Solveig Cornér, K. Pyhältö, Jouni A Peltonen, Erika Löfström
Aim/Purpose: This study focused on advancing understanding of individual variations in doctoral students’ interest in their doctoral studies and how they related to experiences of burnout and drop-out intentions in Denmark and Finland. Background: Ph.D. students’ experiences of interest, burnout, and dropout intentions among Finnish and Danish Ph.D. students have not been researched before. Research with a person-centred approach exploring individual variations in students undertaking doctoral studies in two comparable but distinct socio-cultural contexts is limited. Methodology: This study uses exploratory factor analysis, K-means cluster analyses in combination with Pairwise comparisons, ANOVA, and Chi-square test. A total of 365 doctoral students in social sciences and humanities disciplines in Finland and Denmark responded to a Cross-Cultural Doctoral Experience Survey. Contribution: This study contributes understanding on individual variation in doctoral students’ interest across two socio-cultural contexts by identifying four personal interest profiles. The profiles were invariant across the contexts. The study also shed further light on the interrelation between the interest in research and the risk for suffering from burnout and entertaining dropout intentions. Findings: The interest profiles identified among the Ph.D. students were the High interest profile, the Moderate interest profile, the Developmental, research and impact interest profile, and the Development and impact interest profile. All interest profiles exhibited high levels of the developmental interest, however they varied especially in the weight given to instrumental and research interests. Ph.D. students in the Moderate interest profile showed signs of burnout, and they were prone to consider dropping out. Also, individuals in the Development and impact interest profile considered more frequently dropping out of their studies. Recommendations for Practitioners: Investing in the identification and support of interest among Ph.D. students is worthwhile, as interest is not a permanent characteristic of the individual, and the combination of research, development, and impact interest indicates a lower risk for burnout and drop-out intentions. Recommendation for Researchers: It is possible that interest profiles are the same across the two national contexts investigated in this study, but their underpinnings and premises are different. It is likely that a qualitative approach would shed more light on these foci. Impact on Society: The results imply that personal interest was not determined by the socio-cultural differences between the countries, indicating that cultivating doctoral students’ personal interest, particularly a combination of research, development, and impact, provides a potential buffer for doctoral students’ burnout and drop-out, which has been raised as global concerns among policy makers, researchers, and doctoral education developers and administrato
{"title":"Interest, Burnout, and Drop-Out Intentions Among Finnish and Danish Humanities and Social Sciences PhD. Students","authors":"Solveig Cornér, K. Pyhältö, Jouni A Peltonen, Erika Löfström","doi":"10.28945/4867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4867","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: This study focused on advancing understanding of individual variations in doctoral students’ interest in their doctoral studies and how they related to experiences of burnout and drop-out intentions in Denmark and Finland. Background: Ph.D. students’ experiences of interest, burnout, and dropout intentions among Finnish and Danish Ph.D. students have not been researched before. Research with a person-centred approach exploring individual variations in students undertaking doctoral studies in two comparable but distinct socio-cultural contexts is limited. Methodology: This study uses exploratory factor analysis, K-means cluster analyses in combination with Pairwise comparisons, ANOVA, and Chi-square test. A total of 365 doctoral students in social sciences and humanities disciplines in Finland and Denmark responded to a Cross-Cultural Doctoral Experience Survey. Contribution: This study contributes understanding on individual variation in doctoral students’ interest across two socio-cultural contexts by identifying four personal interest profiles. The profiles were invariant across the contexts. The study also shed further light on the interrelation between the interest in research and the risk for suffering from burnout and entertaining dropout intentions. Findings: The interest profiles identified among the Ph.D. students were the High interest profile, the Moderate interest profile, the Developmental, research and impact interest profile, and the Development and impact interest profile. All interest profiles exhibited high levels of the developmental interest, however they varied especially in the weight given to instrumental and research interests. Ph.D. students in the Moderate interest profile showed signs of burnout, and they were prone to consider dropping out. Also, individuals in the Development and impact interest profile considered more frequently dropping out of their studies. Recommendations for Practitioners: Investing in the identification and support of interest among Ph.D. students is worthwhile, as interest is not a permanent characteristic of the individual, and the combination of research, development, and impact interest indicates a lower risk for burnout and drop-out intentions. Recommendation for Researchers: It is possible that interest profiles are the same across the two national contexts investigated in this study, but their underpinnings and premises are different. It is likely that a qualitative approach would shed more light on these foci. Impact on Society: The results imply that personal interest was not determined by the socio-cultural differences between the countries, indicating that cultivating doctoral students’ personal interest, particularly a combination of research, development, and impact, provides a potential buffer for doctoral students’ burnout and drop-out, which has been raised as global concerns among policy makers, researchers, and doctoral education developers and administrato","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"103 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78445976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: The study seeks to establish the potential role that policy and disciplinary contexts of doctoral education play in supervisors’ subjective understandings of PhD supervision. It also intends to show how research into the different ways in which supervision may be understood can help supervisors become more effective in their practice and additionally help institutions design more effective professional development opportunities for supervisors. Background: Previous research has highlighted the linkages between quality PhD supervision and positive student outcomes; nonetheless, why supervisors do what they do remains poorly understood. A few studies with small samples sought to better understand supervisors’ views on supervision and also identified qualitatively different ways of understanding supervision. The present study with a larger sample builds on and extends this work by looking specifically