Scopus CiteScore 2024 dips for the first time in a decade: Analysis of the top 1,000 journals

Aim/Purpose: Doctoral students’ experiences in PhD programs could be a journey of identity evolution. Existing research on doctoral students’ identities has typically been conducted by faculties. As the main character in the identity evolution process, it is critical to understand doctoral students’ interpretation of their own identities and identity development in PhD programs. The purpose of this paper is to examine how and what education doctoral students discovered when they used self-study and relevant qualitative methodologies (e.g., auto-ethnography) to investigate their identities and identity development through their own practices in PhD programs. Background: This research began as part of a larger project to synthesize studies on doctoral students’ identities. A cluster of articles was identified in which students were examining their experiences as developing individuals from the perspective of identities and identity development. In contrast to most of the previous research on doctoral education, this collection of articles was written by doctoral students as part of their academic and professional practice. Methodology: The larger qualitative systematic review (i.e., qualitative evidence synthesis) of doctoral students’ identity development began with database searches that were not restricted by year (e.g., PsycINFO, Education Research Complete, and Education Resources Information Center). Thirteen articles written by doctoral students discussing their identities and identity development in PhD programs were further identified from selected articles ranging from 2009 to 2021. These articles and their implications were analyzed using a qualitative research synthesis approach. Contribution: Although scholars have looked at doctoral students’ identities and identity development from various viewpoints, the current investigation deepens the understanding of this focus from doctoral students’ own perspectives. Doctoral students are trained investigators with research skills and mindsets. As novice researchers and educators, their open and honest reflections about their challenges, opportunities, and development are worthwhile to identify significant aspects of their identities and identity development in PhD programs. Findings: There are two dimensions to the findings: the Approach Dimension and the Content Dimension. The Approach Dimension is concerned with how doctoral students investigated their identities and identity development, whereas the Content Dimension is concerned with what they found. Findings in the Approach Dimension show that doctoral students applied the self-study inquiry approach or used the notion of self-study inquiry to interpret their identity and identity development. The self-study inquiry encompasses five main features, including (1) Self-Initiated and Focused, (2) Improvement-Aimed, (3) Collaborative/Interactive, (4) Reflective Data Collection, and (5) Exemplar-Based Validation. Doctoral students examined the five self-study features both directly and indirectly in their studies. The investigation revealed four major themes in the Content Dimension, including (1) Identity Development as a Dynamic Process, (2) Multiple Identities, (3) Learning Contexts, and (4) Socialization. Recommendations for Practitioners: The findings suggest that practitioners in PhD programs should be aware of the existence, process, and dynamics of identity evolution in doctoral programs. The best possible way for PhD program administrators, faculties, and advisors to support doctoral students’ growth and identity development is to incorporate doctoral students’ own insights into practice. Given the unprecedented influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the educational environment and the diversity of doctoral students, it is crucial to discover how doctoral students use structured research methods to reflect, learn, and self-support their identity development during their PhD programs. The self-study inquiry process would be a helpful and effective approach to support doctoral students’ advancement. For instance, PhD programs could create self-evaluation assignments or courses that incorporate both self-study and identity development concepts. Recommendation for Researchers: When studying doctoral students’ identity development, it is critical to emphasize the essence of identity, which is people’s perceptions of who they are. We recommend that researchers who study doctoral students could further integrate doctoral students’ insights about their own identity status (e.g., multiple identities) into research. Impact on Society: Successful completion of PhD programs is a critical foundation for doctoral students to serve society as expert researchers and educators. Support for the growth and development of doctoral students could facilitate the completion of their doctoral programs and strengthen their sense of agency through the lens of identity. Future Research: Future research could go beyond the field of education and expand to more disciplines to identify common and diverse factors influencing doctoral students’ identity and identity development across domains. Future research on the post-COVID-19 era and its implications for online programs must also be studied in connection with doctoral students’ identities and identity development.

