Keywords

In their 2015 “Doctoral Initiative on Minority Attrition and Completion” report, Sowell, Allum, and Okahana argued for increased efforts to address underrepresented minority (URM) student participation in doctoral education given workforce demands in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and the United States’ ability to compete in a global environment. However, key pieces of data indicate a more specific need to look more closely at the experiences and retention of Black (African American) doctoral students, particularly those in STEM. When examining completion rates alongside the number of doctoral degree conferrals within the Black community, the observations are disheartening and only made worse when coupled with the countless narratives of discriminatory and isolating experiences within doctoral programs.

In their latest “Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups” report, Musu-Gillette, Robinson, McFarland, KewalRamani, Zhang, and Wilkinson-Flicker (2016) included data that reflected a major increase (about 60%) in African American doctoral degree conferrals from the 2002–2003 period to the 2012–2013 period. Nevertheless, doctoral degrees to Black students constituted 7% of all degrees conferred in the 2012–2013 period and almost 8% in 2014–2015 (McFarland et al., 2017)—dismal statistics considering Black people comprise 13.4% of the total U.S. population (United States Census Bureau, 2017). Further, in their work with the Ph.D. Completion Project, a seven-year, two-phase research study examining Ph.D. completion and attrition, Sowell, Zhang, Bell, and Redd (2008) found that although African American 10-year completion rates were the same or higher than their white counterparts in life sciences and humanities (respectively), the rates were lower in engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences. Such disparity could be attributed to the feelings of isolation, alienation, standing out/tokenization, being treated like a criminal, peer disconnection, disrespectful faculty, psychological distress and depression, and dehumanization Black doctoral students experience within their programs (Burrow & Ong, 2010; Dortch, 2016; Gildersleeve, Croom, & Vasquez, 2011; Henfield, Woo, & Washington, 2013; Ingram, 2013; Lewis, Ginsberg, Davies, and Smith, 2003; Torres, Driscoll, & Burrow, 2010). This combined data tells a chilling story of both doctoral-granting institutions’ ability to recruit and enroll Black students and their inability to retain and support students’ well-being as they progress toward completion.

In their implications for practice and research Okahana, Allum, Felder, and Tull (2016) provided suggestions for future steps to address URM doctoral student attrition and completion. Among their recommendations was a call for scholars to explore students’ perceptions of campus environments and academic success support systems. However, to explore such perspectives scholars need a theoretical framework that not only takes into consideration the activities, processes, and practices programs and institutions are engaged in to support students, but students’ identities and the environmental factors (oppressive systems) also at play. A socialization theoretical framework provides a lens through which to examine institutional efforts to retain Black students along their doctoral journeys and support their growth as developing professionals in a given field. Further, a socialization theoretical perspective challenges researchers to not only examine students’ learning and development of social capital, but to also consider such growth in association with the sociocultural factors (e.g., societal beliefs, attitudes, and values, social interactions, and political institutions) at work within the collegiate environment students walk into.

In this paper I apply such a sociocultural theoretical perspective, and more specifically, use Weidman, Twale, and Stein’s graduate socialization framework (2001), informed by critical and intersectional theorizing (Collins, 2000; Collins & Bilge, 2016; Combahee River Collective, 1995; Crenshaw, 1991; Freire, 1970), to ultimately offer the concept of emancipatory research counter-spaces as a framework for examining the socialization processes of interaction, integration, and learning, which graduate education leaders should attend to. By applying the graduate socialization framework to a specific case of students engaged in a co-curricular research activity, I descriptively discuss how interaction, integration, and learning (aspects of Weidman, Twale and Stein’s model) function to support their socialization as doctoral students and potential future faculty. I end with suggestions for expanding the graduate socialization framework based on Twale, Weidman, and Bethea’s (2016) recommendations, and discuss strategies to further address students’ racialized experiences in doctoral programs and improve teaching and mentoring practices in STEM, doctoral programs, and graduate education.

As Twale et al. (2016) expressed in their paper, conceptualizing socialization for graduate students of color, “our goal remains to provide all students with what we feel they need to succeed knowing it may not be all they really need or desire based on differences we do not share with all our students” (p. 91). Applying a socialization theoretical perspective and expanding the lens to focus on the experiences of minoritized students in doctoral education serves a greater purpose of dismantling barriers and oppressive systems for all students. That said, when connected to the concept of trickle up activism (Spade, 2015), Nicolazzo (2017) explained the need to “work to attain rights for those who are most marginalized and who experience extreme threat” (p. 138) because expansion of rights, access, and supports to the least in the academy builds opportunity for the most. Thus, through this re-examination of the graduate socialization framework and application to a specific case, I not only consider Black doctoral students, but students at the intersections of identities (e.g., race and gender, race and ability, class and ability, etc.) and the ways in which socialization processes in doctoral education (particularly interactions, integration, and learning) can be expanded with attention to, acknowledgement of, and value for doctoral students’ multiple marginalized identities within intersecting systems of oppression.

Weidman’s Socialization Model

Built from Weidman’s widely recognized 1989 conceptual piece in which he extended the research on college impact using a sociological perspective, the Weidman et al. (2001) graduate socialization framework centers on processes influencing the development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Weidman (1989) asserted that

socialization involves the acquisition and maintenance of membership in salient groups (e.g., familial, occupational, organizational) as well as society at large. Consequently socialization can always usefully be considered from the perspective of the society (or its constituent groups) as well as the individual. (p. 294)

In reference to graduate student socialization, Weidman et al. (2001) defined socialization as “the processes through which individuals gain the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for successful entry into a professional career requiring an advanced level of specialized knowledge and skills” (p. iii). Four stages (i.e., anticipatory, formal, informal, and personal) encompass the socialization process through which graduate students progress, and with each stage of the process students grow in their knowledge and ability to navigate the norms, expectations, and culture of academic programs. The anticipatory stage refers to the information the student knows prior to enrolling in a graduate program and their expectations about graduate school before enrolling. Such expectations are formed through interactions with family, friends, peers, and media, which depict what it looks and feels like to be in graduate school. The formal stage of the socialization process includes the courses and specific departmental and programmatic onboarding procedures to help students understand the norms and culture of the profession. This stage includes the university, college, department, and program-level orientations students experience during the initial weeks of their first semester in graduate school and coursework. In the informal stage students gain access to some of the hidden curriculum as they perceive cues about acceptable and unacceptable behavior within the academic culture. Lastly, the personal stage occurs when the student begins to internalize their new role as a graduate student and begin to truly form a self-identified image of themselves as a professional in a field. As students develop understanding of their program and particular discipline, they may begin to identify within the field as a professional through various activities that may or may not be course bound. Essentially, the student has assimilated to the ways of the profession, institution, or organization in which they are being socialized. While this discussion of stages may seem to indicate a linear sequence of steps, Weidman et al. (2001) explained that “socialization in graduate programs is a nonlinear process during which identity and role commitment are developed through experiences with formal and informal aspects of university culture as well as personal and professional reference groups outside academe” (p. 36). The interplay of all of internal and external dynamics within the socialization process demonstrates the numerous sociocultural factors in motion throughout the graduate education experience.

