Formation of an Academic Research and Writing Group

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to establish a community of practice (CoP) called an academic research and writing group (ARWG), to improve the research and writing skills of graduate students, and to increase their levels of interaction while conducting their academic research. In the current study, formative research was implemented to improve the quality of academic output from the ARWG group. The study’s findings showed that specific features added through the ARWG provided both a positive impression toward the ARWG and encouraged novice researchers to work collaboratively.

Keywords

community of practice academic research and writing group formative research career graduate students

Introduction

The aim of the current study was to describe the processes of the formation of an academic research and writing group (ARWG) composed of graduate students, in particular, PhD students, from the perspective of the community of practice (CoP) theory. The purpose of the ARWG is to encourage graduate students to conduct research within a collaborative and cooperative environment. PhD students encounter a variety of challenges in the pursuit of a doctoral degree, including a lack of professional/academic relationship with their peers and their academic supervisor, a lack of financial support, and a lack of engagement to the related discipline (Curtin et al., 2013; Hunter et al., 2007; Irving & Sayre, 2014; Lovitts, 2001). This inadequate level of interaction could detrimentally affect PhD students, causing them to abandon their academic discipline and forego their PhD studies. Research shows that through informal interactions, graduate students may gain a shared understanding and thereby collectively develop their professional identity, which is vital to ensure their endurance in progressing with their chosen discipline (Lovitts, 2001). Within the PhD journey of learning, graduate students who work together and seek help from their peers can become members of research CoPs following completion of their PhD studies.

The CoP provides researchers with the opportunity to learn through informal interaction, and to move from the more peripheral areas of the discipline to a more central position. Novice researchers become oriented to the discipline by their more experienced peers, and are thereby encouraged to become active participants of that discipline (Wenger et al., 2002). Therefore, over time, their sense of belonging, which has been found to be strongly related to the development of professional identity, can be developed (Bieber & Worley, 2006) while learning within the community. Also, during the PhD students’ extensive period of education, writing forms the core of their research (Lee, 1998; MacLure, 2003; Richardson, 2000; Scott & Usher, 2010). Toward that purpose, improving their academic writing skills is considered an important goal that should be supported. In the current study, the learning activities of PhD students consist of educational sciences and instructional technology-related subjects. The study’s participants, PhD students, became organized among themselves and initialized a research project in order that their learning activities included the development of a research idea, the conduct of a study, and then finalizing their research. During these wide-ranging activities, other PhD students formed groups that served as peer-support groups.

The current study took CoP as its theoretical basis, and listed the conditions for the formation of the ARWG so as to understand the experiences of PhD students over time. The research questions that guided the study were as follows:

Research Question 1: How do participants describe their experience during their engagement within the ARWG?

Research Question 2: What are the perceptions of participants toward the ARWG?

Significance of the Study

Admission to doctoral programs is based on the grade point average achieved in previous studies, and so being a good course-taker is often sufficient to attain admission to a university PhD program of study. However, the aim of a PhD program is to improve students’ professional and independent research skills, rather than simply focusing on their course completion skills (Lovitts, 2005). PhD students should be able to conduct largely independent research, and these are skills which they should learn as part of their PhD program. Therefore, PhD students should transform from that of a good course-taker to a researcher. However, this transition process is seen as arduous by many students (Lovitts, 2001).

Improving research skills requires interaction with both the academic supervisor and the peers of the PhD student. Because people form a variety of communities to share their culture and experiences, collective and social learning is seen as an important aspect of the PhD program (Wenger, 2000). Nevertheless, according to Gina et al. (2007), some PhD students report having an isolated experience because they are inadequately supported by their academic supervisors. PhD students should therefore gain support through active membership of a research development program. Furthermore, Gina et al. (2007) stated that working with supportive peer groups is more beneficial than working solely with academic supervisors or working autonomously. Thus, learning to conduct research through collaboration within peer groups is seen as both profitable and necessary for doctoral students.

CoP is seen as one of the solutions to these problems (Gina et al., 2007) because peer group interaction and feedback eliminate the sense of isolation experienced by many PhD students, and provides them with a long-term academic support network as they mature through their postgraduate studies, and beyond. The current study aimed to provide this level of support to PhD students, and to stress the importance of collaborative peer group working for doctoral students.

