A Situated Framework for Socialising a Scholarship Mindset with Doctoral Students Volume 14, 2019 Accepting Editor Chipo Mutongi │Received: February 5, 2019│ Revised: May 10, 2019 │ Accepted: July 26, 2019. Cite as: Zygouris-Coe, V., & Roberts, S. K. (2019). A Situated Framework for Socialising a Scholarship Mindset with Doctoral Students. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 567-580. https://doi.org/10.28945/4406 (CC BY-NC 4.0) This article is licensed to you under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. When you copy and redistribute this paper in full or in part, you need to provide proper attribution to it to ensure that others can later locate this work (and to ensure that others do not accuse you of plagiarism). You may (and we encour- age you to) adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any non-commercial purposes. This license does not permit you to use this material for commercial purposes. A SITUATED FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIALISING A SCHOLARSHIP MINDSET WITH DOCTORAL STUDENTS Vassiliki (Vicky) Zygouris-Coe * University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA vzygouri@ucf.edu Sherron Killingsworth Roberts University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA Sherron.Roberts@ucf.edu * Corresponding author ABSTRACT Aim/Purpose The doctoral experience is a complex, challenging, and life-changing process. Cultivating a scholarship mindset is a requirement for success in early and later academic careers. This paper presents a situated framework for socializing doc- toral students' scholarship mindset. Background Faculty of doctoral education programmes prepare students for higher educa- tion and other scholarly positions. Methodology In this situated framework, two doctoral faculty utilized their academic qualifi- cations, programmatic experiences, and related academic literature to develop a framework that has been successful in a particular School of Teacher Education context. Contribution The situated framework, which includes steps to Develop, Nurture and Chal- lenge, Apprentice, and Celebrate scholars, can serve as a guide to encourage review and evaluation of doctoral education programmes and the ways in which they develop doctoral students' scholarship mindset and preparation. Findings Key findings included increased doctoral student participation in events and experiences that contributed to developing a scholarship mindset and strength- ening their scholarly publication and research trajectory. Recommendations for Practitioners Doctoral students need to engage in ongoing, strategic experiences that will positively impact their scholarship trajectory. Retention of doctoral students is not just a matter of successful completion of course work. Recommendations for Researchers Research in the environmental learning contexts of doctoral education pro- grammes and in the ways in which doctoral academic mentors engage students in scholarship may prove useful to programme developers. https://doi.org/10.28945/4406 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ mailto:vzygouri@ucf.edu mailto:Sherron.Roberts@ucf.edu Situated Framework for Socialising a Scholarship Mindset 568 Impact on Society Scholarship during doctoral studies and beyond will contribute to the develop- ment of quality education, knowledge, and research at all levels. Future Research Future research should focus on empirical studies that explore the effectiveness of this situated framework through the perspectives of additional faculty and doctoral students at the particular university context. Keywords doctoral education; doctoral mentoring; doctoral programmes; scholarship; scholarship mindset, socialisation INTRODUCTION According to UNESCO’s 1998 World Conference on World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twen- ty-First Century: Vision and Action, Article 1, the mission of higher education is to “…educate highly qualified graduates and responsible citizens able to meet the needs of all sec- tors of human activity, by offering relevant qualifications, including professional training, which combine high-level knowledge and skills, using courses and content continually tailored to the present and future needs of society; provide opportunities for higher learning and for learning throughout life; advance, create and disseminate knowledge through research; … and, contrib- ute to the development and improvement of education at all levels, including through the train- ing of teachers.” (see http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm) Successful completion of the doctoral process is a complex, challenging, and life-changing process (Barnacle & Mewburn, 2010; Ryland, Stockley, Brouwer, & Stechyson, 2009). Understandably, Rosser (2004) notes that the doctoral process needs to include various types of socialisation and mentoring. Based on this premise, this paper outlines a situated framework for cultivating scholar- ship so that doctoral students might gain a deeper understanding of the key developmental objectives of doctoral education, the importance of academic scholarship in the development of their profes- sional identity, and of their related career trajectories to follow. Historically, European doctoral edu- cation consisted of intense individual mentoring as a means of preparing students to navigate ad- vanced studies and research, inducting them into the academic community by introducing them to professional networks, and helping them launch their academic careers through a supportive and scholarly professional relationship (e.g., Hu, Thomas, & Lance, 2008; Paglis, Green, & Bauer, 2006). Yet, many modern Western doctoral programmes often fail to capture this intense mentoring needed to cultivate mindsets with the love, curiosity, and propensity for advanced scholarship. A scholarly community plays an important role in how doctoral students experience the doctoral process and what mindsets they develop about the role of scholarship during and beyond their doc- toral studies (Gardner & Mendoza, 2010; Golde, 2010; Kiley, 2009). Research on doctoral education has identified factors that impact the doctoral experience, for example, the relationship between the supervisory professor and the doctoral student (e.g., Sambrook, Stewart, & Roberts, 2008), the exist- ing scholarly community (e.g., Pyhältö, Stubb, & Lonka, 2009), and the supervising professors’ and doctoral students’ beliefs about research and the supervision process (e.g., Åkerlind, 2008; Kiley & Mullins, 2005; McCulloch, Guerin, Jayatilaka, Calder, & Ranasingle, 2017). What a student learns during their doctoral experience is situated in social and cultural contexts (Billet, Smith, & Barker, 2005; Holland, Skinner, Lachiotte, & Cain, 1998; McCulloch et al., 2017). That is, doctoral students’ learning does not occur in a vacuum. Their learning is a synergistic outcome of