Socialization and Graduate Students

This nonlinear socialization process in which personal and professional associations influence students’ socialization lies at the crux of the Weidman-Twale-Stein (2001) graduate socialization framework. Within this framework a student’s background, professional communities, the university, personal communities, and future role as a novice professional and practitioner are connected and in simultaneous interaction with each other. Experiences with the culture of the institution, socialization processes (i.e., interaction, integration, and learning), and core elements of socialization (i.e., knowledge acquisition, investment, and involvement) lie at the center of the socialization process for graduate students. Weidman et al. (2001) described knowledge acquisition as a student’s ability to secure capital (e.g., teaching or research assistantships), investment as reaching academic milestones for completion (e.g., comprehensive exam and proposal defenses), and involvement as a student’s ability to build relationships with peers and faculty as well as engage in the work of the discipline (e.g., establishing a research agenda, publishing, and securing external funding). The core elements of socialization just described fuse to form the concept of engagement, which leads students to developing “skills, competencies, and knowledge … to succeed in doctoral programs” (Twale et al., 2016, p. 91). Through this framework leaders in graduate education (i.e., deans, associate deans, assistant deans, department chairs, program coordinators/directors, and faculty) can closely examine the particular strategies they employ to not only support and challenge students at each area of the socialization process, but to also consider the ways in which their efforts are influenced, supported, and connected to factors external to the institution (i.e., family members, professional organizations, and personal communities).

In their re-visitation of the Weidman-Twale-Stein graduate student socialization framework, Twale et al. (2016) examined the role of race, gender, language, culture, and socioeconomic status in the experiences of college students and drew connections to the framework by suggesting potential manifestations of socialization activities at each stage of the graduate student socialization experience. For example, they noted that students should “establish same race student-faculty dyads” within the core element of involvement during the formal socialization phase, and “participate in informal mentoring, role modeling, and peer mentoring” in the core element of investment as part of the informal phase of socialization (p. 88). These suggestions draw attention to the socialization strategies students can engage in to support their growth. Further, their suggestions illustrate ways for program faculty and university leaders in graduate education to cultivate opportunities to support students’ socialization in their graduate programs. Of course, all of these strategies are for naught if faculty, administrators, and staff— in interaction with Black doctoral students—neglect to acknowledge students’ racialized experiences and the power of race and racism in supportive relationships (i.e., advising, mentoring, supervising, instructing, etc.). Scholars across disciplines have stressed the importance of recognizing race as a powerful influence and thus in the next section I review some of the literature that illustrates the experiences of Black doctoral students with particular emphasis on the key aspects that influence their experiences (i.e., campus leaders, faculty, and peer relationships).

Black Doctoral Student Socialization

The experiences of Black students navigating through doctoral programs range from overt to covert racism on individual and structural levels, open to subtle hostility from peers and faculty, and include various forms of psychological and emotional distress. The combined literature dedicated to Black doctoral student socialization lies in four major areas. These areas include a focus on the importance of centering race, the forms of marginalization students experience, the significant role and influence of faculty (both Black and non-Black), and the strategies faculty and institutions must engage to support students, encourage their completion, and make their lives more livable. This important body of literature not only provides concrete insight into students’ day-to-day experiences with racism, but speaks to the specific actions leaders in graduate education should take to mitigate the systemic oppression Black doctoral students encounter. To destabilize the system of racism students experience, graduate education leaders must first center race.

Centering Race

Empirical studies exploring the experiences of Black doctoral students support the notion that those who care about the retention and well-being of Black doctoral students must not disconnect race from the conversation (Blockett, Felder, Parrish, & Collier, 2016; Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001), especially given the volumes of evidence that powerfully illustrates the racism present at every level of encounter (i.e., programmatic, departmental, and institutional). Through their qualitative case study of the experiences of three Black doctoral students in education-based programs, Acosta, Duggins, Moore, Adams, and Johnson (2015) found that authenticity in faculty-student relationships (faculty ability to recognize race), systemic institutional support (a value of Black presence within the institution’s mission and goals), and psychocultural tools (a desire for education as a means for racial uplift) supported students’ persistence. Moreover, Acosta et al. (2015) emphasized the need for faculty and administrators to develop opportunities for race work within their departments as a strategy to cultivate more sociopolitical authenticity in which faculty recognize the powerful influence of race in the academy. Davidson and Foster-Johnson (2001) also stressed the importance of centering race because so many faculty members have neglected to acknowledge or discuss race in their mentoring and advising relationships and thus they encourage faculty to gain self-knowledge by asking themselves the following questions:

How do you feel about mentoring someone who is a different race or culture? What are your views on acculturation or assimilation versus cultural pluralism? What is your preferred method for addressing race and culture in a mentoring relationship? What is your stage of racial identity development? (p. 564)

Such questions can guide white faculty, in particular, to consider their race in relationship to their roles as support systems for Black doctoral students. Such a focus on fostering sociopolitical authenticity (the ability to recognize and understand the power of race, racism, and systems of oppression in the academy) not only takes the onus off of students and prevents deficit-minded perspectives that suggest students change their attitudes and behaviors, but moves the work to postsecondary leaders. Acosta et al. noted,

Weak institutional structures that bring BDS [(Black doctoral students)] together without a focused agenda absolves institutions of further responsibility to ensure the persistence of BDS and leaves students on their own to figure out how to succeed. In these instances, BDS remain unsupported within a supposedly supportive environment. (p. 45)

Until campus leaders create infrastructures that provide clear, concrete, and tangible support systems, students are at risk of sustained exposure to oppressive academic environments that pose obstacles to their socialization and success.