Literature Review

CoPs were first characterized by Lave and Wenger in 1991 as groups of people who shared a mutual interest and common problems, developed new practices, and acquired knowledge as a community. They defined the CoP as a group of people who evolved naturally as a result of mutual shared interest in a specific topic of study, or having been inspired by the need to develop knowledge around a common area of academic concern. According to the definition given by Wenger et al. (2002), “CoPs are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (p. 4). In addition, Lave and Wenger (1991) indicated that members of CoPs compose a set of relationships over time that become of greater significance than technical knowledge alone.

Educational and organizational CoPs include characteristics based on the sharing of ideas, learning from experience, voluntary engagement, and interaction of knowledge and experience (Wenger, 1998). Voluntary engagement is crucial to membership of a CoP, and every member should benefit from their participation else they will likely lose their desire to maintain membership to the CoP. It is important here to point out that not every community is a CoP because not all possess the basic elements that would constitute a CoP. Those that do not exhibit CoP elements could be either formal groups or informal networks. Table 1 summarizes these differences. According to Wenger (1998), CoPs integrate practice (learning as doing), community (learning as belonging), meaning (learning as experience), and identity (learning as becoming) as components of learning.

Table 1.

Distinguishing Characteristics of Organizational Units (Wenger & Snyder, 2000, p. 142).

Organizational Unit	What is the purpose?	Who belongs?	What holds it together?	How long does it last?
Community of practice	To develop members’ capabilities to build and exchange knowledge	Members who select themselves	Passion, commitment, and identification with the group’s expertise	As long as there is interest to maintain the group
Formal work group	To deliver a product or service	Everyone who reports to the group’s manager	Job requirements and common goals	Until the next reorganization
Project team	To accomplish a specified task	Employees assigned by senior management	The project’s milestones and goals	Until the project has been completed
Informal network	To collect and pass on business information	Friends and business acquaintances	Mutual needs	As long as people have a reason to connect

Characteristics of CoPs may vary, but they share three fundamental elements: domain, community, and practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Domain is related to raison d’ếtre (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 31), which is “not an abstract area of interest, but consists of key issues or problems that members commonly experience” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 32). If there is no shared concern, it implies that the domain, as in the social group, is not a CoP. Wenger et al. (2002) stated that the domain parameter demarcates the CoPs’ identity, its place, and its value to its members and to others. Domain is an evolving realm and can be shaped by the community itself. The second element is community, which is the social aspect of CoP, and over time, CoPs establish a sense of common history and common identity (Wenger et al., 2002). The community aspect enables the members to understand their role within the CoP, to conduct regular meetings, to build relationships regularly, to understand and work toward an agreed focus, and to understand how to deal with conflicts that may arise. The third element is practice, which “denotes a set of socially defined ways of doing things in a specific domain: a set of common approaches and shared standards that create a basis for action, communication, problem solving, performance and accountability” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 38). Table 1 presents these characteristics of the organizational unit.

Graduate School Experience

Graduate studies have been widely investigated based on the completeness of the degrees awarded and the relationships that form between graduate students and their academic supervisors. Recently, many studies have been conducted that conceptualize the factors that influence the development of a “good” and “productive” academician. Studies conducted within the last 15 years have moved beyond single and discrete variables by presenting the “inside” perspective of graduate students (Bieber & Worley, 2006; Curtin et al., 2013; Lovitts, 2001). These studies have helped to draw a more complete picture of graduate-level education. Similar concerns of graduate students have been identified by various studies. Lovitts (2001) reported in her book that noncompleters of doctoral degrees reported an inadequate relationship with their academic advisors, as well as experiencing financial hardships. Concerning the relationship between graduate students and their academic advisors, the students were reportedly aware of not being adequately directed by their advisors with regard to research ideas and their professional development. Moreover, Curtin et al. (2013) contended that constructive relationships between academic advisors and their PhD students can yield significant positive outcomes for the students, including the development of a sense of belonging and academic self-identity. In addition to relationships between graduate students and their advisors, the development of professional identity is seen as one of the primary factors that elicits students’ persistence to their discipline (Irving & Sayre, 2014). Hunter et al. (2007) found professional identity development and rate of participation in a related community to be interrelated. Hasrati (2005) emphasized the importance of informal interaction between PhD students and their academic supervisors, or with other PhD students, and that research groups may also foster informal interaction between PhD students and may help them gain access to research cultures. Deem and Brehony (2000) mentioned that the accessibility of PhD peer cultures may not be equal for all science students, and emphasized the importance of reaching out to research cultures, in particular, peer and research training cultures for social science students. Each of these aspects is deemed to be important to the development of graduate students.