Doctoral (PhD) students experience high rates of mental health challenges, including high rates of anxiety, depression, loneliness, and isolation. While universities offer mental health services, these may not fully address the specific needs of doctoral students. Peer support has emerged as a promising adjunct to existing service provision, drawing on shared experiences to provide emotional and practical guidance. This study aimed to explore doctoral students’ perceptions of peer support, identifying their needs and preferences for a peer support programme tailored to the doctoral experience. Nineteen doctoral students were recruited from a university in the south of England and participated in focus groups or semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis yielded four overarching themes: (1) Barriers to seeking support; (2) Value of peer support for doctoral students; (3) Tailored peer support needs; and (4) Diversity and accessibility. Findings indicate that doctoral students value peer support as a flexible, informal space to share experiences and gain advice from those with similar backgrounds. However, they also emphasised the need for diverse representation among peer supporters, adaptable training to meet neurodiverse needs, and formal recognition of peer supporters’ contributions. Study findings suggest that universities should consider implementing tailored peer support programmes to address the specific challenges faced by doctoral students, incorporating flexibility, cultural sensitivity, and accessibility to create a supportive academic environment. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of such programs in improving doctoral students’ mental health and well-being.

IntroductionThis qualitative research investigated how doctoral (Ph.D.) students’ role perceptions influenced their expectations and behaviors, thereby influenced advisor-advisee relationships and academic progress. Doctoral advising is essential for doctoral students’ academic progress. One of the factors to influence doctoral students’ academic progress is the advisor-advisee relationships. Under the guidance of Biddle’s Role Theory, the researchers aimed to find out how doctoral students’ perceptions of the advisors’ roles and their own roles influenced their advisor-advisee relationships. Doctoral advisor-advisee relationship can influence doctoral students’ academic progress.MethodsBy interviewing three Chinese Ph.D. students who studied in Korea, interview videos, emails, and messages between the participants and their advisors were collected as data. Data from the interviews were the main data resource. Other resources were used to support the data from interviews. These data were analyzed using qualitative methods, including transcription, coding, and member checking. The coding process was based on the transcription, and the member checking process ensured the validity the study.Results/findingsThe findings indicated that variations in participants’ role perceptions can significantly influence the advisor-advisee relationships, which in turn influenced academic progress.DiscussionThe patterns among the three participants showed that participants’ role perceptions influenced participants’ expectations and behaviors. Whether participants’ expectations were fulfilled, and whether participants’ behaviors were understood by the advisor influenced the advisor-advisee relationships. The advisor-advisee relationships influenced the participants’ learning experience and graduation, and further influenced the academic progress. Suggestions for advising Ph.D. students and limitations of this study were provided at the end of this study.

Aim/Purpose: This study addresses the need to understand the wellbeing of doctoral students and the factors influencing their academic trajectory. Background: Doctoral students’ wellbeing is crucial for their academic success and overall quality of life. This study explores the antecedent variables influencing doctoral students’ wellbeing, complementing the Integrative Model on well-being in doctoral students. Methodology: A qualitative case study approach was employed, involving in-depth interviews with 10 PhD students at a Norwegian university. Following the Integrative Model on doctoral students’ wellbeing, the study combined thematic and discourse analysis to examine students’ experiences and perceptions. Contribution: This research provides insights into doctoral students’ experiences, feelings, and perceptions during their thesis process, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of factors influencing their well-being. Findings: The results reveal that working conditions, particularly remunerated positions, significantly impact students’ experiences. Common feelings include uncertainty, fear of failure, and stress, especially during writing. Stress and anxiety are prevalent, though often normalized. While loneliness is common, students generally report support from supervisors, peers, and family. Supervisors emerge as the primary source of support, with their relationship style greatly influencing student wellbeing. Recommendations for Practitioners: Based on these findings and existing literature, the study proposes measures to enhance doctoral student well-being, including creating spaces for student interaction, implementing funding policies, offering mental health support, designing skill-building workshops, establishing mentoring programs, and providing supervisor training. Recommendation for Researchers: Explore supervisory styles and their impact on student well-being in diverse academic contexts. Investigate the impact of supervisors’ availability, time dedication, and communication patterns on doctoral supervision. Future research should examine supervisors’ perspectives and investigate these relationships across different international settings using quantitative methodologies with larger samples to enhance generalizability. Impact on Society: This research contributes to a deeper understanding of doctoral student experiences and offers a foundation for developing targeted interventions to support this population. Improving doctoral student well-being can lead to higher quality research outputs and more successful completion rates, benefiting academia and society. Future Research: Quantitative studies with larger, more diverse samples from international contexts could further validate and expand upon these findings. Additional research could focus on the effectiveness of different supervisory styles and examine how institutional structures influence doctoral student wellbeing across various academic contexts.

