek (2009) correspondingly questioned that past research focus has concentrated solely on socialization, in the educational settings, as a means of apprenticing a scholar into a particular mold without forethought or negation of a student’s biography (p. 254). In this way, learners become replicas of mentors instead of partner-innovators. Subsequently, to attempt to over-simplify identity as a purely individual or social event, in its assembly, is a misnomer and needs further research and exploration (Jazvac-Martek, 2009, p. 254).
The research questions surrounding Jazvac-Martek’s (2009) study sought to explore how PhD students interpret experiences and the various role identities related to being pupils and the transformation of becoming academics (p. 256). However, there are demographic and data source and design limitations of the study and further research is needed. Jazvac-Martek (2009) wrote the article, in brief, to draw attention to the necessity of the exploration of this gap in research and charges academics to become more aware of each individual’s social identity development (p. 262). Within the shallow nature of this article, Jazvac-Martek (2009) only sampled nine PhD students that were followed over two years, only one out of the nine was male and research pool was not deep enough to account for ethnic diversity (p. 257). Jazvac-Martek’s (2009) study was also performed in Canada and within this school model the student was able to complete required course work and ending with a final oral defense of the dissertation within a four-year institution (pp. 256). This is atypical of the North American system of doctoral education. The three qualitative forms of data collected from the participants in Jazvac-Martek’s (2009) study utilized pre-interview questionnaires, personal written logs kept by the participants describing his or her experience, and finally several semi-structured interviews delving into the written records and surveys (p. 257).
Consider Lawler’s (2013) comments on identity and the necessity to be “co-constructed” through interchange rooted within a particular framework and discourse within relationships; these frameworks then shift or “oscillate” as knowledge acquiescence of new information takes place and conflicting or incongruent views lead pupils to appraise, discern and adjust his or her schemata of identity (Lawler, 2013). Jazvac-Martek’s (2009) derives the notion of role identity from symbolic interactionism, which denotes that an individual may hold numerous identities and roles simultaneously (pp. 254-255). These roles and identities become the template by which individuals interpret new stimuli and any application or interpretation from that point forward. For example, a PhD student nearing completion of a program will experience a struggle to reconcile the fact that he or she is now closer to being a peer in the PhD discipline and must therefore amend his or her role identity, no longer seeing themselves as a beginner, but as an evolved member of the academic community and able to contribute scholarly and interact socially with newly gained academic peers (Jazvac-Martek, 2009, p. 255).
For Jazvac-Martek (2009), genuine changes take place with respect to how an individual perceives his or her own role identity, there must be a balance between the recognition of significantly impactful and external circumstances but also taking into account internal frames of reference (p. 255). For Lawler, (2010) role identities are supported as a person categorizes oneself in relation to a social context. For example, PhD students do not operate at the intellectual capacity at which high school students perform, different contexts requiring a different application of one’s own role identity. Once these new identities have been established through behaviors that are consistent with the desired goal, Jazvac-Martek (2009) asserts that an individual will maintain optimal conceptions of the roles they occupy through a form of self-negotiation that interconnects and relies on reciprocity between the roles and relationships, the societal frame of reference and the influence of others (p. 256).

References
Bansel, P. (2011). Becoming academic: A reflection on doctoral candidacy. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 543-556. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.594592
Barnacle, R., & Mewburn, I. (2010). Learning networks and the journey of ‘becoming doctor’. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 433-444
Jazvac-Martek, M. (2009). Oscillating Role Identities: The Academic Experiences Of Education Doctoral Students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(3), 253-264. Retrieved April 11, 2015, from EBSCOhost.
Lawler, S. (2013). Identity: Sociological perspectives (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.