ARWGs

Experiences in academic life have fostered different communities to meet the needs of doctoral students who have mutual interests and shared understandings of the phenomenon investigated by the current study. CoPs have been conducted for both undergraduate education and graduate and postgraduate degrees in reference to academic writing, research, and journal-related issues (Campbell, 2003; Hunter et al., 2007; Thiry & Laursen, 2011; Villa et al., 2013). During the formation of those groups, enculturation processes of students are at the forefront of group formers. Irving and Sayre (2014) described the conditions for building a CoP of a physics laboratory for undergraduate students. Undergraduate students are enculturated with mutual interests based on domain-specific experiments, and each role is distributed to students at different times so that students who become experts in one of the experiments share their knowledge with the new students engaging in that same experiment. Irving and Sayre (2014) observed the group formation process, as students formed dynamic groups for the advanced-level experiments, and their changes were noted regarding the knowledge level and professional identity over time. The qualitative findings reported that the formed classroom community helped students to develop a subject-specific identity, and moved them to more central points within the physics discipline from the legitimate periphery. In addition to the aforementioned study, affinity research groups of undergraduate students were also investigated by Villa et al. (2013). The researchers investigated current and former members of affinity research groups so as to understand the structures that could potentially prepare better researchers for graduate schools. Undergraduate computer science students were grouped to learn collaboratively and to practice within a larger professional community of their field. The study’s findings suggested that the structural and procedural elements of affinity research groups, including interrelationships between members, provided collaborative learning environments and fostered cooperation with other professional communities. Both undergraduate and graduate students, after participating in affinity research groups, confirmed that their professional identity had developed throughout the informal interaction within the CoP. In addition to CoPs for undergraduate students, graduate and postgraduate students also meet to practice better learning and to academically self-develop (Wisker et al., 2007). Wisker et al. (2007) described the process of postgraduate research as an isolated activity, meaning that students and supervisors practice their research with little interaction. To overcome this disconnectedness, a cohort may be formed that allows PhD students to help each other’s development, with an informal learning environment that may contribute to the success of its members. Moreover, self-help peer groups afford students (who share similar research interests) the opportunity to critically cultivate their research ideas, methods, and data to obtain new perspectives and insight as to how best to interpret research results.

ARWGs provide insight for people from similar backgrounds to move them to a more central point in the discipline from legitimate peripheral areas. Self-help peer groups may also provide informal interaction between students that prevent feelings of isolation. Face-to-face as well as online development and support groups may also contribute to students’ enculturation processes while pursuing their degrees. In the current study, the researchers attempted to build a CoP to provide informal interaction between graduate students sharing similar interests and understandings of the investigated phenomenon, so that they could better engage in a learning environment which improved their research within the group, and developed confidence in their research.

Method

The current study centered around a graduate-level Computer Education and Instructional Technology (CEIT) course, titled “Communities of Practice in Higher Education,” at an affiliated university in Turkey. The study was conducted during the spring semester of the 2013 to 2014 academic year. The aim of the study was to establish a CoP called an ARWG within the CEIT department, to improve the research and writing skills of CEIT graduate students, and to increase their levels of interaction while conducting their academic research. This CoP was founded to address the academic needs of graduate students of CEIT.

The structure of the developed community can be described as follows:

The target group of the community was CEIT graduate students;

The vision of the community was to comprise an initiative about academic studies, and to devise a new perspective to the research responsibilities of academia in Turkey;

The mission of the community was to encourage novice researchers in CEIT to participate in national and international conferences with qualified studies.