Aim/Purpose: The research reported here aims to demonstrate a method by which novel applications of qualitative data in quantitative research can resolve ceiling effect tensions for educational and psychological research. Background: Self-report surveys and scales are essential to graduate education and social science research. Ceiling effects reflect the clustering of responses at the highest response categories resulting in non-linearity, a lack of variability which inhibits and distorts statistical analyses. Ceiling effects in stress reported by students can negatively impact the accuracy and utility of the resulting data. Methodology: A longitudinal sample example from graduate engineering students’ stress, open-ended critical events, and their early departure from doctoral study considerations demonstrate the utility and improved accuracy of adjusted stress measures to include open-ended critical event responses. Descriptive statistics are used to describe the ceiling effects in stress data and adjusted stress data. The longitudinal stress ratings were used to predict departure considerations in multilevel modeling ANCOVA analyses and demonstrate improved model predictiveness. Contribution: Combining qualitative data from open-ended responses with quantitative survey responses provides an opportunity to reduce ceiling effects and improve model performance in predicting graduate student persistence. Here, we present a method for adjusting stress scale responses by incorporating coded critical events based on the Taxonomy of Life Events, the application of this method in the analysis of stress responses in a longitudinal data set, and potential applications. Findings: The resulting process more effectively represents the doctoral student experience within statistical analyses. Stress and major life events significantly impact engineering doctoral students’ departure considerations. Recommendations for Practitioners: Graduate educators should be aware of students’ life events and assist students in managing graduate school expectations while maintaining progress toward their degree. Recommendation for Researchers: Integrating coded open-ended qualitative data into statistical models can increase the accuracy and representation of the lived student experience. The new approach improves the accuracy and presentation of students’ lived experiences by incorporating qualitative data into longitudinal analyses. The improvement assists researchers in correcting data with ceiling effects for use in longitudinal analyses. Impact on Society: The method described here provides a framework to systematically include open-ended qualitative data in which ceiling effects are present. Future Research: Future research should validate the coding process in similar samples and in samples of doctoral students in different fields and master’s students.

Aim/Purpose: This qualitative study was conducted to illuminate the under-researched aspect of doctoral students’ career decision-making by examining their internal cognitive processes based on the Cognitive Information Processing (CIP) theory. Specifically, this study compared doctoral students’ career decision-making from two career groups, those pursuing the professoriate versus those pursuing careers beyond the professoriate. Background: Due to PhD workforce supply-demand imbalances in academic job markets and to a growing interest in careers outside academia around the world, an increasing number of doctoral recipients have pursued careers beyond the professoriate, which are considered non-traditional career paths in doctoral education. While a growing number of studies have investigated these changing trends, it remains limited to fully capture more introspective domains of the career choice processes. Given that the career decision-making experience is highly individualized, it is critical to explore doctorate students’ own narratives about career decision-making. Methodology: Individual structured interviews were conducted with 30 doctoral students from a public research-oriented university in the United States. Employing Directed Content Analysis, two researchers developed the initial coding categories based on the guiding theory, CIP theory, and deductively analyzed the data to identify emerging major themes. Contribution: Findings from the study highlight the core factors that influence doctoral students’ career choices across fields, which allows developing centralized career resources and support systems at the institutional level. Specifically, findings pointed to different approaches for doctoral students to (re-)assess their career choice while providing implications for institutions, academic departments, and individual stakeholders such as faculty advisor and doctoral students, to develop systematic career support in this changing academic job market. Findings: Data analysis uncovered three core factors impacting doctoral students’ career decision making, which are (1) roles of the first-hand experience in career confirmation/shift; (2) dissimilar career readiness status by group; and (3) impact of personal career values. Recommendations for Practitioners: Both institutions and academic departments could reassess the culture and value of career development and refine co-curricular activities to offer adequate professional development opportunities in doctoral training to develop career support systems aligned with students’ diversified career needs and interests. As time and first-hand experiences are identified as critical factors facilitating their career progress, doctoral students may want to proactively seek diverse opportunities to gain first-hand experience in and outside campus. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers could continue similar research in other universities and countries where similar concerns exist. These studies would help fully clarify common influential factors on career choices of doctoral students across fields. Impact on Society: Considering the realities of doctoral students’ diversified career interests and career outcomes, institutes of higher education should make intentional efforts to broaden the definition of “successful” PhD career outcomes, which ultimately helps break the prevailing myth that doctoral students or recipients who pursue careers beyond the professoriate, called nontraditional or alternative career paths, are considered as failures or incompetent. Future Research: Future research should consider examining diverse doctoral student populations such as early-stage doctoral students to discover additional factors influencing their career decision-making. The authors also recommend cross-cultural studies in other countries where similar career concerns exist, such as the U.K. and the Netherlands, to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how doctoral students’ career decisions are made.