engagement in a variety of activities, shaped by individual histories, beliefs, curiosities, and intentions. Ongoing inter- actions and professional relationships with professors and others within their discipline, institution, professional organisations, and other contexts also contribute to their learning and shape their agency and identity. In mentoring doctoral students toward successful careers and research trajectories, doc- toral programmes should provide strategic and ongoing experiences in scholarship beyond their standard coursework and dissertation processes, because becoming a scholar requires developing a scholarship mindset. Zygouris-Coe & Roberts 569 In this paper, the authors, who serve as PhD programme coordinators and as mentors for PhD and EdD students at a large metropolitan university in Southeastern United States, first provide a ra- tionale through related research and then outline a situated framework for mentoring doctoral stu- dents. Additionally, evidence, student products or tasks, and other metrics showing reflection and growth regarding developing a scholarship mindset, and connections between the framework and the academic training literature are highlighted. Both professors have mentored doctoral students in the School of Teacher Education for at least 15 years, and both have received university-wide recognition for mentorship (see Appendix for a complete list of degree tracks for doctoral programmes). The first author is programme coordinator for the PhD programme in Education, Reading Educa- tion/Literacy Track and the EdD programme in Curriculum and Instruction Reading Educa- tion/Literacy Specialization. The second author is the programme coordinator for the PhD pro- gramme in the Elementary Education Track and the EdD programme in Curriculum and Instruction Elementary Education Specialization. In our experiences, doctoral programmes typically have two types of mentorship: supervisory mentoring through chairing a thesis or dissertation and socialisa- tion mentoring in terms of facilitating the development of scholars. In the context of this paper, both authors have significant experiences in chairing dissertations as well as formal mentoring of doctoral students. Professors play a key role in socialising doctoral students in scholarship (Healy, 1997). As the authors began to envision cultivating a scholarship mindset, we recognised that a doctoral programme is more than the mere sum of courses and seminars within a given programme of study. Socialisation involves the knowledge and skills necessary for one to become a member of a profession or a pro- fessional organisation, as well as learning the values, norms, discourse, and practices of the culture of that profession or professional organisation (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Professional socialisation is the process of learning through education and training, the knowledge, skills, values, cultural norms, discourse, expectations, behaviours and attitudes needed to successfully fulfill a professional role (Moore, 1970). Mentoring and apprenticeships facilitate doctoral students’ professional sociali- sation and identity construction. The following question guided this conceptual paper: How can a scholarship mindset be cultivated throughout students’ doctoral education experiences? Therefore, we set out to provide doctoral students with the knowledge, experiences, interactions with experi- enced members of the profession, feedback, and tools required for them to become a scholar and a member of a scholarly professional community. From beginning to end, doctoral programmes must envelop students in the socialisation process of cultivating scholarship for a lifetime; therefore, we created milestones to address the known obstacles of any doctoral programme, and to propel our students forward into their academic careers. Almost 20 years ago, Bair and Haworth (1990) reported estimates that between 40 to 60 % of students who begin doctoral studies did not matriculate to graduation. Attrition for doctoral students remain a disturbing 50% according to the recent estimates of persistence (Cassuto, 2013). With such high attrition rates, doctoral programme coordinators should begin with thoughtful and intentional action plans to enhance and scale scholarship mindsets in stages. Therefore, we developed a situated framework for socializing doctoral students toward a scholarship mindset. A SITUATED FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIALISING A SCHOLARSHIP MINDSET IN THE PRESENT UNIVERSITY CONTEXT The word scholar has multiple meanings; for example, one who has conducted an advanced and spe- cialised study in a field; a person who is highly educated and also has an aptitude for study; one who has profound knowledge of a particular topic. In 1837, Ralph Waldo Emerson famously gave a speech to the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Harvard University entitled “The American Scholar” which points to the need for scholars in this new land of America to avoid relying on foreign scholars, but to become “... the designated intellect. In the right state, he is Man Thinking. In the degenerate state, when the victim of society, he tends to become a mere thinker, or still worse, the parrot of Situated Framework for Socialising a Scholarship Mindset 570 other men’s thinking.” (p. 1). Boyer (1990) and Diamond (2002) echo the need for scholars to be more than mere thinkers; they must make their “designated intellect” or thinking public in order for it to be valued. Emerson (1837) cautions that scholars must be more than bookworms; books must serve as an impetus toward action. Contrary to a scholar, a practitioner is someone who is actively engaged in a profession or occupation. Often practitioners who read, analyze, and implement poli- cies or other related issues enter our doctoral programmes in teacher education. Consequently, the socialization process presented within this paper facilitates the necessary shift from a practitioner to a scholar. When students first enter a doctoral programme with the goal of a higher degree, they bring an array of experiences, content, and expertise, even myths about the roles of a scholar. They enter the doc- toral programme with an established identity, with cultural experiences, and with their ideas and ex- pectations of what the doctoral process and related experiences entail. Their academic, social, cul- tural, interpersonal, and personal development is heavily dependent upon their mindsets, expecta- tions, and attitudes about scholarship and the doctoral process. Often, initial notions of what makes a scholar is one who is cloistered away reading and thinking, without connections to sharing, praxis, or publishing their scholarship. With influence from Emerson’s impactful speech, Boyer (1990) in Scholarship Reconsidered presents the complex, layered totality of the definitions of