The specific objectives of the developed community were as follows:

To encourage novice researchers willing to produce academic papers driven by individual interest or coursework that allowed for collaboration with their peers;

To improve the academic research and writing skills of novice researchers;

To enhance the quantity of academic writing studies such as conference papers, journal articles, and poster presentations in the field of instructional technology;

To improve the quality of academic research studies presented at national and international conferences.

After setting the structure, 14 graduate students were grouped in terms of shared interests, forming a total of nine groups. Five of the students also took on the responsibility of coordination activities. During the semester, they collaborated and wrote academic publications, especially for conferences. Seven of the participants reached their goal and, thus, attended conferences. Five of the participants attended the International Conference on Information Technology and Systems (2014) in Turkey, and two attended EdMedia (2015) in Canada. In the fall semester of the 2014 to 2015 academic year, there were 10 graduate students in the community, composed of three groups. Four of the students also took the responsibility of coordination activities. Each graduate student participated in one group to initiate and finalize a research idea. Group members then participated in monthly face-to-face meetings and provided feedback on the progress of other group members. Group members communicated about schedule-related issues via a social network site. After the first feedback meeting, it was decided that the CoP would not accept new members for the current semester. At the end of this cycle, four participants reached their goals, and the project they devised secured financial support from an institution in Turkey.

Research Approach

Formative research was employed in this study, which has been described as “a kind of developmental research or action research that is intended to improve design theory for designing instructional practices or processes” (Reigeluth & Frick, 1999, p. 633). This approach was selected by the study’s researchers because it allows for expanding the knowledgebase within the instructional technology field through implementing cycles. Thus, practical and iterative processes are likely to be employed.

There were two iterative cycles in the current study. According to Reeves (2000), formative research consists of four stages. The first stage of the first cycle of the current study was the collaborative analysis of practical problems by researchers and practitioners. Five graduate students investigated the relevant literature and, consequently, realized the deficiency of interactions among graduate students in the CEIT department in terms of collaborative working for academic purposes; thus, the need for the ARWG was determined. The second stage involved design. Researchers established the ARWG, and also established certain rules with help from a faculty member. Then, an e-mail was distributed so as to announce the group’s formation, with voluntary participation welcomed. A total of 14 graduate students indicated a desire to participate in the established ARWG. The third stage was implementation. Throughout the study, five meetings were held, with one during the first cycle and four during the second cycle. Furthermore, each group held meetings according to their needs. The fourth stage involved testing, refinement of solutions, and redesign. At the end of the semester, the coordinators of the ARWG interviewed the participants to obtain feedback about the process, as well as to elicit their suggestions. The interviews were then analyzed to draw conclusions.

Participants

During the first cycle, nine groups, each of which has two to five members, were set with 14 PhD students from CEIT department. Participants were able to attend more than one group, and five of them had the role of coordinator to plan and facilitate the ARWG. During the second cycle, there were 10 graduate students from the CEIT department in a total of three groups. While nine of the students were studying for their PhD, one was a master’s student. Four of the students acted as coordinators of the ARWG.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. First, interviews were conducted with six participants at the end of the spring semester of the 2013 to 2014 academic year (as the first cycle of the study). Second, interviews were conducted with six participants prior to and after the second cycle, during the fall semester of the 2014 to 2015 academic year (as the second cycle of the study). Guiding questions were prepared for the interviews based on the research questions of the study. This interview protocol was piloted during the first cycle of the study.

Participants were asked for their general opinion about the study, their motivation to participate, their perceptions about the progress, and specific suggestions regarding its improvement. Then, a few major changes were applied to the interview schedule related to the organization of the questions, the language used, and the detail within the questions. The final version of the interview protocol included five questions plus relevant question probes. During the second cycle, interviews were conducted to understand why graduate students took part in the CoP and to learn of their expectations at the start of the process. In addition, the questions focused on the processes within the CoP, the benefits and drawbacks of engaging in the CoP process, and the graduate students’ suggestions on improving the CoP. Specifically, an attempt was made to understand whether the participants met their expectations in terms of their academic skills improvement. Prior to applying the interview protocols, expert opinion was sought to increase the credibility of the instruments. Interviews with each participant lasted between 30 and 45 min.