The current study addressed the sustainable product development in agriculture industry of Thailand. The objective of this study is to examine the role of top management commitment, organizational management and eco innovation strategies in agriculture sustainable product growth. To achieve this objective, the current study considered quantitative research. While using quantitative research approach, this study preferred cross sectional research design. A sample of 210 respondents were used to examine the relationship between variables. Structural equation modelling was used to analyze the data with the help of partial least square (PLS). Results of the study highlighted the top management commitment and organizational management has substantial role to promote sustainable product in agriculture industry of Thailand. According to the results of the current study, top management commitment and organizational management has significant influence to promote strategies in agriculture industry. For the promotion of eco innovation strategies, it is important to highlight the commitment of management. It has the ability to enhance sustainable product growth in agriculture industry. This study has major practical insights for the practitioners to enhance sustainable product development in Thailand.

The current study addressed the sustainable product development in agriculture industry of Thailand. The objective of this study is to examine the role of top management commitment, organizational management and eco innovation strategies in agriculture sustainable product growth. To achieve this objective, the current study considered quantitative research. While using quantitative research approach, this study preferred cross sectional research design. A sample of 210 respondents were used to examine the relationship between variables. Structural equation modelling was used to analyze the data with the help of partial least square (PLS). Results of the study highlighted the top management commitment and organizational management has substantial role to promote sustainable product in agriculture industry of Thailand. According to the results of the current study, top management commitment and organizational management has significant influence to promote strategies in agriculture industry. For the promotion of eco innovation strategies, it is important to highlight the commitment of management. It has the ability to enhance sustainable product growth in agriculture industry. This study has major practical insights for the practitioners to enhance sustainable product development in Thailand.

The monograph examines the modeling of the impact of the evolutionary and institutional foundations of globalization on the processes of economic growth in Russia and the countries of Central Asia (CA) in conditions of instability. It is proved that the formation of sustainable economic growth in Central Asian countries and Russia requires the adaptation of existing theoretical models to the realities of the post-Soviet space. The features of the institutional development of the countries of the region are revealed, manifested in the continuing influence of informal norms, the weakness of legal institutions and the limited nature of social inclusion in economic processes. A comparative analysis of growth models in Central Asian countries and Russia has been carried out from the standpoint of the quality of institutions, income distribution mechanisms and investment activity. As part of the evolutionary approach, a periodization of institutional changes in the countries under study is proposed, highlighting the phases of spontaneous institutional formation, regulatory stabilization, and targeted reform. For the first time, the paper summarizes and structures the institutional barriers to sustainable growth in Central Asian countries, including weak macroeconomic policy coordination, limited integration into global value chains, underdeveloped financial institutions, and insufficient effectiveness of government strategic programs. Patterns of institutional convergence of Central Asian countries within the framework of Eurasian integration projects have been identified. An approach to strategic institutional planning of sustainable growth has been developed, focused on the inclusion of factors of social sustainability, environmental transformation, and manageability of structural changes in policy. Based on the analysis of national programs and development strategies of the countries of the region, differences in priorities and institutional mechanisms for the implementation of growth goals have been identified. Proposals have been formulated to build a new model for the interaction of economic growth institutions in conditions of uncertainty, including the diversification of sources of growth, strengthening the role of long-term planning, developing a system for assessing institutional effectiveness and increasing the coherence of development policies between levels of government. The monograph is intended for managers and specialists of government and corporate management bodies, researchers, doctoral students, postgraduates and students.