Student Experiences

Such obstacles that result in Black doctoral attrition and negative programmatic experiences include dehumanization, isolation, alienation, and depression (Blockett et al., 2016; Burrow & Ong, 2010; Gay, 2004; Gildersleeve et al., 2011; Henfield et al., 2013; Lewis et al., 2003; Torres et al., 2010). More specifically, based on their systematic literature review and content analysis of the Black doctoral student socialization literature, Blockett et al. (2016) discussed three main areas of Black doctoral student marginality in the form of faculty mentorship, professional involvement, and environmental support. Gay (2004) also conceptualized students’ experiences in terms of marginality and explained the various forms of isolation (physical, cultural, and intellectual), benign neglect, and problematic popularity graduate Students of Color experience and noted the “intellectual and scholarly abandonment” (p. 281) students suffer as a result. Through a critical race theory analysis, Gildersleeve et al. (2011) examined the experiences of 22 doctoral Students of Color who expressed a narrative of “Am I going crazy?!” as part of the reality of living through a doctoral program. They explained:

Put simply, the “Am I going crazy?!” narrative represents the tentativeness, insecurity, and doubt that can be projected onto doctoral students of color. It also represents the active engagement with struggle and resiliency required by doctoral students of color. The narrative is a mode of participation for students, a way of being and negotiating the racialized terrain of American graduate schools. In sum, the “Am I going crazy?!” narrative operates as a dehumanizing social artifact that ubiquitously shapes the experience of doctoral students of color. (p. 100)

Through a critical race theory perspective Gildersleeve et al. (2011) focused on the racism present within programs and how racism can lead doctoral Students of Color to censor their own thoughts and research agendas, question their abilities, evaluate rules and norms, and seek peer support communities to work through contradictory messages received within programs. These findings mirror the narratives Boylorn (2006) poetically illustrated in her ethnographic work as an outsider within a doctoral program as well as those Ingram (2013) described in a qualitative study examining 18 African American men’s experiences with marginality in racism. The men described being viewed as criminals by classmates, microaggressed by faculty in class, and isolated in programs as one of few Black-identified men. According to Ali and Kohun (2007), such social isolation (lack of meaningful relationships) has less to do with individuals and more to do with institutions. Lovitts (2001) explained, “it is not the background characteristics students bring with them to the university that affect their persistence outcomes; it is what happens to them after they arrive. The causes of attrition are deeply embedded in the organizational culture of graduate school and the structure and process of graduate education” (p. 2). In their examination of the factors that contribute to social isolation Ali and Kohun (2007) suggested strategies of peer interaction and collaboration among doctoral students as a mediating factor to combat social isolation. They also encouraged faculty to help students form “focus groups” (p. 45) as a means to inquire and learn about their peers’ prior experiences. However, such strategies to promote peer interaction and collaboration within predominantly white programs may not have the desired effect if individual, institutional, and social/cultural racism and oppression (Hardiman & Jackson, 2007) remain unchecked and unacknowledged within programs.

In a study of 40 underrepresented doctoral students who believed they did not fit the mold of doctoral education because of their gender, race, age, parental status, or part-time enrollment, Gardner (2008) found that students cited a host of issues. However, within the subset of the population who identified as a Student of Color, Gardner explained that the students experienced issues with integration and lack of satisfaction. Through this research Gardner advocated for more socialization models that take into consideration students’ personal characteristics as well as differences across disciplines and institutions. Gardner further explained: “For underrepresented students the experience of graduate education and its normative socialization patterns may not fit their lifestyles and the diversity of their backgrounds, making them feel they do not ‘fit the mold’” (p. 135). Gardner’s research, along with numerous other empirical studies citing the normative messages communicated through socialization practices in doctoral education, supports a need to look more closely at processes and environments.

Faculty Influences

Faculty members play a significant role in the environment Black doctoral students walk into, what students learn, and how they are supported. The literature dedicated to the role of faculty in the socialization of Black doctoral students addresses students’ perceptions of faculty mentorship and advising, faculty behaviors, and the role of diverse faculty in student socialization (Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001; Felder, 2010; Felder & Barker, 2013; Felder, Stevenson, & Gasman, 2014; Heggins, 2004). This body of literature supports the positive impact faculty can have in preparing future faculty.

In her study of African American doctoral students’ perceptions of faculty relationships, Felder (2010) found that faculty played a crucial role in students’ socialization related to research, scholarship, and career development; however, interactions were not always positive. While faculty served to unveil some of the secrets of the academy granting them access to information about the often unspoken aspects of the field (e.g., perceptions of types of degrees, importance of collaboration), students did not always have the degree of access to faculty (due to faculty research) they would have liked. However, when Black doctoral students are able to make meaningful connections with faculty about their research (oftentimes research that examines race and racism) and have opportunities to have impromptu conversations with faculty about research, they are “more effective students and contributors to their academic communities” (Felder et al., 2014, p. 35). These forms of relationships with faculty have the potential to empower students because of the interest convergence present. Spurred from Derrick Bell’s (1980) work, Felder and Barker (2013) explained interest convergence as a “mandatory relationship shaped by institutional policy that includes a student who is interested in attaining an educational experience and an advisor who is interested in facilitating it” (p. 16). With the goal of high interest convergence in which reciprocal learning between the faculty and student takes place, as well as collaboration in the form of co-research, co-authorship, and co-facilitation, the student faculty-relationship can reap great socialization benefits like those which Weidman et al. (2001) discussed as the lynchpin in students’ movement through the interactive socialization process from anticipatory to personal. That said, not all faculty are willing to fully engage students in such a way that the students’ racial identity and research interests are supported. Gay (2004) described the intellectual isolation some students experience in the form of professors who fail to challenge students by questioning their ideas, providing critical feedback, and extending meaningful opportunities to teach. Faculty can make or break a students’ experience and lead them to careers in the academy. Thankfully, scholars have discussed the numerous ways faculty and institutions can address the marginalization Black doctoral students experience.