scholarship around four arenas: the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of teaching, the scholarship of integration, and the scholarship of application (later called the scholarship of engagement including service learning). Aligning the mindsets of entering doctoral students with powerful ideas about the Gestalt of the professoriate such as Boyer’s (1990) is a start. This makes the formal and informal scholarly mentoring experiences to socialize students toward a scholarship mindset throughout the doctoral process all the more essential. What is a mindset? In general terms, a mindset refers to a belief that orients one’s responses to situa- tions. Mindsets are more than beliefs; they are cognitive functions, a set of assumptions and meth- ods that frame how we view situations; they direct our attention to important cues; they suggest goals. When mindsets become habitual, they define our identity and aspirations, and they can affect learning, achievement, and performance interpretations. In turn, a scholarship mindset can help doc- toral students develop habits of mind and behaviours to support a lifetime of learning. A scholar- ship mindset ideally must begin with incorporating intrinsic elements such as self-efficacy, self- motivation (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; McCulloch et al., 2017), and self-discipline (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). Certainly, a scholarship mindset is likely found at the intersections of passion and persistence (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). The positive overlapping intersections of our scholars’ passionate interests and their self-motivated persistence appear to be at least part of the formula for cultivating scholarship for reducing attrition and for understanding why students per- sist in doctoral programmes. Addressing these critical elements and intentionally trying to infuse these into the doctoral process is important for the benefit of our novice scholars. Dweck, Walton, and Cohen (2014) published a very helpful summary of these critical elements in Academic Tenacity: Mindsets and Skills that Promote Long-term Learning. Their research uncovered the sali- ent factors which contribute to academic tenacity, and which are often thought of as outside the realm of coursework. They note that these key characteristics can play an even more important role than cognitive factors in advancing academic performance. Therefore, considering students’ beliefs about themselves and their scholarship, their feelings and perceptions about the doctoral process and related coursework, as well as self-control habits are important to cultivate scholarship and work hab- its in positive ways. They identify seven key characteristics that highly correlate with academically tenacious students who (a) Belong academically and socially, (b) Thrive communally over competi- tively, (c) View school as relevant to their future, (d) Work hard and can postpone immediate pleas- ure, (e) Are not derailed by intellectual or social difficulties, (f) Seek out challenges, and (g) Remain engaged over long time periods (Dweck et al., 2014, p. 4). These seven characteristics all intersect beautifully with the notion of a scholarship mindset and embody the life of an academic. Upon re- Zygouris-Coe & Roberts 571 flection of these seven characteristics, our doctoral programmes, coursework, and the futures of our doctoral students, we started to identify intentional stages, often recursive and overlapping, which would encapsulate and honor our practice. Therefore, our situated framework (see Figure 1) includes the following rich interactions of varied scholarly activities and practices: Develop Scholars, Nurture and Challenge Scholars, Apprentice Scholars, and Celebrate Scholars. Our framework also embeds Dweck et al. (2014) seven characteristics that signal academic success in completing the terminal de- gree. The key characteristics of (a) Belong academically and socially, and (b) Thrive communally over competitively are included in the first step Develop Scholars of our framework, while (c) View school as relevant to their future, (e) Are not derailed by intellectual or social difficulties, and (f) Seek out challenges align strongly with the next step to Nurture and Challenge Scholars. During the Ap- prentice Scholars step, the framework focuses on (d) Work hard and postpone immediate pleasure. Last, the final step of Celebrate Scholars is fully dependent on Dweck’s key characteristic to (g) Re- main engaged over long time periods. Figure 1. A Situated Framework for Socializing Doctoral Students’ Scholarship Mindset with Key Characteristics of Academically Tenacious Students (Dweck et al., 2014). DEVELOP SCH OLARS The scholarly community plays a key role in shaping doctoral students’ experiences (Gardner & Mendoza, 2010; Golde, 2010; Kiley, 2009; Pyhältö et al., 2009). As doctoral programme coordina- Develop Scholars Key Characteristics: ~ Belong academically and socially ~ Thrive communally over competitively Nurture Scholars Key Characteristics: ~ View school as relevant to one's future ~ Are not derailed by intellectual or social difficulties ~ Seek out challenges Apprentice Scholars Key Characteristics: ~ Work hard and postpone pleasure Celebrate Scholars Key Characteristics: ~ Remain engaged over long time periods Situated Framework for Socialising a Scholarship Mindset 572 tors, the first component of our framework is focused upon on how to Develop Scholars. This component actually begins as early as the posting of invitations to apply for the doctoral pro- gramme. The words we use to invite potential scholars to join our campuses can help to convey the scholarly work of the professoriate, i.e. “This full-time doctoral programme requires a leave of ab- sence to prepare students for a life in academia.” McCulloch, et al. (2017) explored the initial deci- sions of students entering a doctoral degree and found that autonomy, relatedness, competence, self- efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals were important factors. Therefore, the information and the structure relayed throughout our websites, email correspondences, informal gatherings with cur- rent doctoral students, and interviews have the capacity to show the outcome expectations and pri- orities for informing a scholarship mindset, i.e. “...is designed so that you shadow and are mentored by professors in order to better assume that role.” Including current scholars, doctoral students, and/or new assistant professors in campus interview visits and conversations often reveal sobering publication expectations in a natural and friendly setting. Research shows that doctoral students who gain a strong foundation in teaching/pedagogy and research, become more effective scholars (Bok, 2015) because they know how to teach, conduct research, and understand where and how teaching and research