at the concrete intentions by which supervisors engage, in particular supervisory activities they consider important, differentiating the findings by policy context and discipline. Methodology: Participants included full-time faculty members with extensive PhD supervision experience from UK and Canadian institutions, thirty from each country with ten each from History, Biology, and Engineering. The study was comparative in that a data set generated in a previous study of the same design the researchers carried out with thirty supervisors from the UK (Kreber & Wealer, 2021) was drawn upon and compared to the new Canadian data set. The study was primarily qualitative and relied on two rounds of face-to-face interviews with each participant. In the introductory phase supervisors in each sample identified their views on the purposes of PhD study in their field and the goals of their supervision, and in the main research phase they articulated the concrete intentions by which they engage in supervisory activities with particular students. Data from both phases were subjected to inductive thematic analysis, facilitated by NVivo and Excel software respectively. The thematic analysis of statements of intent, the main data source, revealed six qualitatively different understandings of supervision, in each sample, which then were further examined for differences across policy contexts and disciplines. Contribution: Policy context did not appear to make a difference in the self-reported intentions by which supervisors engage in distinct supervisory activities. Six qualitatively different ways of understanding PhD supervision emerged from a thematic analysis of intentions within each of the samples: ‘Enculturation’, ‘Functional’, ‘Emancipation’, ‘Critical Thinking’, ‘Care/relationship building’ and ‘Preparation for career/life’. Given that the first five ways of understanding doctoral supervision were also identified by Lee (2008), the study enhances confidence that supervisors tend to understand supervision in terms of this limited range of qualit
{"title":"Similarities and Differences in How Supervisors at Canadian and UK Institutions Understand Doctoral Supervision","authors":"Carolin Kreber, Cyril Wealer, Heather A Kanuka","doi":"10.28945/4870","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4870","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: The study seeks to establish the potential role that policy and disciplinary contexts of doctoral education play in supervisors’ subjective understandings of PhD supervision. It also intends to show how research into the different ways in which supervision may be understood can help supervisors become more effective in their practice and additionally help institutions design more effective professional development opportunities for supervisors. Background: Previous research has highlighted the linkages between quality PhD supervision and positive student outcomes; nonetheless, why supervisors do what they do remains poorly understood. A few studies with small samples sought to better understand supervisors’ views on supervision and also identified qualitatively different ways of understanding supervision. The present study with a larger sample builds on and extends this work by looking specifically at the concrete intentions by which supervisors engage, in particular supervisory activities they consider important, differentiating the findings by policy context and discipline. Methodology: Participants included full-time faculty members with extensive PhD supervision experience from UK and Canadian institutions, thirty from each country with ten each from History, Biology, and Engineering. The study was comparative in that a data set generated in a previous study of the same design the researchers carried out with thirty supervisors from the UK (Kreber & Wealer, 2021) was drawn upon and compared to the new Canadian data set. The study was primarily qualitative and relied on two rounds of face-to-face interviews with each participant. In the introductory phase supervisors in each sample identified their views on the purposes of PhD study in their field and the goals of their supervision, and in the main research phase they articulated the concrete intentions by which they engage in supervisory activities with particular students. Data from both phases were subjected to inductive thematic analysis, facilitated by NVivo and Excel software respectively. The thematic analysis of statements of intent, the main data source, revealed six qualitatively different understandings of supervision, in each sample, which then were further examined for differences across policy contexts and disciplines. Contribution: Policy context did not appear to make a difference in the self-reported intentions by which supervisors engage in distinct supervisory activities. Six qualitatively different ways of understanding PhD supervision emerged from a thematic analysis of intentions within each of the samples: ‘Enculturation’, ‘Functional’, ‘Emancipation’, ‘Critical Thinking’, ‘Care/relationship building’ and ‘Preparation for career/life’. Given that the first five ways of understanding doctoral supervision were also identified by Lee (2008), the study enhances confidence that supervisors tend to understand supervision in terms of this limited range of qualit","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81708239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kylie E Evans, Megan R Holmes, Dana M Prince, V. Groza
Aim/Purpose: This descriptive study examines indicators of well-being and sources of emotional connection for social work doctoral students at American institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, work-related burnout, emotional connection to others, and changes in child care among parent respondents. This study also explores if particular groups of doctoral students experience heightened risks to well-being during the pandemic. Background: Social isolation strategies associated with the COVID-19 pandemic present challenges for doctoral student well-being, mental health, professional relationships, and degree persistence. Of particular concern is the potentially disproportionate impact the pandemic may have on the well-being of students who already face additional barriers to degree completion, such as parents and caregivers, as well as those who face obstacles associated with structural oppression, including persons of color, women, and sexual minority (SM) students. Methodology: Baseline data was used from a longitudinal survey study conducted by the authors on social work doctoral student well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants (N = 297) were recruited through the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work’s (GADE’s) publicly available list of 89 member institutions in the United States. The majority of respondents identified as women (80.1%), 35% of the sample identified as a person of color and/or non-White race, 30% identified as a sexual minority, and 32% were parents of children under 18 years of age. Contribution: This study contributes to the larger body of literature on factors associated with risk, resilience, and well-being among doctoral students, and it offers a specific exploration of these factors within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study deepens our understanding of social work doctoral students in particular, who have higher rates of doctoral enrollment by women and persons of color than many other academic disciplines. Findings: Emotional connection to loved ones was significantly correlated with lower levels of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and work-related burnout. Outcomes varied by race, with Black and Asian respondents indicating higher levels of emotional connection to loved ones as compared to White respondents, and Black respondents indicating lower levels of anxiety and depression compared to White respondents. SM respondents indicated significantly lower levels of emotional connection and higher levels of depression and anxiety, as compared to heterosexual respondents. Parents reported receiving substantially less child care assistance than they were before the pandemic, but also reported lower levels of anxiety, depression, and work-related burnout compared to childless respondents. Recommendations for Practitioners: Recommendations for doctoral program directors and chairs include implementing a purposive communi
