Doctoral Education in Athletic Training: Pursuit of the Degree and Its Influence on Career Aspirations

Research Design

Phenomenology^10,11 provided the underpinning for the investigation, as it allowed for an understanding of the meaning placed by doctoral students on their education, their pursuit of the doctoral degree, and how that education influenced their career plans. Data collection occurred through interviewing individuals meeting the study's inclusion criteria. Participants' individual reflections allowed the researchers to develop a thematic understanding of doctoral program pursuit, continuation, and career goals.

Participant Selection and Recruitment

We used criterion-sampling strategies¹⁰ to initially identify potential athletic training doctoral students. Each participant met the following inclusion criteria to participate: (1) was enrolled in a degree program that leads to an academic doctorate (EdD, PhD), (2) had completed a minimum of 1 year in the degree program, (3) was a licensed and board-certified athletic trainer, and (4) was enrolled as a full-time doctoral student on a college campus. Participants were excluded if they were pursuing a clinical doctorate in athletic training (DAT), had completed less than 1 year in the degree program, were enrolled in an online program, or were not a licensed/board certified athletic trainer. A minimum of 1 year in the degree program ensured the student had gained sufficient involvement within the program to reflect on and speak to the influence of his or her current experiences on future professional goals.

Participant recruitment was initiated after institutional review board approval, through a convenience sample, using the researchers' personal connections to gain access to athletic training doctoral students via advisors and mentors. E-mail addresses for participants matching our inclusion criteria were provided through our professional connections. We then sent recruitment e-mails to potential participants to begin data collection procedures.

Participants

Twelve participants (4 male, 8 female) met our inclusion criteria (age = 30 ± 3 years). All 12 participants were licensed athletic trainers, with 6 ± 4 years of certification by the Board of Certification, and had engaged in 5 ± 3 years of clinical athletic training practice at the time of the study. Three participants were enrolled in a 3-year degree program and 9 were enrolled in a 4-year degree program. All participants but one were completing degree requirements for a PhD (n = 1 EdD). At the time of the study, 5 participants were in their second year of doctoral education, 6 were in their third year of doctoral education, and 1 was in her fourth year of doctoral education. The Table provides individual participant information.

Table Participant Demographics

View Fullscreen

Procedures

A research team, using the socialization framework as the foundation, developed an interview guide to address the aims of the study (Appendix). The research team comprised 6 doctoral students currently enrolled in a qualitative methods course. The members of the research team fit the criteria for inclusion but did not complete the study. Using their own experiences, they helped develop the interview protocol used in the study. A researcher with content knowledge (ie, socialization framework), experience as an advisor to doctoral students, and expertise in qualitative research methods led the research team. The research guide was divided into 3 sections to address the study's purpose. The first section consisted of demographic questions, the next section concerned motivational components to pursue a doctoral degree, and the final section contained questions pertaining to the participants' professional career goals and aspirations. Before data collection, the interview guide was reviewed for content and flow by an additional member of the research team who possesses content knowledge and experience in qualitative methods. The researcher provided constructive feedback, which resulted in reorganization of the questions to improve flow and the addition of other questions to ensure all aspects of the doctoral student experience were explored.

The phone interviews were conducted in a semistructured manner, to promote dialogue between the participant and researcher and to allow for follow-up on experiences shared during the interview session. All interviews were recorded after verbal consent from the participant and transcribed verbatim.

Data Analysis and Credibility

Using the phenomenological paradigm,^10,11 the data were coded systematically through a stepwise process by one researcher. First, the transcripts were read globally, allowing the researcher to become immersed in the experiences of the doctoral students. Then, using the open-coding process, the data were inductively reduced by assigning descriptive codes to segments of textual data that represented the meaning of the data. The codes were grouped together and categorized to combine like-minded concepts and experiences. These groups were defined and given labels, and collectively became the overarching themes of the data, representing the common experiences and reflections shared by the participants.

We used data saturation, researcher triangulation, and peer review to establish rigor surrounding the collection procedures and analyses of the data. The procedures for researcher triangulation was grounded by the research team and were used to develop the interview protocol.¹² The use of a team allowed for all perspectives to be explored, including those of individuals actively enrolled as graduate students and researchers with experience in the framework being used in the study. We used an experienced qualitative researcher with extensive knowledge on the socialization framework to confirm interview protocol before data collection and then our findings after the analyses process was done. The peer reviewed the interview protocol after the research team completed the development. The peer was provided several coded transcripts and operational definitions of the emergent themes, including raw data to support the emergent themes. The peer confirmed the initial coding process and provided confirmation for the final emerging themes.

Pursuit of an Academic Doctoral Degree

Career Planning Affirmation

Two main findings that emerged related to career planning were mentorship and legitimation. Participants identified the importance of having support from a mentor and experiences in their future role to affirm they were on the correct career path. Many of the participants identified their career goal as working in higher education. They felt that throughout their doctoral degree programs their mentors helped in career planning. Further, as they engaged in assistantships, they acquired knowledge about life in higher education, which legitimized their aspirations. Our participants' career aspirations were reinforced, rather than modified, during their doctoral degree program.