Strategies

The strategies higher education scholars reveal as ways to better support Black doctoral students live in three interrelated realms: the faculty advising realm, programmatic realm, and extra-programmatic. In terms of the faculty advising realm, scholars have encouraged faculty to provide formative feedback to students and use a holistic asset-based approach to understand students’ backgrounds (Blockett et al., 2016), employ a variety of teaching strategies in class content and ensure diversity objectives are integrated into courses (Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001), and above all, gain racial awareness (Acosta et al., 2015; Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001; Felder et al., 2014; Ingram, 2013) to effectively mentor, advise, and support Black doctoral students with whom they work. Within the programmatic realm (which includes graduate schools, academic colleges, departments, and individual programs), scholars call for the development of opportunities for Black doctoral students to collaborate with faculty on research, discuss race and racism within curriculum, mentoring programs, Black faculty recruitment, and a system that allows students to express their concerns and issues (Blockett et al., 2016; Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001; Heggins, 2004). Scholars also note extra-programmatic forms of support beyond the bounds of the institution, which provide students with opportunities for socialization (Blockett et al., 2016; Heggins, 2004). Examples include programs and movements like the Preparing Future Faculty Program, Black Doctorates Matter, and the Institute on Teaching and Mentoring through the Southern Regional Education Board, which allow students a chance to come together to learn about the professoriate, share experiences, and access resources for navigating doctoral programs. These various realms of strategies represent the myriad opportunities to support Black doctoral students. However, campus climate plays a major role in the execution of such strategies.

Griffin, Muñiz, and Espinosa (2012) pointed to the work of graduate diversity officers (GDOs) and their role in cultivating campus environments to support URM graduate students. “[Graduate Diversity Officers] are institutional agents—typically full-time administrators with advanced degrees—who are specifically charged with the recruitment and retention of underrepresented minority graduate students at their respective institutions” (p. 536). Within their study of 14 GDOs from a diverse array of institutions in various geographic regions, Griffin et al. applied the campus racial climate framework (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999) to explore the barriers GDOs face in carrying out efforts to support the recruitment and retention of URM students. The researchers identified five types of challenges GDOs experienced including “(a) diversity and social outlets in the surrounding community, (b) diversity and racism in the campus environment, (c) the graduate admissions process, (d) support from senior leadership and faculty, and (e) access to financial resources” (p. 554). To address some of the challenges Griffin et al. recommended institutional leaders attend to all aspects of the campus racial climate framework in order to promote recruitment and retention, provide rewards to those who maintain inclusive environments, and remain informed about the policy landscape. Thus, all realms of socialization strategies must function together to improve the experiences of Black doctoral students.

Although the empirical and conceptual literature on the experiences of Black doctoral students specifically is limited, scholars continue to note the power of relationships that support students within marginalizing programs, faculty-student relationships, and racist campus climates. In the next section I look at a specific case of Black doctoral students engaged in a co-curricular research team and use it as an example of socialization strategies long-supported by higher education scholars as instrumental for graduate Students of Color.

The Action Research Collective

During my first semester as a faculty member in higher education and student affairs at a predominantly White university in the south (Clemson University), I could count on my two hands the number of Students of Color I taught in my classes. Likewise, my interactions with Black women at the university were few and far between—I did not see many people who looked like me and I was passionate about developing relationships with students who felt isolated (like me) at the institution. After becoming acclimated with the culture and meeting students at the institution (both undergraduate and graduate) I was quickly thrust into relationships with many Students of Color as they sought me out for numerous reasons. For some students, they came to my office because they wanted to learn about my scholarship and potential opportunities for collaboration. For others, they requested to meet with me over coffee because they were considering a faculty career and wanted to learn about my path to the professoriate. However, the greatest number of students I met with—and subsequently formed relationships with—wanted to connect because they were looking for someone to talk to about their experiences of isolation and marginalization on campus in their assistantships, classes, and in the city. Most of these students identified as Black and all shared a desire for someone to empathetically listen to their frustrations. The needs represented within this large group of students I swiftly came to build relationships with illustrates the major reasons why I chose to initiate the Action Research Collective (ARC).

Origins and Purpose of ARC

With departmental support, I initiated ARC’s efforts during the fall of 2016 as an initiative supported by the Clemson University Graduate School Faculty Fellow program wherein faculty were charged with launching projects that would creatively support graduate student professional development. During the first academic year, I focused on recruiting students to work as part of a team, and with the support of a doctoral assistant, defined the group’s mission, goals, and vision. Through interactions with students in the educational leadership doctoral program and student affairs master’s program I taught within and ties to the NASPA Undergraduate Fellows Program (NUFP), I was able to recruit students with whom I had previous relationships. This led to a team of ten graduate students (three master’s students, six doctoral) and one undergraduate student interested in graduate school. The majority of the students were in education-based academic programs with one in engineering and another in women’s leadership. Additionally, eight students identified as Black, African American, or of African descent, one as White, and another as Latino. Half of the group identified as women and the other half as men.

The Action Research Collective (ARC) is a student-driven initiative that uses critical and participatory action research design to teach ethical and effective research practices while answering questions vital to student success. ARC connects research with the local contexts and lived experiences of its research partners (Clemson University students, particularly graduate students), and aligns with Clemson University’s strategic plan for student learning. Students who participate develop the necessary tools to enact change far beyond the institution through research activities, and in doing so, serve to shape the university into a more socially just campus and community.

ARC centers the expertise of the community most impacted by issues of access and equity, and seeks to enable the talents of undergraduate and graduate students through collaboration via a participatory action research project. The team’s first project is dedicated to exploring the experiences of support, obstacles, and thriving for graduate students of color at the university using photovoice (see Latz, 2017; Wang, 1999) as a method. This collaborative framework trusts in the talent and agency of students to inquire, learn, and lead. Within the first year of the ARC team’s establishment, students determined the research question based on their own experiences and identified their own specific professional development needs to develop throughout the course of the academic year. Such goals included publishing, improving research skills, and learning more about graduate and doctoral education. With an overarching goal of supporting underrepresented student enrollment in graduate school, the ARC team collects and analyzes data, and communicates findings from the research to relevant audiences within the university community and externally to those who are dedicated to supporting the student of color pipeline to doctoral education. Ultimately, ARC envisions a campus community where all students can confidently and competently engage in critical scholarly inquiry committed to positive sustainable change at the university level and have the resources to succeed and achieve beyond baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate education.

We spent the first year (meeting every other week during the fall and spring) getting to know each other, developing an identity as a team, learning about participatory action research and photovoice, and sharing information with the university community about our mission and goals through campus PechaKucha presentations (a simple and visual presentation format in which speakers narrate 20 slides at 20 seconds per slide while images advance automatically [PechaKucha, n.d.]). As a result of the first year, students increased their knowledge of research methods through the identification of a research problem and development of a research protocol, reflected and communicated with others about their own developing journeys as students, and identified specific professional development goals for the upcoming academic year.