{"title":"Social Work Doctoral Student Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Descriptive Study","authors":"Kylie E Evans, Megan R Holmes, Dana M Prince, V. Groza","doi":"10.28945/4840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4840","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: This descriptive study examines indicators of well-being and sources of emotional connection for social work doctoral students at American institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, work-related burnout, emotional connection to others, and changes in child care among parent respondents. This study also explores if particular groups of doctoral students experience heightened risks to well-being during the pandemic. Background: Social isolation strategies associated with the COVID-19 pandemic present challenges for doctoral student well-being, mental health, professional relationships, and degree persistence. Of particular concern is the potentially disproportionate impact the pandemic may have on the well-being of students who already face additional barriers to degree completion, such as parents and caregivers, as well as those who face obstacles associated with structural oppression, including persons of color, women, and sexual minority (SM) students. Methodology: Baseline data was used from a longitudinal survey study conducted by the authors on social work doctoral student well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants (N = 297) were recruited through the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work’s (GADE’s) publicly available list of 89 member institutions in the United States. The majority of respondents identified as women (80.1%), 35% of the sample identified as a person of color and/or non-White race, 30% identified as a sexual minority, and 32% were parents of children under 18 years of age. Contribution: This study contributes to the larger body of literature on factors associated with risk, resilience, and well-being among doctoral students, and it offers a specific exploration of these factors within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study deepens our understanding of social work doctoral students in particular, who have higher rates of doctoral enrollment by women and persons of color than many other academic disciplines. Findings: Emotional connection to loved ones was significantly correlated with lower levels of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and work-related burnout. Outcomes varied by race, with Black and Asian respondents indicating higher levels of emotional connection to loved ones as compared to White respondents, and Black respondents indicating lower levels of anxiety and depression compared to White respondents. SM respondents indicated significantly lower levels of emotional connection and higher levels of depression and anxiety, as compared to heterosexual respondents. Parents reported receiving substantially less child care assistance than they were before the pandemic, but also reported lower levels of anxiety, depression, and work-related burnout compared to childless respondents. Recommendations for Practitioners: Recommendations for doctoral program directors and chairs include implementing a purposive communi","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82643795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose This study was conducted to examine the rate of delay, explanatory causes, and coping strategies of PhD candidates at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia’s premier university, over the last ten years. Background Delayed graduation is a common theme in doctoral education around the world. It continues to draw the concern of governments, universities, and the candidates themselves, calling for different forms of intervention. Addressing these challenges is key to resolving the many obstacles into doctoral education. Methodology Ten-year archival data consisting of 1,711 PhD students and in-depth interviews with ten PhD candidates were used as data-generation tools. The data collection focused on progression patterns, reasons for study delays, and the coping mechanisms used by doctoral students when they face challenges. While the candidates were interviewed to narrate their lived experience pertinent to the objectives of the study, the archival data regarding the PhD students were collected from the Registrar Office of the University under study. Contribution Amid an ongoing global debate about best practices in doctoral education, the research on study delays contributes not only to filling the existing empirical gap in the area but also in identifying factors, for example, related to financial matters, family commitment, and student-supervisor rapport, that help address the challenges faced and improving the provision of doctoral education. Findings The findings of this study revealed that the cumulative average completion time for a PhD study was 6.19 years— over two years more than the four years given as the optimum duration for completing a PhD program. The institutional pattern of delays over the last ten years indicates that doctoral students are requiring more and more years to complete their PhDs. The study further revealed The PhD Journey at Addis Ababa University 320 that completing a PhD in time is a process that can be influenced by many interacting factors, which include student commitment and preparation, favourable academic and research environment, and positive student-supervisor rapport. Recommendations for Practitioners It is important for practitioners and higher education institutions to find ways to improve the on-time completion of doctoral programmes in order to minimise the continued financial, emotional, and opportunity costs the higher education sector is currently incurring. Recommendations for Researchers The fact that this study was limited to a single institution by itself warrants more studies about time-to-degree in PhD programs and causes for study delays as well as studies about successful interventions in doctoral education. Future research should particularly explore the nature of the advisor/advisee relationship and other critical factors that appear to have a significant role in addressing the challenges of study delay. Impact on Society The expansion of PhD programmes is an encouraging development i