Pursuit of the Doctoral Degree

Socialization is a process characterized by learning through experience, which allows a newcomer to understand the traditions, expectations, values, skills, and knowledge of established groups they intend to join.^1,13 For our participants, their past experiences facilitated a period of time to reflect and thus realize their interest and desire to pursue a doctoral degree. Realization came from experiences within graduate-level training or during the first few years of clinical practice. The role of past experiences as described by our participants, including clinical and academic, in an athletic trainer's decision to pursue of a terminal degree has not been previously investigated in the literature. The intention to pursue a degree in higher education has been studied minimally in the field of nursing. Broussard and White,¹⁴ in a study of nurses in Louisiana, identified that approximately 66% of respondents were highly motivated to pursue higher education based on their professional goals, and 53.7% were motivated by opportunities for advancement within the profession. The doctoral students similarly mentioned the doctoral degree as a means of achieving their professional goals. While engaged in their master's degrees and in clinical practice, our participants felt a desire to gain an advanced degree.

Baker and Pifer¹⁵ found that professional relationships, including the academic advisor–student relationship, were necessary for success for the transitionary process. Our findings echo the work of Baker and Pifer¹⁵ in that faculty members were identified as critical for helping students become aware of the importance of seeking opportunities for personal and professional development.¹⁵ Our participants identified that their faculty advisors and mentors assisted in creating opportunities for their professional growth through internships, networking, teaching, and research experiences.

The role of mentorship in athletic training doctoral education and for novice faculty members has previously been studied.^16,17 Mazerolle et al¹⁶ defined a successful mentoring relationship during doctoral studies as (1) supportive, but yielding autonomy and collaboration; (2) one that includes opportunities for professional development; and (3) one that demonstrates mutual investment in the mentor-mentee relationship. For novice faculty members entering the field of academia, Barrett et al¹⁷ reported active engagement, communication, and similar interests as attributes to effective mentorship.

All of our participants spoke about the support they received from their academic advisors and mentors, and of the importance of opportunities for professional development through their teaching assistant and/or research assistant responsibilities. Additionally, the role of the mentor in the students' success in both academic-related and personal factors, including illnesses and family circumstances, illustrated a mutual investment in the mentoring relationship. It was very apparent in our participants' testimonies that the role of the academic advisor and mentor heavily influenced the motivation to pursue a doctoral degree, the overall degree experience, and future career planning.

Career Planning

Mentorship is a mainstay in the literature in terms of its importance in facilitating role understanding, role inductance, and successful transition into the workplace.^18,19 Our participants spoke to the role of their faculty advisors/mentors in creating opportunities for professional growth through internships, networking, and teaching and research experiences, supporting the need for mentorship through the developmental period of the doctoral student. When studying the role of relationships in the transition from doctoral student to independent scholar, Baker and Pifer¹⁵ found that professional relationships, including the academic advisor–student relationship, served as support when transitioning from student to scholar. The work of Baker and Pifer¹⁵ demonstrates the importance of the relationships that can develop during doctoral education specifically between the student and doctoral advisors, which was echoed by our participants.

Professional socialization during the doctoral education experience is a process in which legitimization can occur.^20,21 Legitimization can occur through the experiences that doctoral students have throughout their degree process by way of their assistantship, opportunities they seek out, or through the mentorship of their faculty advisor. A study by Klossner²⁰ examined the role of legitimization in the professional socialization of second-year undergraduate athletic training students. Klossner²⁰ found that legitimization from various socializing agents initiated the professional socialization of the undergraduate students. Specifically, second-year athletic training students looked for affirmation from others who accepted them in their professional roles. Additionally, students needed to feel they had a role to play to demonstrate competence as an athletic trainer. Likewise, our participants felt legitimized because they were able to have a well-rounded doctoral experience, facilitated by their assistantship and opportunities within their doctoral education experience. These experiences, like those reported by Klossner,²⁰ were grounded in engagement in a role that afforded feedback and interactions with those who represent the workplace they will assume full time.

Bowman et al⁶ reported the importance of comprehensive autonomous experiences, specifically in research, as a means to increase the confidence of a doctoral student to perform the responsibilities of a faculty member. The common thread between this study⁸ and our findings relates to comprehensive autonomous experiences that occur with doctoral assistantships. The opportunities provided to the doctoral students, including autonomy in research and teaching responsibilities, provided reassurance that they were on the right path to pursue the career of their choice. The personal growth and improvements observed from year to year, and the continued opportunities within the components of higher education, allowed our participants legitimization and professional socialization, especially with research and teaching roles, both being responsibilities required of a future faculty position. This affirmation of competence and the ability to fulfill the duties of a faculty member reinforced our participants' long-term goals and career aspirations to enter higher education.