Developing research self-efficacy is an important part of doctoral student preparation. Despite the documented importance of research self-efficacy, little is known about the progression of doctoral students' research self-efficacy over time in general and for students from minoritized groups. This study examined both within- and between-person stability of research self-efficacy from semester to semester over 4 years, focusing on doctoral students in biological sciences (N = 336). Using random intercept autoregressive analyses, we evaluated differences in stability across gender, racially minoritized student status, and first-generation student status. Results showed similar mean levels of self-efficacy across demographic groups and across time. However, there were notable differences in between-person and within-person stability over time, specifically showing higher between-person and lower within-person stability for racially minoritized and first-generation students. These findings indicate that racially minoritized and first-generation students' research self-efficacy reports were less consistent from semester to semester. Such results may indicate that non-minoritized and continuing-generation students' experiences from semester to semester typically reinforce their beliefs about their own abilities related to conducting research, while such is not the case for racially minoritized nor first-generation students. Future research should examine what types of experiences impact self-efficacy development across doctoral study to offer more precise insights about factors that influence these differences in within-person stability.

Building on literature addressing doctoral student socialization and scientific research groups, we qualitatively explore the gendered nature of laboratory rotations for 54 women pursuing STEM doctorates. Using in-depth interviews and a feminist phenomenological approach, findings highlight how women (re)constructed strategies to select lab rotations, relying on social comparisons, social cues about labor practices, and support from principal investigators, peers, and departmental staff. This study documents how women were sometimes felt they had to choose between a prestigious lab aligning with their interests and a lab that would not be overtly sexist. We conclude with practical implications for enhancing equitable socialization structures in STEM.

One of the central goals of doctoral programs is to develop independent researchers and scholars who will lead the next generation of knowledge production. Despite extant evidence of inequalities in doctoral education, few studies have closely examined the experiences of first-generation college students who pursue a Ph.D. We examine how first-generation and continuing-generation doctoral students conceptualize the role of the faculty advisor/principal investigator (PI) in supporting their development as researchers. Our analysis of interviews from 111 first-year Ph.D. students in the biological sciences indicates that first-generation and continuing-generation students had similar overarching conceptions of PIs and the role of PIs in their development. However, the two groups ascribed different meanings to the same concepts. First-generation students expected more direct, skill-based guidance and assistance with learning to do research the right way. Conversely, continuing-generation students expected independence and support for their specific needs. We rely on Bourdieu's conceptualization of habitus to explain these differences and conclude by offering implications for advancing equity in doctoral education and supporting first-generation students, particularly regarding the alignment of student-advisor expectations.

Purpose This study aims to examine how science, technology, engineering, and mathematics doctoral students interact with postdocs within the research laboratory, identifying the nature and potential impacts of student-postdoc mentoring relationships. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of 53 doctoral students in the biological sciences, this study uses a sequential mixed-methods design. More specifically, a phenomenological approach enabled the authors to identify how doctoral students make meaning of their interactions with postdocs and other research staff. Descriptive statistics are used to examine how emergent themes might differ as a product of gender and race/ethnicity and the extent to which emergent themes may relate to key doctoral student socialization outcomes. Findings This study reveals six emergent themes, which primarily focus on how doctoral students receive instrumental and psychosocial support from postdocs in their labs. The most frequent emergent theme captures the unique ways in which postdocs provide ongoing, hands-on support and troubleshooting at the lab bench. When examining how this theme plays a role in socialization outcomes, the results suggest that doctoral students who described this type of support from postdocs had more positive mental health outcomes than those who did not describe this type of hands-on support. Originality/value Literature on graduate student mentorship has focused primarily on the impact of advisors, despite recent empirical evidence of a cascading mentorship model, in which senior students and staff also play a key mentoring role. This study provides new insights into the unique mentoring role of postdocs, focusing on the nature and potential impacts of student-postdoc interactions.

Our study highlights specific ways in which race and gender create inequality in the workplace. Using in-depth interviews with 67 biology PhD students, we show how engagement with research and service varies by both gender and race. By considering the intersection between gender and race, we find not only that women biology graduate students do more service than men, but also that racial and ethnic minority men do more service than white men. White men benefit from a combination of racial and gender privilege, which places them in the most advantaged position with respect to protected research time and opportunities to build collaborations and networks beyond their labs. Racial/ethnic minority women emerge as uniquely disadvantaged in terms of their experiences relative to other groups. These findings illuminate how gendered organizations are also racialized, producing distinct experiences for women and men from different racial groups, and thus contribute to theorizing the intersectional nature of inequality in the workplace.