Currently in our second year (as of spring 2018), the team consists of 10 members, six of whom are Black doctoral students in educational leadership. The remaining four include a postdoctoral researcher who was a former team member as a doctoral student in educational leadership, two master’s students in student affairs, and an undergraduate student. Within this paper, I focus on the six Black doctoral students within the ARC team as a case for examining graduate student socialization and the implications for doctoral teaching and mentoring practices.

Participatory Action Research

With an emphasis on participatory action research (PAR), which emphasizes collective action, group decision-making, community engagement, flexibility, individual and communal learning and improvement, and knowledge production, (McTaggart, 1994), the ARC team’s efforts are rooted in a constructionist epistemology that values interaction, collective pursuit, and decentralization (Chaudhary, 1997). Such values show up in various ways within the team. In terms of collective action and decision-making, during the first year, the ARC team began by identifying problems associated with the graduate school experience. Several weeks of storytelling, reflection, and brainstorming (Fig. 14.1) led to an array of shared narratives associated with support (mental, physical, financial), guidance (from counselors, mentors, peers, and family), fear (failure, incapability, self-doubt), sense of belonging and isolation, and self-actualization (motivation, resilience, and identity development). These narratives led the team to reach consensus about its overarching research question: What are the experiences of graduate Students of Color at Clemson University? The team is also dedicated to understanding the ways graduate students of color thrive, experience support, and obstacles at the institution.

Fig. 14.1
A diagram illustrates the factors associated with the graduate student's entrance and completion. It includes accomplishments, defeat, knowledge, funding, fear, and so forth.

A fall 2016 brainstorm of problems graduate students of color encounter

Full size image

After weeks of discussion and brainstorming, the group started to engage with the university community to both share information about the ARC team and support current undergraduate students contemplating graduate school pursuits. Through a fall PechaKucha in collaboration with the Minority Student Success Initiative and a spring presentation during the Graduate School’s research week, the ARC team connected with students at the university and helped spark others’ interest in research, graduate school, and the team’s work. Because PAR is the underlying approach that guides the ARC team’s efforts, a value for flexibility is a mainstay. Although goals exist for each bi-weekly meeting, our conversations not only include time for the team’s tasks, but also provide space and opportunity for students to talk about their personal, academic, and professional lives while connecting those experiences with extant literature. Students discuss upcoming exams and defenses as well as news, pop culture, and politics. Most importantly, because of the relationships developed within the group we also engage in conversations about the inequitable racist situations each of us have encountered, overcome, and are still experiencing in the academy. I recall a conversation I had with one Black woman on the team waiting at the airport terminal waiting to board a plane to our conference destination. She shared about some of the challenges of serving in a role as president of a graduate student organization while experiencing both sexism and racism. I shared a similar situation from my own experience and how I responded as a young, pre-tenure, Black woman still trying to navigate misogynoir on a regular basis. In this moment we both had an opportunity to tell our stories and engage in an honest and impromptu conversation we would not have had the chance to if not for the time spent together presenting our work with the ARC team at a national conference. Such interactions like this allow the group to connect with empathetic listeners who can identify and help identify next steps and paths forward. While some of this navigational capital (Yosso, 2005) is innate, Black doctoral students practice and cultivate this skill regularly through interactions with each other.

Relative to individual and communal learning, the students drive discussion and share reports based on the areas they have volunteered to lead (e.g., conference proposals, participant recruitment, team promotion, and student organization collaboration). Additionally, students identify specific learning and professional development goals (e.g., publishing, reaching a doctoral program milestone, applying to and securing jobs) to pursue during the semester, share the goals with the group, and develop plans to accomplish those goals throughout the semester. A structure of identifying and sharing with the group their specific, measureable, attainable, realistic, and time-sensitive (SMART) goals—in tandem with an individual development plan—encourages individualized learning and growth, accountability within the group, and built-in support and encouragement.

Finally, rather than the typical assumption of a banking model of education (Freire, 1970) that assumes students are blank slates or empty vessels without knowledge and experience, the team operates from the standpoint that students are knowers and producers of information with valuable experiential knowledge and skills to share with the team. Thus, current and former team members have led discussions about photo-elicitation, photography, and marketing while simultaneously learning together about research methodology, PAR, and photovoice. Further, the students drive the research design. Such a practice reinforces students’ roles as leaders, knowledge producers, and learners as the group moves forward collectively with the research. This practice is aligned with Felder and Barker’s (2013) concept of culturally receptive advising, which serves to intellectually empower students as they move through their doctoral programs. The above examples illustrate the ways in which PAR not only serves as part of the method for the study design, but works as a epistemological orientation to the team’s work.

ARC Activities

During meetings, the ARC team prioritizes the activities of planning, practicing, reflecting, and information sharing. During the second year, the team focused on planning the logistics of the research design. This included drafting recruitment scripts, designing a demographic questionnaire, gaining CITI training certification, and developing all other documentation for IRB approval. Additionally, in the planning phases the team learned more about photovoice—and the use of photos to capture lived experiences—by reading relevant literature and engaging with a guest lecture from photovoice scholar in higher education (Latz, 2017). During this interactive guest lecture the students had an opportunity to hear examples of photovoice in action, ask specific questions about the method, and discuss aloud options that would lend to research design (e.g., providing cameras versus using smartphones to take pictures). Because varying skill levels and experiences with research existed across team members, the team took time to engage in research practice during meetings. This practice came in the form of conducting mock research interviews, developing items for IRB application, practicing fieldnoting, and writing abstracts for conference proposals during meetings. Throughout the team’s work, advanced doctoral students and I shared experiences and provided explanations, definitions, and examples of key concepts (e.g., epistemology, methodology, and sampling) within the research process as we went through each step. The team continuously engages in the practice of self-reflection to examine how their past experiences, social identities (e.g., race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ability, national origin, religion, etc.), and research competencies affect their work as a research team member through oral and written reflection. The excerpts that follow come from two students’ end-of-the-year written reflections—I have included them within this chapter with their permission.

Looking back over this year, I cannot believe we accomplished so much in such a short time. ARC has made an amazing impact within research and on campus at Clemson for students of color. I was able to be on a team that valued my opinion and is passionate about improving the experience of all grads of color. I’ve grown as a researcher and a scholar and how I become a future professor of research and practice.