{"title":"The PhD Journey at Addis Ababa University: Study Delays, Causes and Coping Mechanisms","authors":"G. Fetene, Wondwosen Tamrat","doi":"10.28945/4744","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4744","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose This study was conducted to examine the rate of delay, explanatory causes, and coping strategies of PhD candidates at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia’s premier university, over the last ten years. Background Delayed graduation is a common theme in doctoral education around the world. It continues to draw the concern of governments, universities, and the candidates themselves, calling for different forms of intervention. Addressing these challenges is key to resolving the many obstacles into doctoral education. Methodology Ten-year archival data consisting of 1,711 PhD students and in-depth interviews with ten PhD candidates were used as data-generation tools. The data collection focused on progression patterns, reasons for study delays, and the coping mechanisms used by doctoral students when they face challenges. While the candidates were interviewed to narrate their lived experience pertinent to the objectives of the study, the archival data regarding the PhD students were collected from the Registrar Office of the University under study. Contribution Amid an ongoing global debate about best practices in doctoral education, the research on study delays contributes not only to filling the existing empirical gap in the area but also in identifying factors, for example, related to financial matters, family commitment, and student-supervisor rapport, that help address the challenges faced and improving the provision of doctoral education. Findings The findings of this study revealed that the cumulative average completion time for a PhD study was 6.19 years— over two years more than the four years given as the optimum duration for completing a PhD program. The institutional pattern of delays over the last ten years indicates that doctoral students are requiring more and more years to complete their PhDs. The study further revealed The PhD Journey at Addis Ababa University 320 that completing a PhD in time is a process that can be influenced by many interacting factors, which include student commitment and preparation, favourable academic and research environment, and positive student-supervisor rapport. Recommendations for Practitioners It is important for practitioners and higher education institutions to find ways to improve the on-time completion of doctoral programmes in order to minimise the continued financial, emotional, and opportunity costs the higher education sector is currently incurring. Recommendations for Researchers The fact that this study was limited to a single institution by itself warrants more studies about time-to-degree in PhD programs and causes for study delays as well as studies about successful interventions in doctoral education. Future research should particularly explore the nature of the advisor/advisee relationship and other critical factors that appear to have a significant role in addressing the challenges of study delay. Impact on Society The expansion of PhD programmes is an encouraging development i","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"43 1","pages":"319-337"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80736798","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jennifer Macdonald, J. Liu, Sylvie Roy, Jody Dennis, S. Rothschuh, Marlon Simmons
Aim/Purpose: This paper reflects on participation in an International Doctoral Research Seminar, held in Beijing, China, to consider what it means to locate difference and make meaning in a globalized world in relation to teaching and learning. Background: The impetus for our inquiry stems from our shared experience at the seminar, which brought together 12 graduate students and six faculty members from three universities. We came with diverse life stories, educational and professional experiences, and research interests. Alongside presentations and school visits, some students questioned how teaching and learning practices differ in China compared to their experiences in Canada. Methodology: We employ an interpretive approach which allows us to revisit our individual stories and to explore different views of meaning-making in a globalized context. Specifically, two authors, positioned by different backgrounds (Chinese and Canadian), share their life histories and experiences for wider dialogue with other delegation members. We consider their experiences at various levels of education (K-12, leading up to graduate school, and at the doctoral seminar) as a mode of generating dialogue around the different contexts in relation to teaching and learning. Contribution: Our article contributes to the area of globalizing teaching and learning. We invite students and educators to revisit their lived experiences and advocate for daily practices that might defy sameness caused by the forces of globalization to instead contribute to epistemological diversity and tolerance. Findings: Through the process of unpacking the lived experiences of the two authors, we encounter the complexities of already being products of a globalized world. We reveal how a singular normative mode of knowing is perpetuated in many educational institutions. Difference, however, was located in the nuances of our stories. Thus, cultivating a practice of paying attention to the dynamic forms of knowing as they emerge can be a process of unlearning sameness toward rich meaning-making. Recommendations for Practitioners: We challenge educational practitioners to reflect on the ways in which meaning is, and can be, generated to resist uniformity and honor the lived experiences of students. We offer an opening to engage in narrative opportunities to promote dialogue and facilitate collaboration. Recommendation for Researchers: We open possibilities to consider a different ethic for generating meaning that resists overpowering global powers and honor local knowledge. Impact on Society: Our article provides an interpretive lens of global meaning-making to discuss critical social, cultural, and ecological dilemmas facing humanity through individuals’ narratives and life histories. Future Research: Future research will inquire into practical and ethical considerations that might play out in local settings (lectures, seminars, assessments, research proposals) and global collaborations,