This paper is an exploratory sequential mixed methods research aimed to explore the inhibiting factors of doctoral students in conducting high impact international publications with qualitative exploratory methods and knowing the relationship between inhibiting factors with the performance of publications with quantitative methods. This research uses exploratory sequential mixed methods, the first stage is a qualitative analysis exploring factors inhibiting the publication of doctoral students. Primary data collection using in-depth interviews with 7 (seven) doctoral program students who were selected and determined using purposive sampling method. The next step is to conduct a quantitative analysis to get the correlation between the inhibiting factors and the performance of the publication. Collecting primary data using an online questionnaire with 110 respondents who were selected using the snowball sampling method and then analyzed using the LISRELL program. The results of this research indicate that doctoral student respondents have had several constraints to publishing in journals international reputation such as negative result reviewer, lack of Funding, long respon time, low english skill, lack of writing time, limiting writing skill, limiting submision skill, high publication fee, inadequate facilities, limited journals reference, limited technology skill. Novelty of this research is the first research of the obstacles in the publication of doctoral students in Indonesia with the Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods method with the scope of the territory of a country. This research can be a reference for similar research, and subsequent research can be conducted in other countries. How to Cite this Article Pubmed Style Purwanto A, Fahlevi M, Maharani S, Muharom F, Suryanto , Setyaningsih W, Faidi A, Azhar A, Pramono R, Bernarto I. DOCTORAL Students ARTICLE Publication Barriers in International High Impact JournalS: A Mixed METHODS SRP. 2020; 11(7): 547-555. doi:10.31838/srp.2020.7.79 Web Style Purwanto A, Fahlevi M, Maharani S, Muharom F, Suryanto , Setyaningsih W, Faidi A, Azhar A, Pramono R, Bernarto I. DOCTORAL Students ARTICLE Publication Barriers in International High Impact JournalS: A Mixed METHODS http://www.sysrevpharm.org/?mno=9608 [Access: March 29, 2021]. doi:10.31838/srp.2020.7.79 AMA (American Medical Association) Style Purwanto A, Fahlevi M, Maharani S, Muharom F, Suryanto , Setyaningsih W, Faidi A, Azhar A, Pramono R, Bernarto I. DOCTORAL Students ARTICLE Publication Barriers in International High Impact JournalS: A Mixed METHODS SRP. 2020; 11(7): 547-555. doi:10.31838/srp.2020.7.79 Vancouver/ICMJE Style Purwanto A, Fahlevi M, Maharani S, Muharom F, Suryanto , Setyaningsih W, Faidi A, Azhar A, Pramono R, Bernarto I. DOCTORAL Students ARTICLE Publication Barriers in International High Impact JournalS: A Mixed METHODS SRP. (2020), [cited March 29, 2021]; 11(7): 547-555. doi:10.31838/srp.2020.7.79 Harvard Style Purwanto, A., Fahlevi, . M., Maharani, . S., Muharom, . F., Suryanto, ., Setyaningsih, . W., Faidi, . A., Azhar, . A., Pramono, . R. & Bernarto, . I. (2020) DOCTORAL Students ARTICLE Publication Barriers in International High Impact JournalS: A Mixed METHODS SRP, 11 (7), 547-555. doi:10.31838/srp.2020.7.79 Turabian Style Purwanto, Agus, Mochammad Fahlevi, Suesthi Maharani, Fauzi Muharom, Suryanto, Wahyu Setyaningsih, A. Faidi, Al Azhar, Rudy Pramono, and Innocentius Bernarto. 2020. DOCTORAL Students ARTICLE Publication Barriers in International High Impact JournalS: A Mixed METHODS Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11 (7), 547-555. doi:10.31838/srp.2020.7.79 Chicago Style Purwanto, Agus, Mochammad Fahlevi, Suesthi Maharani, Fauzi Muharom, Suryanto, Wahyu Setyaningsih, A. Faidi, Al Azhar, Rudy Pramono, and Innocentius Bernarto. Indonesian DOCTORAL Students ARTICLE Publication Barriers in International High Impact JournalS: A Mixed METHODS RESEARCH. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy 11 (2020), 547-555. doi:10.31838/srp.2020.7.79 MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style Purwanto, Agus, Mochammad Fahlevi, Suesthi Maharani, Fauzi Muharom, Suryanto, Wahyu Setyaningsih, A. Faidi, Al Azhar, Rudy Pramono, and Innocentius Bernarto. Indonesian DOCTORAL Students ARTICLE Publication Barriers in International High Impact JournalS: A Mixed METHODS RESEARCH. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy 11.7 (2020), 547-555. Print. doi:10.31838/srp.2020.7.79 APA (American Psychological Association) Style Purwanto, A., Fahlevi, . M., Maharani, . S., Muharom, . F., Suryanto, ., Setyaningsih, . W., Faidi, . A., Azhar, . A., Pramono, . R. & Bernarto, . I. (2020) DOCTORAL Students ARTICLE Publication Barriers in International High Impact JournalS: A Mixed METHODS Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11 (7), 547-555. doi:10.31838/srp.2020.7.79