After two years, I have a true understanding of PAR and photovoice. Over the past year, the thing that I have valued the most is the rapport of the group. ARC served as an escape from class and a safe space throughout the year. I finally felt as if I could truly impact policies here at Clemson. Moving forward, I want to continue using action research as a means to breakdown silos within higher ed. I believe I have found research that I could marry.

The two Black doctoral student reflections illustrate the meaningfulness of belonging to a team and community of other doctoral students who they feel safe around, as well as a space to develop the skills needed to succeed in the academy. Further, their excerpts reflect the importance of engaging in research that will lead to action and improvement of the campus climate.

Lastly, because the ARC team includes students active on campus as leaders (i.e., university organization presidents, vice presidents, secretaries, etc.), members regularly provide updates about collaborations with the efforts their respective campus organizations are also engaged in. For example, a team member who is also the president of the Graduate Student Government facilitates partnerships with the Graduate School to make space in online communication about the team’s progress. The students’ positions at the university, previous experiences, identities, and efforts as ARC research team members combine to create a unique experience that advances their socialization as doctoral students while acknowledging, centering, and examining race and racism.

Re-Examination of Socialization Processes

In the previous section I described the Action Research Collective, its goals, impetus, and activities. To further examine this case and glean new observations for expanding the Weidman-Twale-Stein (2001) graduate student socialization framework, I next examine the socialization processes of interaction, integration, and learning at work within the ARC team. Weidman (2006) described the set of socialization processes as combined concepts which encompass engagement and “[occur] as students develop attachments to persons and environments within higher education” (p. 257) as a result of activities within academic programs and within a particular discipline or field (i.e., professional associations) (Weidman, 2010). Here, I describe and distinguish the three socialization processes using ARC as a case before moving into a discussion about the opportunities for expanding the framework through articulation and discussion of emancipatory research counter-spaces.

Interaction

As a socialization process, interaction functions as the set of activities and relationships in which graduate students connect with peers, faculty, campus agents, and professional groups internal and external to their program, department, and institution to learn about how to exist and succeed as a student and professional in a particular field or discipline (Weidman et al., 2001). These interactions teach students about written and unwritten norms and expectations within a given culture (e.g., presentation format and attire at professional conferences). Students in the ARC team engage in the socialization process of interaction on peer, faculty, university, and professional levels. At the programmatic level—within the ARC team—students learn from each other through sharing experiences about interacting with faculty, taking courses, completing exams, and attending conferences. At the faculty level, students interact with me, an assistant professor of higher education and student affairs, as I share information and facilitate conversations about conducting research, discuss my own expectations of doctoral program milestones, and share my own experiences as a young, Black, woman and mother working toward tenure.

Within the university level, students interact with administrators in the Graduate School, graduate students outside of their program, and undergraduate students to share information about the ARC team’s efforts and progress. Such interaction allows students to develop skills in communicating about research while gathering information and feedback from key constituents associated with the research activities. Lastly, through conference and professional association membership, students interact and are socialized into the professional culture as they present research and engage with professionals in the field. While there are likely more influences on students’ socialization, the peer, faculty, university, and professional interactions are specific to the case of the ARC team and its work.

Integration

Weidman and Stein (2003) described the socialization process of integration as developing a “sense of fit with the expectations of faculty and peers” (p. 643). Aligned with the personal stage of the four-stage socialization model, integration exists as a socialization process in which doctoral students make decisions about how they will (or will not) align their identities with the current culture of their profession. Such alignment and assimilation into a prescribed professional identity has numerous consequences, especially for those who embody identities that lie outside of traditional, stereotypical conceptions of the professional culture. Integration as a socialization process includes the push-and-pull dialectic between self and profession in that multiple forces act at once. While institutions work to change doctoral students, doctoral students simultaneously work to change institutions in an attempt to save and make space for their authentic selves. In academic environments where doctoral students are socialized by peers, faculty, programs, universities, and professional organizations in the ways they ought to speak, dress, research, write, and even address concerns, integration as a socialization process is fraught with multiple identity tensions. We discuss these tensions in our candid conversations with each other, ask each other critical questions, and situate our responses and values related to various issues within the sociopolitical climate of the Trump era we currently live in. I remember vividly our first meeting after the 2016 presidential election and the heightened energy and dedication within the room as we collectively recognized the increased significance of our work.

Learning

Finally, learning is an embedded piece within the entire concept of the socialization process in which students gain the knowledge and skills necessary for effective professional practice” (p. 643). However, here I make a distinction between in-class and out-of-class learning to address and highlight the informal learning that takes place outside of the classroom space through the ARC team’s work, which is co-curricular in nature and lies adjacent to students’ in-class learning. Although doctoral students typically experience some sort of self-directed research opportunity with the guidance and direction of a research supervisor (typically a faculty member), doctoral students do not typically work outside of course curriculum or labs to engage in research with a group of students who share similar research passions and identities.

Through the ARC team activities students engage in the learning socialization process as they practice research, writing, presenting, and community building within the education discipline. The combined activities of the ARC team not only allow a hands-on opportunity for students to further learn about and practice research, but serve as a space for students to have conversations about navigating graduate school, doctoral education, and the broader culture of academy. Connecting with other coursework, field experiences, future research efforts, and dissertation writing, students within the ARC team incorporate their learning from multiple academic contexts. Further, through interaction with a faculty member within the ARC team, students gain access to a version of what it might look like to navigate teaching, research, and service while on the tenure-track. Several concurrent sites of learning work together through doctoral students’ participation in the ARC team’s efforts. Further, activities that allow students to both interact with an array of individuals who can help them consider how such learning integrates with their own identities, values, and ways of knowing, demonstrates the enmeshment of the socialization processes of interaction, integration, and learning.

Expanding the Framework

Throughout this paper I have discussed the origins of Weidman et al. (2001) graduate socialization framework, described the Action Research Collective as a case, and applied the socialization processes of interaction, integration, and learning to the case. To further advance theorizing about graduate student socialization and improve practices to support and socialize Black doctoral students (particularly those in STEM who experience heightened isolation, alienation, and discrimination in their programs), I now discuss opportunities for expanding the Weidman-Twale-Stein framework by adding attention and detail to the aspects of interaction, integration, and learning within the area of socialization processes (Fig. 14.2) as a way to more explicitly center the unique needs of Black doctoral students.

Fig. 14.2
A diagram illustrates the emancipatory research counter space. It involves a socialization process and its related factors that include community, intersectionality, critical Praxis and emancipatory pedagogy.