{"title":"Toward Engaging Difference in a Globalized World","authors":"Jennifer Macdonald, J. Liu, Sylvie Roy, Jody Dennis, S. Rothschuh, Marlon Simmons","doi":"10.28945/4742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4742","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: This paper reflects on participation in an International Doctoral Research Seminar, held in Beijing, China, to consider what it means to locate difference and make meaning in a globalized world in relation to teaching and learning. Background: The impetus for our inquiry stems from our shared experience at the seminar, which brought together 12 graduate students and six faculty members from three universities. We came with diverse life stories, educational and professional experiences, and research interests. Alongside presentations and school visits, some students questioned how teaching and learning practices differ in China compared to their experiences in Canada. Methodology: We employ an interpretive approach which allows us to revisit our individual stories and to explore different views of meaning-making in a globalized context. Specifically, two authors, positioned by different backgrounds (Chinese and Canadian), share their life histories and experiences for wider dialogue with other delegation members. We consider their experiences at various levels of education (K-12, leading up to graduate school, and at the doctoral seminar) as a mode of generating dialogue around the different contexts in relation to teaching and learning. Contribution: Our article contributes to the area of globalizing teaching and learning. We invite students and educators to revisit their lived experiences and advocate for daily practices that might defy sameness caused by the forces of globalization to instead contribute to epistemological diversity and tolerance. Findings: Through the process of unpacking the lived experiences of the two authors, we encounter the complexities of already being products of a globalized world. We reveal how a singular normative mode of knowing is perpetuated in many educational institutions. Difference, however, was located in the nuances of our stories. Thus, cultivating a practice of paying attention to the dynamic forms of knowing as they emerge can be a process of unlearning sameness toward rich meaning-making. Recommendations for Practitioners: We challenge educational practitioners to reflect on the ways in which meaning is, and can be, generated to resist uniformity and honor the lived experiences of students. We offer an opening to engage in narrative opportunities to promote dialogue and facilitate collaboration. Recommendation for Researchers: We open possibilities to consider a different ethic for generating meaning that resists overpowering global powers and honor local knowledge. Impact on Society: Our article provides an interpretive lens of global meaning-making to discuss critical social, cultural, and ecological dilemmas facing humanity through individuals’ narratives and life histories. Future Research: Future research will inquire into practical and ethical considerations that might play out in local settings (lectures, seminars, assessments, research proposals) and global collaborations, ","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80088562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: The aim of this article is to make a case of the role of validation in doctoral education. The purpose is to detail findings from three studies which explore PhD students’ experiences and perceptions of belonging in one UK university-ty, in order to hypothesise how validation and self-validation could make a difference in doctoral education, and what practices might support this. Background: The article draws on research into doctoral identity and work on ‘doctoral capital’ to explore how PhD students’ perceptions and experiences of not belonging to doctoral communities negatively impacts on their wellbeing. It extends this research by incorporating theories from Education and Psychology to build a theory of validation in doctoral education. Methodology: The article reports on three studies on PhD journeys and communities undertaken at one UK university. It draws on interview data from thirty doctoral candidates, which was thematically analysed using NVivo 12. Taking a qualitative approach to provide a rich and holistic focus on participant ‘meaning making’, the studies explore how PhD students understand belonging, where they receive validation and feel they need validation, and where self-validation can make a difference to their positivity about the PhD. Taking this approach to understand processes of ‘meaning-making’ paves the way to scaffold solutions through ‘reframing’ processes such as coaching and mentoring. Contribution: Thinking about PhD students’ belonging through the dimension of validation allows for practical support for developing belonging to be scaffolded, specifically through creating spaces to draw coaching skills into supervisory training and PhD student support (e.g., peer mentoring). This is significant as scholarship has shown that coaching has positive effects on wellbeing. This article contributes to understanding of where and how validation and self-validation manifest in doctoral education for PhD students. This contribution identifies ways in which external validation can help to scaffold internal self-validation; thus, offering a way of potentially mitigating risk factors to PhD students’ wellbeing. Specifically, validation can be understood as a ‘reserve’ that can be drawn on for ‘self-validation’. Validation is a solutions-focused theory. As a conceptual apparatus to understand doctoral students’ perceptions, validation theory also provides a frame for scaffolding practical ways for PhD students to build doctoral identity. Findings: The article focuses on challenges to PhD students building communities, supervisory relations and self-validation. It finds that supervisory feedback is a key area where PhD students seek validation. Two arguments are offered. First, that validation is a crucial process in (positive) doctoral identity work. Second, the argument is offered that making spaces for coaching skills to support PhD students can increase opportunities for validation (e.g., via supervisory tr
{"title":"Validation in Doctoral Education: Exploring PhD Students’ Perceptions of Belonging to Scaffold Doctoral Identity Work","authors":"J. Collins","doi":"10.28945/4876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4876","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: The aim of this article is to make a case of the role of validation in doctoral education. The purpose is to detail findings from three studies which explore PhD students’ experiences and perceptions of belonging in one UK university-ty, in order to hypothesise how validation and self-validation could make a difference in doctoral education, and what practices might support this. Background: The article draws on research into doctoral identity and work on ‘doctoral capital’ to explore how PhD students’ perceptions and experiences of not belonging to doctoral communities negatively impacts on their wellbeing. It extends this research by incorporating theories from Education and Psychology to build a theory of validation in doctoral education. Methodology: The article reports on three studies on PhD journeys and communities undertaken at one UK university. It draws on interview data from thirty doctoral candidates, which was thematically analysed using NVivo 12. Taking a qualitative approach to provide a rich and holistic focus on participant ‘meaning making’, the studies explore how PhD students understand belonging, where they receive validation and feel they need validation, and where self-validation can make a difference to their positivity about the PhD. Taking this approach to understand processes of ‘meaning-making’ paves the way to scaffold solutions through ‘reframing’ processes such as coaching and mentoring. Contribution: Thinking about PhD students’ belonging through the dimension of validation allows for practical support for developing belonging to be scaffolded, specifically through creating