Aim/Purpose: Our study explores the factors contributing to the Imposter Phenomenon among doctoral students in the United States. Background: Many studies show that Imposter Phenomenon impacts women doctoral students and students from minority groups, especially if they are enrolled in Predominantly White Institutions. Our study focuses explicitly on contributing factors to the Imposter Phenomenon among doctoral students in the United States. The study also explored how Imposter Phenomenon is related to doctoral students’ academic goals and achievements. Methodology: We utilized a qualitative phenomenological research design and conducted semi-structured interviews (45-90 minutes) in person and via Zoom. This study was conducted at a public research university in mid-western United States. A total of 14 (3 male and 11 female) doctoral students participated in the study. These students self-identified as White (9), African American (1), South Asian (2), mixed race (1), and Latina (1). Of the 14 students, 4 were international, and 10 were domestic. These students were from various disciplines, such as Education, Economics, Anthropology, Biology, Plant Sciences, and Engineering. Contribution: The study contributes to the field of psychology and higher education and helps us better understand doctoral students’ conceptions and experiences of the Imposter Phenomenon. The study provides empirical support to some of the previous claims by researchers and provides new insights related to the Imposter Phenomenon. Findings: In our study, participants did not consider the Imposter Phenomenon merely a personal or internal feeling or mental condition as presented in previous studies. We found there are multiple layers of the issue, and sociocultural factors play a contributing role to the Imposter Phenomenon. In our study, we found that relations with family, siblings, peers, and faculty played a significant role in shaping our participants’ sense of self and impacted how they responded to challenges in their academic life. We also noted that institutional culture impacts doctoral students’ self-concept and academic performance. Female doctoral students mentioned institutional culture and prevalent sexism in STEM fields as contributing factors to the Imposter Phenomenon. Overall, gender, race, age, and mental health emerged as major contributing factors to the Imposter Phenomenon among doctoral students. Recommendations for Practitioners: We recommend that higher education institutions should help doctoral students, especially students from underrepresented groups, by providing social, emotional, and economic support. To mitigate the challenges of institutional sexism, racism, and ageism, higher education institutions should consider creating peer support groups and try to foster a healthy and supportive environment for doctoral students. These groups could build on ontological inquiries to bolster student resiliency and self-perception. Also, there is a dire need for easily accessible mental health services on campuses, especially for graduate students. Recommendation for Researchers: Doctoral students, if successful, can play a significant role in society’s future growth. However, doctoral completion rates are currently staggeringly low, and the degree program is long. The situation is exacerbated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This impacts doctoral students’ emotional, psychological, and economic well-being, and may affect their health and family relationships. Incomplete doctoral degrees can be costly for individuals and society. Higher education institutions must provide better mental health and economic support to help doctoral students succeed in their programs so they can positively contribute to society and the world. Impact on Society: Doctoral students, if successful, can play a significant role in society’s future growth. However, doctoral completion rates are currently staggeringly low, and the degree program is long. The situation is exacerbated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This impacts doctoral students’ emotional, psychological, and economic well-being, and may affect their health and family relationships. Incomplete doctoral degrees can be costly for individuals and society. Higher education institutions must provide better mental health and economic support to help doctoral students succeed in their programs so they can positively contribute to society and the world. Future Research: We plan to expand our study to better understand the Imposter Phenomenon among doctoral students from cross-cultural perspectives to see if the same factors exist there.