The researchers followed the analytic procedures of qualitative data analysis suggested by Marshall and Rossman (1999). For the first step, organizing the data, one of the researchers transcribed all the interview audio recordings verbatim. After the transcription was complete, the researcher read all the data repeatedly to become thoroughly familiar with the data and to ensure a strong insight had been gained. For the second step, generating categories, themes, and patterns, coding was performed to formulate the emerging codes. While coding, three researchers worked independently in generating the initial codes. Then, all codes were examined together and categorized under themes, applying the method of inductive data analysis. Together, the researchers examined the codes and provided feedback about what they considered to be misleading data. As a next step, searching for alternative explanations, an expert was asked to examine the codes, and according to their feedback, a final code list was compiled from which to find the most plausible codes. For the final step, report writing, the researchers summarized the data by engaging in an interpretative act.

Findings of the First Cycle

According to the interviews conducted with the participants, four themes were generated: (a) impression, (b) sense of belonging, (c) negative criticism, and (d) future expectations. In terms of impressions of the ARWG, the interviewees indicated that being part of such a group provided many benefits, including opportunities to conduct academic research and study with new colleagues, and information transformation. These benefits were emphasized by the participants as their first impressions of the ARWG. Those themes provided insights on the decision to continue the ARWG and encouraged researchers to voluntarily contribute to the CoP. Conducting academic research is a part of the researcher’s role and was considered a positive outcome of the ARWG. Related to this, one of the participants stated that “There was a need. Generally, we do not conduct research except for homework.” This is valuable information for the researchers, as conducting research is in line with the purpose of the ARWG. In addition, meeting and studying with new colleagues was evaluated as a positive outcome by the participants, with one having stated, “First of all, the existence of the group is already a good thing. I find it successful since its aim is collaboration instead of competition. It allows us to study with people that we have not met before.” Regarding the information transformation, one participant pointed out that, “We do not see ourselves as sufficient to start a research. However, with the help of this group, the more experienced in the group directed us. This was a really good experience.”

In addition to the first impressions of the participants, their sense of belonging was another issue investigated. Despite the positive impressions provided by the interviewees, there were some negative comments about their sense of belonging. Four of the participants indicated that they experienced problems developing their sense of belonging to the ARWG because they were very busy with other academic responsibilities. On that matter, one participant stated, “Actually, I could not focus enough on the group because of my qualification exam. However, the idea is really original.” The inability to develop a sense of belonging can be seen as an indicator of problems related to individual commitments.

When the interviewees were asked to offer negative criticism, their answers were grouped as either time-related or about communication between groups. Time was the most problematic issue related to the ARWG because the time allocated for academic studies was limited, and as a result, it became difficult to finish the studies in time for the conferences. One of the participants stated, “Actually, the process is good; however, there is an issue here to be considered: time-related problems.” Other than the time problems, communication was also reported as problematic because there was no interaction between the groups. Accordingly, one of them suggested that, “As a whole group we should gather, and at least we should share what we are doing.”

Finally, future expectations regarding the ARWG were also sought, and all the participants agreed upon the continuation of the ARWG. They indicated that this kind of a formation should exist, providing the opportunity for group members to conduct academic studies. As a future expectation, one of the interviewees stated, “If feedback were offered to the group, it would be motivating for the participants, and we should be kept informed about the other studies.” Similarly, another interviewee mentioned, “Consciousness level was limited. Maybe there should be face-to-face meetings. Maybe we could discuss methodologies.”

Finally, at the end of the first cycle, based on the interviews, certain judgments were made by the researchers, and some modifications recommended for the next cycle. Because all the participants agreed that the ARWG should continue, the researchers decided to continue their work and to improve the quality of the CoP. Also, the reported problematic issues were analyzed and, based on the observations of the researchers, new ideas emerged. In dealing with the time-related problems, the researchers decided to begin the second cycle earlier. From this conclusion, researchers will be much more flexible in their studies. Also, regarding the disconnection between groups, monthly face-to-face meetings were held in the second cycle to facilitate a process of feedback from other group members and to ascertain any research-related issues, in particular, the research progress of other groups.