spaces to draw coaching skills into supervisory training and PhD student support (e.g., peer mentoring). This is significant as scholarship has shown that coaching has positive effects on wellbeing. This article contributes to understanding of where and how validation and self-validation manifest in doctoral education for PhD students. This contribution identifies ways in which external validation can help to scaffold internal self-validation; thus, offering a way of potentially mitigating risk factors to PhD students’ wellbeing. Specifically, validation can be understood as a ‘reserve’ that can be drawn on for ‘self-validation’. Validation is a solutions-focused theory. As a conceptual apparatus to understand doctoral students’ perceptions, validation theory also provides a frame for scaffolding practical ways for PhD students to build doctoral identity. Findings: The article focuses on challenges to PhD students building communities, supervisory relations and self-validation. It finds that supervisory feedback is a key area where PhD students seek validation. Two arguments are offered. First, that validation is a crucial process in (positive) doctoral identity work. Second, the argument is offered that making spaces for coaching skills to support PhD students can increase opportunities for validation (e.g., via supervisory tr","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89177709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: Provide methodology suggesting steps to doctoral mentors to work with students in constructing their research problem statement in their dissertation. Background: Doctoral students face difficulties writing their dissertation and they begin by writing the research problem statement. Methodology: This paper uses a framework widely used to describe student adjustment to graduate studies in general and to doctoral program in particular. Contribution: This study provides a framework to mentors/advisors that is helpful in guiding the students to writing their research problem statement. Findings: Writing a research problem statement is difficult by itself. Following a methodological approach suggested in this study could help with writing it. Recommendations for Practitioners: A methodological approach in writing the dissertation is helpful to mitigate the difficulties of writing the dissertation. Our study tackles difficulties with writing the research problem statement. Recommendations for Researchers: More research needs to be done on methodological approach to writing the other sections in the dissertation. Impact on Society: Our findings in this research will help doctoral mentors/advisors as they guide students in completing the writing of their research problem statement Future Research: Intention for future research is to follow similar methodological approach in guiding students in writing the other sections of the dissertation
{"title":"Starting Doctoral Dissertation Journey with a Solid Research Problem Statement – A Four Stage Framework","authors":"Azad Ali, Shardul Pandya","doi":"10.28945/4810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4810","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: Provide methodology suggesting steps to doctoral mentors to work with students in constructing their research problem statement in their dissertation. Background: Doctoral students face difficulties writing their dissertation and they begin by writing the research problem statement. Methodology: This paper uses a framework widely used to describe student adjustment to graduate studies in general and to doctoral program in particular. Contribution: This study provides a framework to mentors/advisors that is helpful in guiding the students to writing their research problem statement. Findings: Writing a research problem statement is difficult by itself. Following a methodological approach suggested in this study could help with writing it. Recommendations for Practitioners: A methodological approach in writing the dissertation is helpful to mitigate the difficulties of writing the dissertation. Our study tackles difficulties with writing the research problem statement. Recommendations for Researchers: More research needs to be done on methodological approach to writing the other sections in the dissertation. Impact on Society: Our findings in this research will help doctoral mentors/advisors as they guide students in completing the writing of their research problem statement Future Research: Intention for future research is to follow similar methodological approach in guiding students in writing the other sections of the dissertation","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75417271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: To utilize Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984, 1986) concepts of capitals, habitus, and field to explore and critically analyze doctoral students’ learning experiences with a new doctoral curriculum introduced by a Ghanaian university. Background: Global competition and labor market reforms have ignited the need for higher education institutions to reimagine their doctoral programs, develop and align them with labor market demands and national priorities. Methodology: The research was conducted as a qualitative inquiry based on which the purposive sampling technique was used with 18 doctoral students from a Ghanaian university. Participants took part in individual interviews and data were analyzed using thematic coding procedures developed based on Bourdieu’s (1984; 1986) theorization of capital, habitus, and field Contribution: The study may benefit universities in monitoring the quality of doctoral students’ learning experiences. Findings: The research found that, although the participants were broadly satisfied with some aspects of their programs, the additional cost associated with its duration, the lack of quality and timely feedback from supervisors, and difficulty accessing conference funding were key challenges to achieving the ultimate goals of the new doctoral curriculum. Recommendations for Practitioners: The paper draws attention to human dispositions, values, and beliefs (habitus) which operate with different forms of capital in fields of doctoral training. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers may focus on tools that help to transform supervisor habitus and the kinds of support that work for individual students. Impact on Society: The strongest message gleaned from this study is that to improve doctoral students’ learning experiences, it is necessary first to develop a student-supervisor relationship built on mutual respect, clear timelines for achieving supervision targets, and commitment to achieving the targets. The research further challenges the higher education system in Ghana and in deed, the world at large, to look beyond the objectified capital (certificates) and to develop relevant skills that students require to be professionally ready for the labor market. Future Research: One of the study’s limitations is that the sample was selected from one university in Ghana. Future research may compare doctoral curriculums and students’ learning experiences across several Ghanaian universities. Again, this research used the perspectives of only students. A future study may draw on multiple perspectives to provide depth and breadth of knowledge on the doctoral program.