Aim/Purpose: Scholars and practitioners agree that feedback is critical to doctoral students’ academic writing development, yet effective feedback processes are complex. The purpose of this case study was to examine the role of dialogue in a Writing Feedback Group (WFG) in facilitating the development of the scholarly writing of English as an Additional Language (EAL) doctoral students. The research question that guided this study was: How does dialogue within a writing feedback group create opportunities for EAL doctoral students to advance their knowledge and skills pertaining to scholarly writing? Background: Traditional doctoral student writing feedback, characterized as monologic and unidirectional, positions students as passive learners and is difficult for students to use to improve their writing. Dialogic and bi-directional feedback positions students as active learners as they engage in ongoing verbal and/or written exchanges about their writing. Examinations of verbal feedback on doctoral writing show face-to-face exchanges are a source of motivation and necessary for in-depth exchanges about ideas. There is limited understanding, however, as to how dialogue facilitates doctoral students’ development as scholarly writers. This case study examines the dialogue of EAL doctoral students as they read and respond to one another’s scholarly writing. Methodology: This was a qualitative case study of an established writing group. Four EAL doctoral students and one faculty member participated in this study during a 16-week semester. Conversational turns during 12 feedback sessions were analyzed using inductive coding with an interpretive approach to allow research findings to emerge from the data. A constant comparative method was used to classify and compare codes and categories and identify themes related to the study’s research question. Contribution: The findings from this study contribute to the body of knowledge on the role of dialogic feedback in doctoral writing development. The findings show how doctoral students’ dialogue about one another’s writing created critical learning experiences for their writing development. This study provides an explicit and systematic approach to dialogue in writing feedback groups. Findings: Dialogue scaffolded EAL doctoral students’ translation of their complex knowledge to accessible text and helped them respond to the rhetorical context. Dialogue also facilitated doctoral writers’ awareness of the importance of precise language and structural organization for readers of their academic writing. Recommendations for Practitioners: The WFG established a platform for doctoral students to try out their writing and to actively engage with others in receiving and providing ongoing feedback. It is suggested that institutions of higher education create ongoing opportunities for doctoral students to discuss scholarly writing. Writing feedback groups can take many forms, including established groups embedded into coursework or between advisor and advisees. Recommendation for Researchers: This study examined the dialogue of a writing feedback group whose process was highly structured. To develop a deeper understanding of the influence of dialogue on writing, it should be studied in various types of writing groups. Impact on Society: Research and scholarship are critical to advancing our society. Doctoral students who speak English as an additional language bring distinctive cultural perspectives to research. Their voices and research are critical to future academic literature. Future Research: The findings from this study highlight how dialogue in a writing feedback group afforded doctoral students ongoing opportunities to give and receive feedback on critical academic writing skills on their individual current writing projects. Further research is needed to understand the role of dialogue in the WFG on doctoral students’ enduring understanding and the application of academic writing skills on future writing projects.

Aim/Purpose. The aim is to conduct a comparative analysis and summarize findings on the difference between the key sections of quantitative doctoral dissertations versus qualitative doctoral dissertations. A summary of the findings will be presented in a tabulated format with bullet points to help clarify the differences between the two approaches. Background. Doctoral students often face challenges in selecting a qualitative or quantitative doctoral approach for writing their dissertation documents. The challenge is usually faced at the outset of the process. Students contemplate which approach and the difference between them. The students also may not know the specific requirements for each section of the dissertation for each approach. Conducting a comparative analysis and providing a tabulated summary of the difference between the two approaches is deemed to be helpful to the students. Methodology. First, this research is an attempt to investigate and analyze the existing literature to establish a contextual framework for a structured and logical dissertation process applicable to both qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Second, the paper applies the framework to both approaches to guide doctoral students in the completion of the dissertation process. Unlike many other studies, this study provides doctoral students with a foundation to develop and build a research identity, leading to quality doctoral dissertations. This study is significant for doctoral students’ preparedness for the dissertation process as they move through different stages and apply appropriate pedagogical approaches to not only connect these stages but also scientifically and logically validate the relationships between these stages. Contribution. Developing a tabulated summary of findings based on comparative analysis for the differences between the key sections of qualitative and quantitative to be used as a reference for doctoral mentors/advisors as they guide their students on the choice between qualitative or quantitative dissertation approaches. This study is different from other studies published on the same topic for two reasons. First, this paper focuses on specific sections of the doctoral dissertation, namely seven sections that are considered “key” sections of the dissertation document. Second, the study provides a tabulated summary at the end. The one-page summary of keywords suggests what is included in each approach (qualitative vs quantitative). The summary of keywords could also initiate further discussion and research on the same topics. Findings. The outcome of this study is the presentation of a tabulated summary of findings on the difference in the key sections of qualitative doctoral dissertations versus quantitative doctoral dissertations. The findings of this research aim to help doctoral mentors/advisors guide students when contemplating the selection of research approach and doctoral students who are conflicted between the two approaches. Recommendations for Practitioners. Performing comparative analysis and presenting the findings in a tabulated summary to doctoral students is deemed helpful. It helps address the challenges the students face at the beginning of their dissertation writing when they contemplate the selection between the two study approaches. Recommendations for Researchers. More research is needed to give examples of the differences between qualitative and quantitative dissertations. Impact on Society. The findings of this research aim to help doctoral mentors/advisors guide students when contemplating the selection of research approach and doctoral students who are conflicted between the two approaches.