merge; actually, they learn to view teaching as research (Lee & Kamler, 2008). As we share our positive expectations early and often, we find it of utmost importance to praise effort over intelligence, persistence over smartness, and tenacity and problem solving efforts over prior accom- plishments using growth mindset language (Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004). During this early induction into a doctoral programme, we work to include doctoral students in de- partmental and college committee meetings, on external funding projects, and on conference plan- ning, so they begin to see the many roles we play. Encouraging these nascent roles that also reflect Dweck’s et al. (2014) key characteristics to Belong academically and socially, and to Thrive commu- nally over competitively are easily and often highlighted in this first step: Develop Scholars. Further, we offer doctoral students opportunities to serve alongside us as ad hoc reviewers for our profes- sional conference proposals and /or scholarly journals. In so doing, they start to learn the discourse of their discipline including written conventions, domain- and scholarship-specific vocabulary, and they gain perspective on the review process and the literature related to their fields. Likewise, provid- ing access to speakers, workshops, conferences, and research seminars allows doctoral students to begin to refine their scholarship vocabulary, discourse, and knowledge. Of course, the in-depth ex- plorations of the research literature related to their coursework rigourously gives shape to developing a solid knowledge about their topics of interest. The early development of scholars reflects a sociocultural perspective on learning that is derived from Vygotsky’s work. This perspective on learning highlights the important role that social interac- tion plays in learning and it also signals the significance of language in this process. In situated cog- nition theory, which falls under this theoretical umbrella, learning is characterised as increased partic- ipation in the activities of a community (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Developing scholars and their scholarship mindsets, warrants the development of strategic and varied participation activities for doctoral students in the university and professional learning communities. N URTURE AN D CH ALLEN GE SCH OLARS One of the most eye-opening revelations in working with doctoral students over the years is main- taining a balance between nurturing, supporting, and encouraging students while at the same time challenging, pushing, and inspiring students to go farther and dream big. Allowing for this “push- me/ pull-me” effect works to keep students feeling safe and supported while aiming high. Doctoral students may feel hesitant to share their problems or queries with their mentors. Reminders, during this step of Nurturing and Challenging Scholars, of the key characteristics to (c) View school as rele- vant to their future, (e) To persist without being derailed by intellectual or social difficulties, and to (f) Zygouris-Coe & Roberts 573 Seek out challenges help bolster dispositions and give purpose to the experiences offered to doctoral students. Strongly aligned with these characteristics, socialising a scholarship mindset requires a commitment both to nurture and to challenge doctoral students. Reminiscent of Mathews (2009) piece, we encourage doctoral students to work hard and be collegial, building on an earlier key char- acteristic (Dweck et al., 2014) to thrive communally rather than competitively, and keeping in mind the balance necessary to succeed. Doctoral students learn that feeling vulnerable and keeping a work-life balance is part of academia (Council of Graduate Schools, 2010; Fitzsimons & Bargh; 2003; Pintrich, 2000). As programme coordinators, we work to include our doctoral students in presentations at confer- ences, supporting them in attending and networking with colleagues from other institutions. Often, during this stage, projects and papers from their research and statistics courses can be reshaped into conference presentations and submissions for professional publications. Another means of fostering scholarship by Nurturing and Challenging Scholars might include encouraging our students to form their own weekly writing groups or support systems, or include doctoral students in our writing groups. One colleague in teacher education creates a similar culture of research promoting scholar- ship mindset by establishing writing teams around grant work and research projects; years later, these same writing teams meet virtually from around the country via Skype to keep their own research agendas vibrant. As programme coordinators for our respective doctoral programmes, we work to create realistic milestones to inculcate our doctoral students into the professoriate. As a preliminary milestone, doc- toral students are instructed to create their own academic resumes or curriculum vitae to be reviewed by faculty. This leads to the next concrete example and milestone of creating either an electronic portfolio (e.g., livebinder, livetext, weebly, or wikis) that honours the teaching, service, and research activities of their first years in the doctoral programme. Learning the synergistic balancing act at the intersections of teaching and research should also be addressed (Feldman, 1987; Olson & Simmons, 1996; Pyhältö, Vekkaila, & Keskinin, 2015). After this portfolio presentation to faculty, doctoral stu- dents appreciate the feedback from faculty on this authentic milestone that will be carried out in one form or another, often annually, throughout their entire careers. By providing access to listen and learn from young scholars, nascent assistant professors, guest speakers, former tenure and promotion committee members, and interviewing applicants on campus, our doctoral students also hear the need for clearly thinking through and articulating a plan for their research trajectories. Launching from dissertation topics, we encourage doctoral students to create five to seven slides that show the next three to four projects that stem from their data collection or that parallel the gaps they are seeking to fill. Revisiting these research trajectories, that include time- lines toward completion, each semester and sharing with colleagues and faculty add clarity and pro- vide some revelatory moments for students as their dissertations progress. Following a traditional manner, comprehensive examinations or candidacy exams occur after the first two years of coursework. In a non-traditional fashion, we impose multi-levels and multi-portions to prove candidacy, such as a professional portfolio, a take home portion, an on-demand portion, and an oral examination presentation and follow-up with the committee. All of these activities serve as challenges and hurdles to accomplish, yet engender necessary