Using a national sample of 336 biology Ph.D. students, this study classified students based on their interactions with faculty and peers, and investigated longitudinal changes in their interaction classifications over 3 years. We also examined associations between students' interaction classifications, their demographic backgrounds (e.g., gender, international student status, first-generation status, and underrepresented racial/ethnic minority status), and doctoral outcomes (e.g., sense of belonging, satisfaction with academic development, institutional commitment, and scholarly productivity). The findings revealed that three distinct subgroups existed among the current sample of biology Ph.D. students, with respect to their interactions with their faculty and peers: high interaction with faculty and peers, high interaction with peers only, and low interaction with faculty and peers. However, such patterns of doctoral students' interactions with faculty and peers tended to, in general, be stable over time. In addition, while the differential effects of demographic variables on changes in these interaction patterns were widely founded, such changes were not substantially linked to doctoral student outcomes. Implications for research on doctoral education and socialization theory are discussed.

In the laboratory-based disciplines, selection of a principal investigator (PI) and research laboratory (lab) indelibly shapes doctoral students' experiences and educational outcomes. Framed by the theoretical concept of person-environment fit from within a socialization model, we use an inductive, qualitative approach to explore how a sample of 42 early-stage doctoral students enrolled in biological sciences programs made decisions about fitting with a PI and within a lab. Results illuminated a complex array of factors that students considered in selecting a PI, including PI relationship, mentoring style, and professional stability. Further, with regard to students' lab selection, peers and research projects played an important role. Students actively conceptualized trade-offs among various dimensions of fit. Our findings also revealed cases in which students did not secure a position in their first (or second) choice labs and had to consider their potential fit with suboptimal placements (in terms of their initial assessments). Thus, these students weighted different factors of fit against the reality of needing to secure financial support to continue in their doctoral programs. We conclude by presenting and framing implications for students, PIs, and doctoral programs, and recommend providing transparency and candor around the PI and lab selection processes.

The doctoral advisor-typically the principal investigator (PI)-is often characterized as a singular or primary mentor who guides students using a cognitive apprenticeship model. Alternatively, the cascading mentorship model describes the members of laboratories or research groups receiving mentorship from more senior laboratory members and providing it to more junior members (i.e., Pls mentor postdocs, postdocs mentor senior graduate students, senior students mentor junior students, etc.). Here we show that Pis' laboratory and mentoring activities do not significantly predict students' skill development trajectories, but the engagement of postdocs and senior graduate students in laboratory interactions do. We found that the cascading mentorship model accounts best for doctoral student skill development in a longitudinal study of 336 PhD students in the United States. Specifically, when postdocs and senior doctoral students actively participate in laboratory discussions, junior PhD students are over 4 times as likely to have positive skill development trajectories. Thus, postdocs disproportionately enhance the doctoral training enterprise, despite typically having no formal mentorship role. These findings also illustrate both the importance and the feasibility of identifying evidence-based practices in graduate education.

Faculty and peer interactions play a key role in shaping graduate student socialization. Yet, within the literature on graduate student socialization, researchers have primarily focused on understanding the nature and impact of faculty atone, and much less is known about how peer interactions also contribute to graduate student outcomes. Using a national sample of first-year biology doctoral students, this study reveals distinct categories that classify patterns of faculty and peer interaction. Further, we document inequities such that certain groups (e.g., underrepresented minority students) report constrained types of interactions with faculty and peers. Finally, we connect faculty and peer interaction patterns to student outcomes. Our findings reveal that, while the classification of faculty and peer interactions predicted affective and experiential outcomes (e.g., sense of belonging, satisfaction with academic development), it was not a consistent predictor of more central outcomes of the doctoral socialization process (e.g., research skills, commitment to degree). These and other findings are discussed, focusing on implications for future research, theory, and practice related to graduate training.

Studies of inequality in higher education on both undergraduate and graduate levels have rarely examined experiences of Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs). In this study, we focus on the experiences and outcomes of API students in doctoral education. More specifically, we examine socialization experiences and research productivity of three groups of students: domestic API, international API, and domestic white students. The results, based on a national cohort of PhD students in biology, reveal notable differences in experiences and outcomes of domestic and international API students. Although variation in socialization experiences explains differences in research productivity in the first year, that is not the case in the second year of doctoral study. In the second year, international API students have publication productivity comparable to their white peers, despite less favorable socialization experiences. Domestic API students, however, have lower research productivity than their white peers, even though they have comparable socialization experiences. Given the presumption of APIs' success, especially in the STEM fields, findings for domestic API students are surprising and not aligned with the model minority stereotype. Contributions to research on API students, doctoral education, and socialization theory are discussed.