{"title":"Doctoral Students’ Learning Experiences in Ghana: Exploring a New Curriculum Using Bourdieu’s Concepts","authors":"Inusah Salifu, Joseph Seyram Agbenyega","doi":"10.28945/4879","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4879","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: To utilize Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984, 1986) concepts of capitals, habitus, and field to explore and critically analyze doctoral students’ learning experiences with a new doctoral curriculum introduced by a Ghanaian university. Background: Global competition and labor market reforms have ignited the need for higher education institutions to reimagine their doctoral programs, develop and align them with labor market demands and national priorities. Methodology: The research was conducted as a qualitative inquiry based on which the purposive sampling technique was used with 18 doctoral students from a Ghanaian university. Participants took part in individual interviews and data were analyzed using thematic coding procedures developed based on Bourdieu’s (1984; 1986) theorization of capital, habitus, and field Contribution: The study may benefit universities in monitoring the quality of doctoral students’ learning experiences. Findings: The research found that, although the participants were broadly satisfied with some aspects of their programs, the additional cost associated with its duration, the lack of quality and timely feedback from supervisors, and difficulty accessing conference funding were key challenges to achieving the ultimate goals of the new doctoral curriculum. Recommendations for Practitioners: The paper draws attention to human dispositions, values, and beliefs (habitus) which operate with different forms of capital in fields of doctoral training. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers may focus on tools that help to transform supervisor habitus and the kinds of support that work for individual students. Impact on Society: The strongest message gleaned from this study is that to improve doctoral students’ learning experiences, it is necessary first to develop a student-supervisor relationship built on mutual respect, clear timelines for achieving supervision targets, and commitment to achieving the targets. The research further challenges the higher education system in Ghana and in deed, the world at large, to look beyond the objectified capital (certificates) and to develop relevant skills that students require to be professionally ready for the labor market. Future Research: One of the study’s limitations is that the sample was selected from one university in Ghana. Future research may compare doctoral curriculums and students’ learning experiences across several Ghanaian universities. Again, this research used the perspectives of only students. A future study may draw on multiple perspectives to provide depth and breadth of knowledge on the doctoral program.","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75415554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Juliann S McBrayer, Katherine F. Fallon, Steven Tolman, Daniel W Calhoun, Emily Ballesteros, Taylor Mathewson
Aim/Purpose: This study examined an educational leadership doctoral preparation program to better understand how students’ self-efficacy evolves from the lens of a scholarly practitioner researcher as they progress through specified checkpoints to degree completion. The aim was to identify what factors contributed to building scholarly practitioner researcher skills and what factors hindered the development of doctoral students as they progressed through their educational leadership preparation program. Background: Doctoral programs have the highest attrition of graduate programs, with almost half of the successful students taking six to seven years to complete. Thus, educational leadership doctoral preparation programs must find ways to enhance students’ perceived capability in an effort to facilitate their progress through the program in a timely manner. The researchers believe having high research self-efficacy coupled with evidence-based practices to strengthen scholarly practitioner research skills may be a contributor to effective program progression if viewed from the lens of a scholarly practitioner researcher. Methodology: A mixed-methods study utilizing an ex-post-facto research design based on descriptive statistics coupled with an analysis of qualitative data examined students’ perceived self-efficacy of educational leadership doctoral students in relation to their rate of progression. Contribution: This study provides other doctoral programs a lens into the importance of maintaining students’ high self-efficacy, specifically in the area of scholarly practitioner research to ensure efficient progression through the program to completion in a timely manner. Findings: Educational leadership doctoral students in the specified cohorts reported high self-efficacy at the pre-, mid-, and post-assessment checkpoints in the program during their coursework tier, and findings revealed this high self-efficacy was sustained throughout this progression to the dissertation tier. Four overarching narrative themes influencing students self-efficacy in scholarly practitioner research were identified as Social Support, Academic Challenges, Discipline, Effort, and Motivation, and Personal Challenges. Recommendations for Practitioners: Educational leadership and related doctoral programs should consider using a scholarly practitioner researcher approach. This focus may lead to faster rates of degree completion and better prepared students to solve problems of practice in their practitioner settings. Recommendation for Researchers: While the results are promising in support of evidence-based practices to prepare scholarly practitioner researchers, in turn sustaining or supporting high levels of self-efficacy may prove impactful, thus warranting further research. Impact on Society: Ensuring high levels of self-efficacy may help students to complete their doctoral degree in a timelier manner due to the perception they are capable of program completion
{"title":"Examining Educational Leadership Doctoral Students’ Self-Efficacy as Related to Their Role as a Scholarly Practitioner Researcher","authors":"Juliann S McBrayer, Katherine F. Fallon, Steven Tolman, Daniel W Calhoun, Emily Ballesteros, Taylor Mathewson","doi":"10.28945/4811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4811","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: This study examined an educational leadership doctoral preparation program to better understand how students’ self-efficacy evolves from the lens of a scholarly practitioner researcher as they progress through specified checkpoints to degree completion. The aim was to identify what factors contributed to building scholarly practitioner researcher skills and what factors hindered the development of doctoral students as they progressed through their educational leadership preparation program. Background: Doctoral programs have the highest attrition of graduate programs, with almost half of the successful students taking six to seven years to complete. Thus, educational leadership doctoral preparation programs must find ways to enhance students’ perceived capability in an effort to facilitate their progress through the program in a timely manner. The researchers believe having high research self-efficacy coupled with evidence-based practices to strengthen scholarly practitioner research skills may be a contributor to effective program progression if viewed from the lens of a scholarly practitioner researcher. Methodology: A mixed-methods study utilizing an ex-post-facto research design based on descriptive statistics coupled with an analysis of qualitative data examined students’ perceived self-efficacy of educational leadership doctoral students in relation to their rate of progression. Contribution: This study provides other