feedback along the way so as to nurture doctoral students toward a scholarship mindset. APPREN TICE SCH OLARS Just as Healy (1997) first observed and recommended, professors must serve to apprentice doctoral students in a scholarship mindset. Originally in the United States, apprenticing for scholarship began after coursework and establishing candidacy as students move toward dissertations, but as most Eu- ropean doctoral programmes traditionally encompass, our role of apprenticing scholars begins much sooner and across many venues. In our view, socialising a scholarship mindset is a multi-faceted pro- Situated Framework for Socialising a Scholarship Mindset 574 cess aimed at developing a foundation of scholarship to support doctoral students’ career success- es. During this Apprentice Scholars step, the framework focuses on reinforcing the Dweck, et al., (2014) key characteristic to (d) Work hard and postpone immediate pleasure. This foundation is de- veloped through regular supervisory practices, mentoring meetings, individual conferences, through socialising doctoral students in scholarly learning communities (both inside the department/college and university and also inside the greater professional scholarly communities), and through goals re- lated to professional identity and agency development. In our experiences, Apprenticing scholars is an area that Western doctoral programmes are less inten- tional in planning. By co-authoring manuscripts, attending conferences together, presenting papers, modelling professional correspondence, providing academic feedback, and discussing identity con- struction or branding, doctoral students learn the values, norms, discourse, practices, and necessary tools for their successful membership in scholarly professional communities and for being a part of the larger professoriate (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Relationships between supervising professors or dissertation chairs and doctoral students are im- portant for professional socialisation and identity development (Gardner, 2008; Green, 1991; Hall & Burns, 2009; Smith & Hathmaker, 2014; Sweizer, 2009). For example, Gardner (2008) found that students in her study transitioned from a doctoral student to a more developed professional identity as they approached candidacy status and especially during the dissertation phase. To become schol- ars, they must develop knowledge about their discipline, about specific research interests, about edu- cational research methods, about transitioning to becoming an independent researcher, and, at a very foundational level, they must learn how knowledge and scholarship within their disciplines are creat- ed. While in their programmes, students learn from various professional experts about how knowledge is developed, shared, and evaluated in their discipline. Students learn about the texts of their discipline and how to read, write, and communicate scholarship in discipline-specific ways. In keeping with this component doctoral students who are apprenticed into developing discipline- specific and scholarship habits of mind have access to privileged knowledge and have more oppor- tunities to actively participate in discipline discourse communities (Boyer, 1990; Hyland, 2004). Aca- demic discourse is a form of formal spoken or written communication. According to James Gee, discourse encompasses the particular ways of ‘behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and often reading and writing’ (1996, p. viii), which characterize a particular community. It is through the use of these ways that we can identify oneself and others as members of a particular community. Gee’s use of discourse emphasises that this notion involves far more that the general sense of discourse that refers solely to reading and writing. The socialisation of doctoral students into scholarly activities and into developing a scholarship mindset also develops novice scholars’ dis- course. For example, the discourse of academia, will encompass the values, attitudes, habits of mind, beliefs, cultural norms, and ways of interacting that are particular to scholars in given contexts, as well as the ways of addressing and solving problems, using various ways to communicate infor- mation, reading texts, etc. (Gee, 2011) From a discourse perspective, successful learning involves entering and then participating in a dis- course community. It involves learning the small features of discourse, such as the nuanced and technical uses of the specialized vocabulary of the profession, as well as taking on the larger features that reinforce how people enact and develop identity through the language, beliefs, norms, values and actions of the profession. In this view, membership of a community is signified through the appro- priation and use of the discourse of that community. The supervisory advisers play a key role in in- viting doctoral students to enter such communities. Through strategic participation, doctoral stu- dents are socialised into becoming members of a scholarly professional community, and therefore they develop a particular identity within that community. Gee (1996) highlights that in higher educa- tion contexts the role of the professor (the ‘insider’ to the discipline) is to induct students (the ‘out- siders’) into the discourse of a discipline through a process of participation in that particular dis- course community. Zygouris-Coe & Roberts 575 So, through the process of participating in the scholarly doctoral education discourse community over the period of their studies, the doctoral student increasingly takes on the disciplinary discourse of scholarship that enables him to participate in the social practices of the scholarly community and begins to develop the identity of being a scholar. In other words, for doctoral students to learn the discourse of academia, they need to have strategic, multiple, and ongoing experiences and opportuni- ties with developing the “language” and mindsets of scholarship within their particular discipline. Similarly, providing multiple opportunities for discussing discourse related to a particular discipline gives doctoral students practice with making connections, creating mind maps, and teasing out Venn diagrams to describe their work (Singh & Lukkarila, 2017). By synthesizing the many discrepant and overlapping concepts related to their work, students are apprenticed into opening up to new insights that will prove quite important to their life work (Singh & Lukkarila, 2017). These types of experi- ences offer doctoral candidates the opportunity to revisit and revise their vitae, their research trajec- tories or timelines, and their professional portfolios. Working side by side and providing specific feedback toward a particular outcome (Healy, 1997) is key to any apprenticeship experience; there- fore, incorporating precursors and possible pilot studies to the process of