Emancipatory research counter-space depicted within the socialization processes of the Weidman-Twale-Stein (2001) framework for graduate and professional student socialization

Full size image

These insights on expansion of the framework are informed by Twale et al. (2016) in which they advocated for a more sociocultural understanding of graduate socialization to better comprehend how students’ race impacts their entry into graduate programs, interactions, and internalization of scholarship. With recommendations from Twale et al. (2016), experience working with a group of Black doctoral researchers through the Action Research Collective, and knowledge of the scholarly literature related to critical pedagogy and intersectionality, I discuss the role of emancipatory research counter-spaces next.

Emancipatory Research Counter-Spaces

When Black doctoral students are looking for a space that acknowledges and centers their identities rather than neglects or dismisses who they are, where do they go? When Black doctoral students want to use their research to make an impact on practices, policies, and processes that improve the experiences of people with whom they share similarities, what do they do? When students need opportunities to further develop their skills in research, writing, or presenting, who do they turn to? Given the climate many Black doctoral students live within, answers to these questions cannot always be found in faculty advisors, doctoral programs, or even in the graduate school (if such an entity exists at their institution). Nonetheless, Black doctoral students have found ways to navigate and complete their programs. Truth be told, Black doctoral students have been creating identity-affirming spaces in which their research interests and identities are acknowledged and integrated since the beginning of doctoral education. However, as Blockett et al. (2016) reiterated, “movements started by minoritized persons for self-preservation and affirmation should be supplemental to and not entirely responsible for Black doctoral student support and socialization” (p. 107). Graduate education leaders must take on responsibility for creating and nurturing spaces for Black doctoral students and pour material resources into this cause.

Thus, I present emancipatory research counter-spaces as both a vision and a guide for the future of graduate education, not as another task for students. In this section I offer emancipatory research counter-spaces as a concrete framework of socialization processes in action for doctoral students at the margins. This theoretical expansion is a result of reflections on my own graduate experiences, work as a faculty member mentoring Black doctoral students, reflexivity about my own educational practice noting opportunities to be more intersectional and embodied in my pedagogy, and countless calls from higher education scholars to more holistically, intentionally, and critically improve students’ experiences through socialization strategies.

Emancipatory research counter-spaces are locations where students experience socialization processes of interaction, integration, and learning within an environment dedicated to inquiry that embraces emancipatory pedagogy, community, intersectionality, and critical praxis. While counter-spaces “…serve as sites where deficit notions of people of color can be challenged and where a positive collegiate racial climate can be established and maintained” (Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000, p. 70), emancipatory pedagogy empowers students through the belief that education should support the creation of a democratic society (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1983; Nouri & Sajjadi, 2014). When combined with aspects of community-building and attention to interlocking systems of oppression (intersectionality), and praxis to transform communities, emancipatory research counter-spaces have the potential to dramatically shift how scholars think about doctoral socialization and how campus agents develop strategies to recruit, retain, and support doctoral students. In order for faculty and campus leaders in graduate education to both fully acknowledge the oppressive policies, practices, and curriculum doctoral students come into contact with and address the discrimination and isolation they experience, they must consider how to foster emancipatory research counter-spaces within programs, departments, and doctoral-granting institutions. Though the work of the ARC team includes elements of collaboration, critical pedagogy, and community-building, and exists as an evolving and nascent socialization strategy, I present the conceptualization of emancipatory research counter-spaces as an achievable—though not actualized—aspirational goal leaders can cultivate to support not only Black doctoral students in STEM, but doctoral students who are underrepresented, minoritized, and marginalized within their programs and institutions. Such support includes a range of students: students with multiple intersecting minoritized identities, students who are not underrepresented numerically, but still work daily to resist model minority myths, and students whose minoritized identities may not be visible or yet acknowledged by postsecondary leaders given the sociopolitical and neoliberal context of the academy or life in an academic program. To envision what an emancipatory research counter-space could look and feel like as both a theory and strategy of support and socialization for doctoral students, I proceed with a conversation about the each aspect of the concept: emancipatory pedagogy, community, intersectionality, and critical praxis and pose questions and strategies (Table 14.1) for leaders dedicated to the socialization of doctoral students, particularly Black doctoral students.

Table 14.1 Emancipatory research counter-space socialization strategies
Full size table

Emancipatory Pedagogy

Derived most notably from Paulo Freire’s critique of banking educational models, emancipatory pedagogy centers critical conscientization (awareness of one’s political, social, and economic situation) through dialogue (Freire, 1970). Further, emancipatory pedagogy emphasizes dialogue through conditions of love for the world and commitment to others, humility, faith in humanity, mutual trust between those in dialogues, hope in the transformative power of action, and critical thinking. Such a view of education lies counter to more prevalent perspectives within higher education.

Authentic education is not carried on by “A” for “B” or by “A” about “B,” but rather by “A” with “B,” mediated by the world—a world which impresses and challenges both parties, giving rise to views or opinions about it. (p. 93)

When faculty and graduate education leaders cultivate environments that center emancipatory pedagogy—particularly in spaces where students with minoritized identities carry out research—numerous opportunities abound related to the socialization processes at work within doctoral education. Through an emancipatory framework faculty can decrease power distance between themselves and doctoral students so mentorship can develop and students can gain access to the learning, interaction, and integration necessary to socialize into a program and profession. Such an authentic and potentially close relationship with a faculty member allows students an opportunity to ask specific questions about the hidden curriculum of an academic culture and tap into the social capital needed to succeed.

Along with decreased power distance between students and faculty, an emancipatory approach to nurturing counter-spaces of inquiry encourages efforts to foster a more democratic and equitable society. With global and national issues related to the economy and unemployment, equitable healthcare, poverty, and climate change, a pressing need exists for doctoral students to engage in inquiry about the world’s problems—and to engage in such inquiry using critical methodologies like participatory action research. When doctoral students from minoritized backgrounds come together to share lived experiences and pose research questions that touch them personally, students not only engage in research that is for them, but by them. Such efforts are empowering and allow students to resist cognitive scripts of impostor syndrome so they can integrate a researcher identity into their professional identity.

When emancipatory research counter-spaces exist, doctoral students also have the opportunity to engage in dialogue that raises their critical consciousness about their particular social, political, and economic situation. Such dialogue promotes socializing interactions between students and can address and reduce the frequency of moments when doctoral students from racially minoritized backgrounds ask, “Am I going crazy?!” (Gildersleeve et al., 2011). Through engagement in ongoing dialogue that helps students become aware of oppressive systems in place affecting how they interface with people, practices, and policies within the institution, students can better work to transform systems. For institutions, students’ critical conscientization can drive awareness of the specific needs that must be addressed to improve systems of support within programs, departments, and colleges.