Aim/Purpose. The aim is to conduct a comparative analysis and summarize findings on the difference between the key sections of quantitative doctoral dissertations versus qualitative doctoral dissertations. A summary of the findings will be presented in a tabulated format with bullet points to help clarify the differences between the two approaches. Background. Doctoral students often face challenges in selecting a qualitative or quantitative doctoral approach for writing their dissertation documents. The challenge is usually faced at the outset of the process. Students contemplate which approach and the difference between them. The students also may not know the specific requirements for each section of the dissertation for each approach. Conducting a comparative analysis and providing a tabulated summary of the difference between the two approaches is deemed to be helpful to the students. Methodology. First, this research is an attempt to investigate and analyze the existing literature to establish a contextual framework for a structured and logical dissertation process applicable to both qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Second, the paper applies the framework to both approaches to guide doctoral students in the completion of the dissertation process. Unlike many other studies, this study provides doctoral students with a foundation to develop and build a research identity, leading to quality doctoral dissertations. This study is significant for doctoral students’ preparedness for the dissertation process as they move through different stages and apply appropriate pedagogical approaches to not only connect these stages but also scientifically and logically validate the relationships between these stages. Contribution. Developing a tabulated summary of findings based on comparative analysis for the differences between the key sections of qualitative and quantitative to be used as a reference for doctoral mentors/advisors as they guide their students on the choice between qualitative or quantitative dissertation approaches. This study is different from other studies published on the same topic for two reasons. First, this paper focuses on specific sections of the doctoral dissertation, namely seven sections that are considered “key” sections of the dissertation document. Second, the study provides a tabulated summary at the end. The one-page summary of keywords suggests what is included in each approach (qualitative vs quantitative). The summary of keywords could also initiate further discussion and research on the same topics. Findings. The outcome of this study is the presentation of a tabulated summary of findings on the difference in the key sections of qualitative doctoral dissertations versus quantitative doctoral dissertations. The findings of this research aim to help doctoral mentors/advisors guide students when contemplating the selection of research approach and doctoral students who are conflicted between the two approaches. Recommendations for Practitioners. Performing comparative analysis and presenting the findings in a tabulated summary to doctoral students is deemed helpful. It helps address the challenges the students face at the beginning of their dissertation writing when they contemplate the selection between the two study approaches. Recommendations for Researchers. More research is needed to give examples of the differences between qualitative and quantitative dissertations. Impact on Society. The findings of this research aim to help doctoral mentors/advisors guide students when contemplating the selection of research approach and doctoral students who are conflicted between the two approaches.

As China’s economy moves towards a stage of high-quality development and shifts its economic development goals from GDP growth to green and sustainable growth, technological support is essential for achieving green and sustainable economic growth. Therefore, the supply of talent, as the source of innovation, is crucial. Against the backdrop of relying on innovation to drive high quality economic development, achieving the effective allocation of talent within a spatial range to maximize the release of human capital dividends and promoting the benign interaction between talent regional allocation and technological innovation is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed to achieve environmentally sustainable economic development. Based on this, this paper studies the effect of regional talent allocation on high-quality economic development, reveals the impact mechanism of regional talent allocation on high-quality economic development, and uses the panel data of 258 cities in China from 2004 to 2019 to empirically test the impact of regional talent allocation on high-quality economic development, with a view to improving regional talent allocation, releasing talent potential, and promoting the improvement of regional environmental quality and the convergence of new ideas for high-quality economic development. This research indicates the following: (1) The improvement of the talent regional allocation level can effectively promote high-quality economic development, and mechanism verification shows that talent regional allocation promotes high-quality economic development by influencing regional innovation;. (2) The heterogeneity test found that the impact of regional talent allocation on high-quality economic development indicated a law of an increasing marginal effect from east to west, while innovation drive and the interaction between regional talent allocation and innovation drive showed the strongest characteristics in the central region, followed by the west, with the weakest being in the east. In addition, both the regional allocation of talent and the innovation-driven impact on the high-quality development of the economy have a higher marginal effect in non-urban agglomeration cities than in urban agglomeration cities. (3) There is a dual threshold effect of innovation-driven regional talent allocation on the development of a high-quality economy. When the innovation drive is between 0.4898 and 10.2214, the spillover effect of innovation-driven talent flow is less than the negative impact of talent flow, which is not conducive to the development of a high-quality economic development effect of regional talent allocation. Studying the impact of regional talent allocation on high-quality economic development not only helps to supplement and improve the theory of human capital mobility, providing new explanations for high-quality economic development in the new era, but also contributes to enriching the content of modern macroeconomic theory.