dissertation data collection or analyses is vital as is the pairing of candidates with different professors in research projects and co-authoring manuscripts. Likewise, doctoral students at many different levels can participate in au- thoring cycles, writing circles, or writing groups (Jones, 2016) to spawn collaborative or individual manuscripts. All of these activities provide students and faculty with a solid platform for offering needed feedback and for reassuring candidates that scholarship is indeed a process. During this time, we often elicit and discuss students’ personal metaphors that capture the essence of a lifetime of scholarship and research (based on Jalongo, Boyer, & Ebbeck, 2013). Writing for scholarly publica- tion is now an expectation as they graduate, not after graduation (Stoilescu & McDougall, 2010), so the ‘tacit knowledge’ of writing for publication within the field is even more important (Jalongo, Boyer, & Ebbeck, 2013). Each manuscript submitted, even rejected, and each milestone of the doctoral journey are means of apprenticeship. No doubt, a common milestone in most doctoral programmes is the writing, presen- tation, and acceptance of the dissertation proposal as a signal that the apprentice is moving toward performing in a more independent fashion. CELEBRATE SCH OLARS Within this situated framework, the components set forth as a means of establishing a scholarship mindset are to cultivate scholars, nurture and challenge scholars, apprentice scholars, and last, cele- brate scholars. This last step of Celebrate Scholars (as seen in Figure 1) is fully dependent on Dweck’s key characteristic to (g) Remain engaged over long time periods. The delayed gratification one must embrace throughout the entirety of a doctoral programme and through each stage of the professorial life is fully dependent on celebrating scholarship. Maintaining a tone of celebration is key to the entire process of entering the professoriate, managing the ambiguity and rejections. For early career scholars, the low publication rates in scholarly journals discourage those earning recent doctorates who may abandon notions of publishing their dissertations (Lee & Kamler, 2008). In order to mitigate this tendency, doctoral students should be mentored to create timelines or similar research trajectories of their anticipated early work (Kamler, 2008). Further, mentoring students to break down avenues for scholarly publications including the creation of databases of possible peer- reviewed publication outlets for their current and future work paves the way for owning a scholarship mindset in these later stages. Many scholar-authors maintain that requiring a particular course during doctoral studies that focuses upon inculcating students into the roles of the professoriate and in writ- ing for scholarly publication is advisable (Goodson, 2017; Jalongo, 2002; Jalongo, Boyer, & Ebbeck, 2013; Jalongo & Saracho, 2016). Additionally, Lee and Kamler (2008) found that establishing small writing groups, supervised by experienced scholars, was integral to disseminating the dissertation work toward publication. Situated Framework for Socialising a Scholarship Mindset 576 Socialising a mindset of scholarship for the long and fruitful lives of academics must also include celebrations, small and large. Celebrating small goals fuels persistence, academic tenacity, and fur- thers goal setting. Celebrations are an important element of any culture, including academia. Doc- toral students focus heavily on deadline after deadline, milestone after milestone. Mentoring doctoral students should also include celebrating their attempts and their achievements. Sample times to cele- brate scholars include the following: Researching and writing the dissertation, revisiting and revising vitae and timelines of research trajectories, and respecting milestones. Sometimes, celebrating small steps in positive directions, celebrating risk-taking and even failure, by encouraging strategic breaks after achieving goals, is important. RECOMMENDATIONS The situated framework for the socialization of doctoral students into scholarship is limited by our experiences and context. The framework along with the scholarship opportunities we identified and implemented in our situated context of teacher education may vary depending on other doctoral programmes’ disciplines, goals and contexts. Our paper also serves as a reference for academic and educational developers. We believe that the scholarship mindset framework provides ways to develop time management and collaboration skills of doctoral students with the potential to maximize doc- toral students’ scholarly activities, experiences and outcomes in academia. Next steps in our research include capturing multiple voices about socializing a scholarship mindset with doctoral students. We plan to interview faculty in our School of Teacher Education who mentor doctoral students in a va- riety of PhD tracks and EdD specialization areas, as well as current doctoral students and recent doc- toral graduates. Exploring experimental research to perhaps validate the recursiveness and effective- ness of the scholarship mindset framework will continue to inform practice in doctoral programmes. Based on lessons learned, a variety of situated learning experiences and conditions were outlined in this paper to support the development of a scholarship mindset. The strong recommendation of this situated framework is that supervisors and dissertation chairs should embrace the role of mentor and apprentice early on. The socialization of a scholarship mindset requires a commitment of facul- ty and supervisors to Develop Scholars to belong academically and socially as collegial and communal members of their doctoral programmes, as well as to Nurture and Challenge Scholars to view univer- sity doctoral work as relevant, to persist intellectually and socially, and to pursue challenging goals, even if that means missing the mark. Further, we recommend that the supervisory role shift to Ap- prentice Scholars to work hard alongside their dissertation chairs in order to meet the growing of the professoriate, and to Celebrate Scholars in order to keep doctoral students engaged over this long pursuit of a doctorate and their future academic lives. These recommendations are critical to social- ising a scholarship mindset, because doctoral students’ maturing dispositions become the very filters through which their entire doctoral journey is processed and which affect their career preparedness and subsequent successes. CONCLUSION Our framework for cultivating doctoral students’ scholarship mindset draws from and connects back to the related research literature. Although our context is situated, the framework refers to issues of concern to academic and educational developers globally. Doctoral programmes worldwide provide doctoral students avenues to receive formal research and academic