Comparison Matrix Paper
Nyenye Matthews
Grand Canyon University: RES-811
June 8, 2016

Comparison Matrix Paper
At first thought, the journey of completing a doctoral program can be scary, nerve wrecking and/or cause you to have anxiety especially when faced with having to decide on a topic for your dissertation before you even start class. All of these feelings eventually subside once the newly doctoral learner starts their first course.
The purpose of this paper is to compare three empirical articles on the topic of doctoral identity. Weidman & Stein (2003) wanted “to examine the relationship among an academic department’s informal structures and the socialization of doctoral students to the scholar role as reflected in their level of participation in scholarly activities”. Baker & Lattuca (2010), sought “to develop an interdisciplinary approach to the study of doctoral education as a path to the professoriate”. Visser, Visser & Schlosser (2003), investigated “critical thinking as a disciplined manner of thought which a person uses to assess the validity of something”. These articles address three different ways of how a doctoral learner can find their doctoral identity.
Comparison of Research Questions
Even though each study asked different research questions, it seems as though each group of authors developed research questions based on the same idea in mind; to determine if
“Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms, developmental networks and learning: toward an interdisciplinary perspective on identity development during doctoral study and critical thinking distance education and traditional education” (Weidman & Stein, 2003; Baker & Lattuca, 2010; Visser, Visser & Schlosser, 2003) contributes to doctoral identity.
The three studies were conducted because the researchers wanted to know what could be done or enhanced in order for the doctoral learner to be successful in their doctoral program. In the first article, the authors posed the question “Does social interaction amongst students and faculty as well as collegiality among faculty create a supportive climate for doctoral study?” They posed this question because they believed if the interactions between staff and the doctoral learner increased then the doctoral learner is more likely to participate in more scholarly activities and they will have more support from faculty during their doctoral studies. In the second article, “What is the connection between doctoral students’ developmental networks, what they learn during their graduate experience (including their learning about the faculty role) and how they develop a professional identity?” The authors posed this question because they wanted to gage if the doctoral learner was getting adequate training and preparedness in obtaining a career such as a university instructor and also how they develop their professional identity. Lastly, the third article authors posed the questions “What is known about the state of critical thinking in higher education and factors affecting the integration of critical thinking in traditional higher education?” The authors posed these questions because they wanted to examine what factors have an effect on the doctoral learner’s critical thinking. The articles compare to each other because they all lack in areas that could ensure the success of the doctoral learner during their doctoral journey. The differences and similarities are important because they can show the trends in order for them to make necessary adjustments where they need to. The number of questions are not important in my opinion because there are a lot of questions that could be asked to determine how to ensure success of the doctoral learner; the question posed0020should be the most important one. The questions are posed to the doctoral programs.
Comparison of Literature Reviews
Each article focused on preparing and ensuring the success of the doctoral learner through their doctoral journey. In the first article, the theme was related to professional socialization by exploring preparation for the scholar role. In the second article, the theme was based on the adequacy of training of doctoral students in regards to acquiring positions as an instructor at a university and the focus was on the socialization of students and the roles that a variety of relationships, particularly advising or mentoring relationships, play in this process. Lastly, in the third article, the theme was related to the central mechanism of critical thinking in the process of development. They share wanting to increase rates of success from doctoral learners throughout their doctoral programs. The conclusions that can be drawn are they want to focus on what they feel as though is affecting the success of the doctoral learner. Comparison of Sample Population
Samples for the three articles were limited to individuals picked for the studies and the results could have varied if the samples sizes were increased and more diverse. Commonalities/shared themes between the articles were students were the focus of all three studies.
Comparison of Limitations
When a study is organized and conducted it is important to analyze the data to see if there was a variable change would the results have a different outcome. More scholars could have participated, a larger amount of doctoral learners and more areas of study could have been questioned and remaining to focus on the doctoral learner becoming a professoriate through socialization.
Comparison of Results
The first article determined there is a relationship between the academic department’s informal structure and doctoral student participation in activities therefore showing the importance of social interaction amongst students and faculty. According to Baker & Lattuca (2010), they determined that the “combination of theoretical insights from network and sociocultural researchers provides a more comprehensive conceptual framework for studying critical changes in knowledge and identity that occur during doctoral study and thus can enhance the study of learning and identity development in doctoral education”. Lastly, the third article determined cognitive processes is essential to the high order cognitive functioning in a learner’s process.
All of the studies recognized that there was a need in ensuring the doctoral learner was successful by addressing the areas they lack in the most.

Conclusion and Future Recommendations
There are many other things that effect the success of the doctoral learner but these authors focused on studying what they felt as though were the top issues that affected the success of the doctoral learner. From the combined research, the conclusion that can be drawn is social interactions amongst faculty and doctoral learners create a supportive environment for the doctoral learner to be successful, theoretical insights from network and sociocultural researchers provides a more comprehensive conceptual framework for studying critical changes in knowledge and identity and cognitive processes is essential to the high order cognitive functioning in a learner’s process.
Further research could be done for students that are not prepared to enter the competitive work force due to inadequate training.

References
Baker, V., & Lattuca, L. R. (2010). Developmental networks and learning: toward an interdisciplinary perspective on identity development during doctoral study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 807-827.
Visser, L., Visser, Y. L., & Schlosser, C. (2003). Critical thinking distance education and traditional education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(4), 401-407.
Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms.
Research in Higher Education, 44(6), 641-656.