Through a perspective of education as transformative, political, empowering, and based in dialogue, emancipatory pedagogy serves as a crucial component to building emancipatory research counter-spaces. Thus, graduate education leaders (i.e., deans, associate deans, assistant deans, department chairs, program directors/coordinators, and faculty) must ask themselves: in what ways can the institution build an infrastructure to support emancipatory research counter-spaces through faculty education and training, internal grants, rewards through promotion and tenure, student events and programming, or inter-institution collaborations? How can we challenge faculty to develop spaces of inquiry for graduate students that avoid the reification and replication of oppressive practices? How can we better support doctoral students as they engage in research related to their own experiences, identities, and communities?

Community

In addition to emancipatory pedagogy, which emphasizes dialogue, emancipatory research counter-spaces must also include a focus on community and collective action. Though some doctoral programs include a cohort model in which they begin with peers at the same stage in their doctoral journey, such a format is not a rule. Moreover, with the vast body of literature from scholars in higher education who describe the experiences of isolation, alienation, exclusion, and marginalization graduate and doctoral Students of Color feel on predominantly White campuses, a clear case for community-building—as a supplement and/or complement to interactions within programs—persists. Thus, the aspect of community lives within the emancipatory research counter-space model to illustrate the need for relationships with individuals who understand, empathize with, and are able to attentively and compassionately listen to doctoral students’ stories. Community not only serves as strategy for interaction and socialization within a profession with peers in an affinity group, but as a preventative measure against social isolation (Ali & Kohun, 2007), which can lead to stopping out, dropping out, and declined health on numerous fronts. Thus, graduate education leaders must ask: How can we cultivate spaces (on campus, off-campus, and virtually) where students have regular, intentional opportunities with peers, faculty, and other campus agents with whom they perceive similarity and belonging?

Intersectionality

Doctoral students cannot reap the socialization benefits of engaging within an emancipatory research counter-space without an intersectional lens. Failing to acknowledge interlocking systems of oppression, which operates in structural, disciplinary, cultural, and interpersonal domains (Collins & Bilge, 2016), significantly diminishes efforts of equity and inclusion. Such distortion leads to institutional efforts that only aim to address a singular aspect of oppression (e.g., racism) while intersecting systems comingle and reproduce barriers for students. Collins and Bilge advocated for higher education leaders to employ intersectionality as an analytic tool “to provide a more expansive lens for addressing the complexities of educational equity” (p. 188). Graduate education leaders facilitating emancipatory research counter-spaces must attend to the intersecting systems of oppression within conversations as doctoral students share counter-stories about their own experiences on campus and analyze aspects of racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, and other oppressions at play within the given situation at individual and structural levels.

Likewise, dialogue about intersecting systems of oppression must take place throughout the research process from problem identification and design to data analysis and communication of findings or results. Although an intersectional focus can add complexity to issues related to research and community-building, while problematizing what some might know about themselves and those with whom they are in contact with, an intersectional perspective lends to intersectional solutions that lead to greater outcomes of equity. Therefore, those involved in emancipatory research counter-spaces must not limit conversation about students’ experiences to one form of oppression (e.g., racism), but must ask the following questions based on Collins’ (2017) discussion of intersectionality and participatory democracy: how are systems of oppression interconnected and mutually constructed through one another within graduate programs and how can we disrupt these systems? What social inequalities are graduate programs replicating within intersecting systems of oppression? How might the standpoint of those in power within doctoral programs affect perceptions of the problems that exist and strategies for addressing such problems? In what ways can and should doctoral programs make time to listen to the voices of students caught within intersecting systems of oppression?

Critical Praxis

Finally, the work of emancipatory research counter-spaces must center critical praxis to actually spur change. Freire (1970) described praxis as “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (p. 51) and explained that although the reflexive process of coming to a realization of oppression while experiencing it could feel oppressive, the process aids in confronting reality critically in order to act upon it. Collins and Bilge (2016) further explained critical praxis as using “…the knowledge learned within everyday life to reflect on those experiences as well as on scholarly knowledge” (p. 42). With a view that scholarship and practice are inextricably tied and mutually-informing, Collins and Bilge reject the idea that theory is better than practice. Thus, critical praxis—when coupled with inquiry like the participatory action research efforts of the ARC team—can lead to scholarly activism that involves coalition building, solidarity across groups experiencing intersecting systems of oppression, and transformative action to develop solutions that address concerns of several communities. Based on the combined aspects of emancipatory pedagogy, community, intersectionality, and critical praxis, all graduate education leaders should engage in discourse about how spaces of inquiry within their institutions serve as sites for praxis to transform climates and advance theorizing asking: How can doctoral student inquiry and praxis lead to social justice on our campus?

Implications

Within this chapter I have called for increased efforts to address the barriers Black doctoral students experience given national level data and empirical research on the racist practices, policies, and climates students experience. Using Weidman et al. (2001) graduate socialization framework advanced by Twale et al. (2016) I applied the theoretical perspective to a case of a co-curricular participatory action research project—the Action Research Collective—and focused on the socialization processes of interaction, integration, and learning.

Through the application of the Weidman-Twale-Stein framework to the ARC case I discussed insights for expansion of the graduate socialization framework and conceived of a model of emancipatory research counter-spaces, which serve to support and socialize graduate students from minoritized backgrounds while engaging emancipatory pedagogy, community, intersectionality, and critical praxis. I advocate for emancipatory research counter-spaces not only as a theoretical concept to examine how programs build structures of support for doctoral students from minoritized backgrounds, but as a strategy to actualize such support and liberatory socialization.

Given that socialization processes of learning, interaction, and integration do not operate within a vacuum removed from institutional, geographic, political, or social contexts as Weidman et al. (2001) model explains, emancipatory research counter-spaces function as locations where socialization processes take place within graduate institutions and offer opportunities for students to engage in collective, emancipatory, and collaborative work. Graduate education leaders and scholars who engage socialization theoretical perspectives to examine the experiences of minoritized students must consider how the professionalization and socialization of students exists within a hegemonic culture and nurture emancipatory research counter-spaces as strategies and sites of support, resistance, and transformation.