development (Leibowitz, 2014). Certainly, professors and supervisors play a key role in apprenticing doctoral students in scholarship (Healy, 1997). Additionally, doctoral students engage in varied degrees of scholarship depending on their goals, expectations, willingness, experiences, mindsets, and learning con- texts. Preparing for academic life, a life of ongoing scholarship, requires much intentionality. We believe that socialising doctoral students’ scholarship mindset will equip them to respond to and interpret doctoral programme expectations, develop important networking, time management, and collaboration skills, and experience successful outcomes in academia. The lessons learned as mentors Zygouris-Coe & Roberts 577 of EdD and PhD students have reinforced that the doctoral experience should be viewed as an itera- tive and complex process. The doctoral experience is an academic working experience; we consider the process much more than a series of academic courses, seminars, proposals, and dissertations. A scholarship mindset is a requirement for success in early, as well as later, academic careers. The de- velopment of a professional identity requires specific experiences. Meeting the goal of preparing doctoral students to conduct original research by extending human knowledge in their field of study allows our students to embrace a scholarship mindset. Doctoral students’ scholarship mindset also carries implications for informing and transforming academic practice through scholarship and creat- ing scholarly learning communities of practice. Our hope is that their resulting knowledge, disposi- tions, and academic tenacity (Dweck, Walton, & Cohen, 2014) increases research productivity and reduces academic attrition through the tenure process and beyond. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT An abstract of this paper was presented at the Third International Conference on Doctoral Educa- tion: Organisational Leadership & Impact, April 2017. REFERENCES Akerlind, G. S. (2008). Growing and developing as a university researcher. Higher Education, 55(2), 241-254. Bair, C., R., & Haworth, J. G. (1999). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis of research. Paper pre- sented at the ASHE Annual Meeting. ERIC: ED437 008. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through prox- imal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586–598. Barnacle, R., & Mewburn, I. (2010). Learning networks and the journey to becoming a doctor. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 433-444. Billett, S., Smith, R., & Barker, M. (2005). Understanding work, learning and the remaking of cultural practices. Studies in Continuing Education, 27(3), 219–37. Bok. D. (2015). Higher education in America. Revised Ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Re- searcher, 18, 32-42. Cassuto, L. (2013). Ph.D. attrition: How much is too much? The Chronicle of Higher Education, http://www.chronicle.com/article/PhD-Attrition-How-Much-Is/140045/ Council of Graduate Schools. (2010). Ph.D. completion project: Policies and practices to promote student success. Executive summary. Retrieved fromhttp://www.phdcompletion.org/information/Executive_Summary_Student_Success_Book_IV.pdf Diamond, R. M. (2002). Defining scholarship for the twenty-first century. New Directions for Teaching and Learn- ing, 90, 73-79. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 92, 1087. Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944. Dweck, C. S., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2014). Academic Tenacity: Mindsets and skills that promote long-term learning. Stanford University/Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation publication. Retrieved from https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/manual/dweck-walton-cohen-2014.pdf Emerson, R. W. (1837). The American scholar. Cambridge, MA: Speech given to the Phi Beta Kappa Society. Re- trieved from www.emersoncentral.com/amscholar.htm http://www.chronicle.com/article/PhD-Attrition-How-Much-Is/140045/ http://www.chronicle.com/article/PhD-Attrition-How-Much-Is/140045/ http://www.phdcompletion.org/information/Executive_Summary_Student_Success_Book_IV.pdf https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/manual/dweck-walton-cohen-2014.pdf https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/manual/dweck-walton-cohen-2014.pdf http://www.emersoncentral.com/amscholar.htm Situated Framework for Socialising a Scholarship Mindset 578 Feldman, K. A. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers as related to their instructional effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 26, 227-237. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2003). Thinking of you: Nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associ- ated with relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 148–163. Gardner, S. K. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too little?” The process of becoming an independent re- searcher in doctoral education. Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326–350. Gardner, S. K., & Mendoza, P. (2010). Introduction, in S. K. Gardner and P. Mendoza, (Eds.), On becoming a scholar. Socialization and development in doctoral education, (pp. 3–9). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Green, S. G. (1991). Professional entry and the adviser relationship: Socialization, commitment, and productivi- ty. Group and Organization Studies, 16(4), 387–407. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). Basingstoke, UK: Falmer Press. Gee, J. P. (2011). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis. Golde, C. M. (2010). Entering different worlds. Socialization into disciplinary communities, in On becoming a scholar: Socialization and development in doctoral education, S. K. Gardner and P. Mendoza, (Eds.), (pp. 79–95). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Goodson, P. (2017). Becoming an academic writer: Fifty exercises for paced, productive, and powerful writing, 2nd ed. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hall, L. A., & Burns, L. D. (2009). Identity development and mentoring in doctoral education. Harvard Education Review, 79(1), 49–70. Healy, C. C. (1997). An operational definition of mentoring, In H. T. Frierson (Ed.) Diversity in higher education (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachiotte, W., & Cain, C. (1998) Identity and agency in cultural worlds. London, UK: Har- vard University Press. Hu, C., Thomas, K. M.,& Lance, C. E. (2008). Intentions to initiate mentoring relationships: Understanding the impact of race, proactivity, feelings of deprivation, and relationship roles. Journal of Social Psychology, 148(6), 727-744. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michi- gan Press. Jalongo, M. R. (2002). Writing for publication: A practical guide for educators. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Jalongo, M. R., Boyer, W., & Ebbeck, M. (2013) Writing for scholarly publication as ‘tacit knowledge’: A qualita- tive focus group study of doctoral students in education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 241-250. Jalongo, M. R., & Saracho, O. N. (2016). Writing for publication: Transitions and tools that support scholars’ success. Basel, Switzerland: Springer International. Jones, D. R. (2016). A proposed systems model for socializing the graduate writer. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 173-189. Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 283-294. Kiley, M. (2009). Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates. Innova- tions in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 293–304. Kiley, M., & Mullins, G. (2005). Supervisors’ conceptions of research: What are they? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(3), 245-262. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Lee, A., & Kamler, B. (2008). Bringing pedagogy to doctoral publishing. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(5), 511- 523. Zygouris-Coe & Roberts 579 Leibowitz, B. (2014). Reflections on academic development: What is in a name?, International Journal for Academic Development, 19(4), 357-360. Mathews, J. (2009). Work hard, be nice: How two inspired teachers created the most promising schools in America. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. Moore, W. E. (1970). The professions: Roles and rules. New York, NY: Russel Sage. McCulloch, A., Guerin, C., Jayatilaka, A., Calder, P., & Ranasinghe, D. (2017). Choosing to study for a PhD: A framework for examining decisions to become a research student. Higher Education Review Retrieved from http://www.highereducationreview.com/news/choosing-to-study-for-a-phd-a-framework-for-examining- decisions-to-become-a-research-student.html Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–52. Olson, D., & Simmons, A. (1996). The research versus teaching debate: Untangling the relationships. In John M. Braxton (Ed.) Faculty teaching and research: Is there a conflict?, p. 31. Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (2006). Does advisor mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 451-476. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientations in learning and achieve- ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555. Pyhältö, K., Stubb, J., & Lonka, K. (2009). Developing scholarly communities as learning environments for doctoral students. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(3), 221-232. Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J.,& Keskinin, J. (2015). Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: Doctoral students and supervisors’ perceptions about the supervisory activities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52, 4-16. Rosser, V. (2004). The socialization and mentoring of doctoral students: A faculty’s imperative. Educational Per- spectives, 37(2), 28-33. Ryland, E., Stockley, D., Brouwer, B., Tripp, D., & Stechyson, N. (2009). Relationships between area of academ- ic concentration, supervisory style, student needs and best practices. Studies in Higher Education, 34(3), 337- 346. Sambrook, S., Stewart, J., & Roberts, C. (2008). Doctoral supervision...a view from above, below, and the mid- dle! Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(1),71-84. Singh, A., & Lukkarila, L. (2017) Successful academic writing: A complete guide for social and behavioral scientists. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Smith, A. E., & Hatmaker, D. M. (2014). Knowing, doing, and becoming: Professional identity construction among public affairs doctoral students. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(4), 545-564. Stoilescu, D., & McDougall, D. (2010). Starting to publish academic research as a doctoral student. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5, 79-92. Sullivan, A.V. S. (1996). Teaching norms and publication productivity. In John M. Braxton (Ed.) Faculty teaching and research: Is there a conflict?, note 21, p. 18. Sweitzer, V. B. (2009). Towards a theory of doctoral student professional identity development: A developmen- tal networks approach. Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 1–33. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). New York, NY: Wiley. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, perfor- mance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals and autonomy support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246–260. UNESCO. (1998). World declaration on higher education for the twenty-first century: Vision and action. Re- trieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm. http://www.highereducationreview.com/news/choosing-to-study-for-a-phd-a-framework-for-examining-decisions-to-become-a-research-student.html http://www.highereducationreview.com/news/choosing-to-study-for-a-phd-a-framework-for-examining-decisions-to-become-a-research-student.html http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm Situated Framework for Socialising a Scholarship Mindset 580 APPENDIX The following list reflects the variety of PhD tracks and EdD specialization areas of the doctoral mentorship experiences within the School of Teacher Education. PhD in Education Programme EdD in Curriculum & Instruction Pro- gramme Early Childhood Exceptional Student Education Elementary Education English Language Arts Exceptional Student Education Gifted Education Instructional Design & Technology Instructional Design & Technology Mathematics Education Reading Education Reading Education Science Education Science Education Social Sciences Education Social Science Education Supporting High Needs Population Teaching English to Speakers of Other Lan- guages (TESOL) Teaching English to Speakers of Other Lan- guages (TESOL) BIOGRAPHIES Dr. Vassiliki (Vicky) Zygouris-Coe is a Professor of Reading Educa- tion at the University of Central Florida, where she serves as a doctoral coordinator in the School of Teacher Education. Her research focuses on disciplinary and digital literacies. She is committed to mentoring doctoral students shape the future direction of the field of literacy. Dr. Sherron Killingsworth Roberts is a Professor of Language Arts and Literacy at the University of Central Florida, where she serves as a doctoral coordinator in the School of Teacher Education. While her re- search focuses on children’s literature, her mentorship of doctoral stu- dents remains a joy and a challenge. A Situated Framework for Socialising a Scholarship Mindset with Doctoral Students Abstract Introduction A Situated Framework for Socialising a Scholarship Mindset in the Present University Context Develop Scholars Nurture and Challenge Scholars Apprentice Scholars Celebrate Scholars Recommendations Conclusion Acknowledgement References Appendix Biographies