doctoral programs a lens into the importance of maintaining students’ high self-efficacy, specifically in the area of scholarly practitioner research to ensure efficient progression through the program to completion in a timely manner. Findings: Educational leadership doctoral students in the specified cohorts reported high self-efficacy at the pre-, mid-, and post-assessment checkpoints in the program during their coursework tier, and findings revealed this high self-efficacy was sustained throughout this progression to the dissertation tier. Four overarching narrative themes influencing students self-efficacy in scholarly practitioner research were identified as Social Support, Academic Challenges, Discipline, Effort, and Motivation, and Personal Challenges. Recommendations for Practitioners: Educational leadership and related doctoral programs should consider using a scholarly practitioner researcher approach. This focus may lead to faster rates of degree completion and better prepared students to solve problems of practice in their practitioner settings. Recommendation for Researchers: While the results are promising in support of evidence-based practices to prepare scholarly practitioner researchers, in turn sustaining or supporting high levels of self-efficacy may prove impactful, thus warranting further research. Impact on Society: Ensuring high levels of self-efficacy may help students to complete their doctoral degree in a timelier manner due to the perception they are capable of program completion","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"104 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82398243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore reasons that engineering education researchers experience impostor phenomenon. Background: Experiencing impostor phenomenon includes a psychological discomfort experienced by some high-achieving individuals who, by the very virtue of being successful, mistakenly believe that they are fraudulent and faking their success. Impostor phenomenon has been studied more broadly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), with little research specifically in engineering and computer science and none, to the author’s knowledge, in engineering education research. As an emerging discipline, some of the challenges in engineering education research include its poor connection with engineering teaching and learning, establishing multidisciplinary collaborations, and advancing global capacity. As a result of its poor connection with engineering fields, and being a new discipline, it is possible that engineering education researchers hold an identity that is different from engineering researchers. Some of them could be experiencing their training differently, struggling to find mentors from a similar background, and possibly feeling like impostors. Methodology: Using purposive sampling and snowball sampling, US-based engineering education researchers participated in a short survey and a semi-structured interview. The survey consisted of demographic questions, items of the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale, and an open-ended question about an instance when participants experienced impostor phenomenon. Interviews examined, in detail, reasons for experiencing impostor phenomenon as engineering education researchers. The scale provided a measure of the intensity of impostor phenomenon. Interviews were analyzed inductively through constant comparison using a constructivist approach. Contribution: Findings indicate various axes of othering that made it difficult to develop a sense of belonging, especially for women, and contributed to impostor phenomenon. Othering occurred through identity-based experiences (gender-identity, engineer-identity), different methodologies used to conduct research, and different vocabulary used for academic communication. Findings: The sample comprised of eleven participants (PhD students, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty), all of whom experienced high to intense impostor phenomenon (range: 61-91/100; mean 75.18). Participants were predominantly white women from twenties to forties. Interviews indicated two reasons for experiencing impostor phenomenon: (1) existing in a separate world from engineering (referring to cultural differences between engineering and engineering education including differences in communication styles, methodologies, and identities); and, (2) facing gendered experiences (for women). Recommendations for Practitioners: It is recommended that practitioners are mindful of the tensions between worldviews, commonly used methodologies, and demo
{"title":"Impostor Phenomenon Among Engineering Education Researchers: An Exploratory Study","authors":"Devasmita Chakraverty","doi":"10.28945/4883","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4883","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore reasons that engineering education researchers experience impostor phenomenon. Background: Experiencing impostor phenomenon includes a psychological discomfort experienced by some high-achieving individuals who, by the very virtue of being successful, mistakenly believe that they are fraudulent and faking their success. Impostor phenomenon has been studied more broadly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), with little research specifically in engineering and computer science and none, to the author’s knowledge, in engineering education research. As an emerging discipline, some of the challenges in engineering education research include its poor connection with engineering teaching and learning, establishing multidisciplinary collaborations, and advancing global capacity. As a result of its poor connection with engineering fields, and being a new discipline, it is possible that engineering education researchers hold an identity that is different from engineering researchers. Some of them could be experiencing their training differently, struggling to find mentors from a similar background, and possibly feeling like impostors. Methodology: Using purposive sampling and snowball sampling, US-based engineering education researchers participated in a short survey and a semi-structured interview. The survey consisted of demographic questions, items of the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale, and an open-ended question about an instance when participants experienced impostor phenomenon. Interviews examined, in detail, reasons for experiencing impostor phenomenon as engineering education researchers. The scale provided a measure of the intensity of impostor phenomenon. Interviews were analyzed inductively through constant comparison using a constructivist approach. Contribution: Findings indicate various axes of othering that made it difficult to develop a sense of belonging, especially for women, and contributed to impostor phenomenon. Othering occurred through identity-based experiences (gender-identity, engineer-identity), different methodologies used to conduct research, and different vocabulary used for academic communication. Findings: The sample comprised of eleven participants (PhD students, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty), all of whom experienced high to intense impostor phenomenon (range: 61-91/100; mean 75.18). Participants were predominantly white women from twenties to forties. Interviews indicated two reasons for experiencing impostor phenomenon: (1) existing in a separate world from engineering (referring to cultural differences between engineering and engineering education including differences in communication styles, methodologies, and identities); and, (2) facing gendered experiences (for women). Recommendations for Practitioners: It is recommended that practitioners are mindful of the tensions between worldviews, commonly used methodologies, and demo","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81901763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：