Findings of the Second Cycle

According to the interviews, three themes emerged, which were (a) motivation for participation, (b) impression, and (c) future expectation. In terms of motivation for participation, the participants were motivated to engage in the CoP from a desire to conduct research and to work in a group. First, the participants shared similar reasons and motivation for participating in the CoP: conducting research and receiving feedback. Three of the participants stated that they wanted to participate in the group because they intended to conduct research, and were therefore internally motivated. Related to this idea, one of the participants pointed out that because the community was product driven, they were motivated to take part in this CoP. Two of the participants also stated that their motivation was based on working within a group because all the groups interacted with each other, and when one group experienced problems, the other groups were able to suggest solutions. Related to this thought, one of the participants said, “When a problem occurs in a group of three people, the others can contribute,” while another participant stated, “This group allowed us to gather and to conduct research, which we normally don’t do.” Furthermore, feedback is an issue associated with group working. Receiving feedback was considered important by the participants, with one of them having stated an opinion about feedback as, “All of the groups support each other. This is very good since we will get the ideas of others.”

The second issue was impression, which comprised the subcategories of regular meetings, brainstorming, communication, and deficient background. Three of the participants stated having positive impressions toward the holding of regular meetings, and pointed out that they are beneficial for all the groups in terms of their progress because as participants they feel responsible. One of the participants stated that, “You have a responsibility because, despite the fact that the others [in the group] are your friends, you have a responsibility towards them.” In the same way, regular deadlines were considered important for the participants, with one stating, “There are determined deadlines. Those deadlines automatically help us to study regularly.”

Brainstorming was another issue under the impression theme. When meetings were conducted, all the groups presented their studies, and all the groups engaged in brainstorming the problems raised. One participant said, “During the meeting, something was mentioned by the others that I had never thought of before. There were different ideas about how to do the research and how to gather data. We were brainstorming.” Therefore, brainstorming and feedback were seen as being important for the participants, and gave a better impression of the CoP.

The third issue under the impression theme was communication. Most of the participants expressed their pleasure in terms of the communication of the group. The CoP’s Facebook group was seen as especially beneficial because each group had the chance to observe the progress of the other groups. One participant pointed out, “We are always in communication. Certainly, we are in communication with others, including the Facebook group.”

The last issue under the impression theme was having a deficient background. When theories or methodologies were discussed, some of the participants had an inadequate background in that area and did not understand the subject. This was reported as a negative impression by some of the participants, with one having stated that, “All groups talk based on their existing knowledge. Sometimes they talk about something that I do not know or understand.”

Considering the future expectations of the participants, there were four main issues. First, the participants expected to receive professional support. Three of the participants mentioned that there could be lessons on writing and research topics, and that faculty members could help them during the process. Related to this, one of the participants stated that, “If an expert joins the group, it would be better; for example, someone with expertise on research methods.” The second suggestion was that the groups could prepare larger projects such as European Union sponsored, or they could establish relations with researchers based in other countries. Thus, larger and more qualified projects could be conducted. The third suggestion was with regard to the group’s meeting duration. Some of the participants suggested that a fixed duration should be given to each group, and that the time should be controlled by others. Thus, each group would have an equal chance to explain their activities and to receive feedback. The final suggestion was about forming groups. One of the participants proposed that group members should meet beforehand to minimize member anxiety. In other words, those who know each other could form a group and then attend the ARWG group.

Discussion and Conclusion

First Cycle of the Research

In the first cycle of the study, the participants provided their initial findings on the relationships they had developed and the impressions they had formed throughout their legitimate peripheral participation within the ARWG. Moreover, these participants described the changes in their self-perception as researchers, and mentioned the development of a sense of belonging to the research field. However, they also referred to certain problems to be considered for future ARWG implementations. The challenges specified related to team building, lack of time, and the feedback mechanism.

The first problem was about team building strategy. Groups within the CoP were randomly established based on the research interests of the ARWG members to prepare a conference paper. Some group members had already been studying toward their research, and wanted to participate in the ARWG to benefit from a more effective learning environment. Moreover, a few members participated in more than one group. This unstructured group formation resulted in wide variance regarding the number of group members so that the system could not provide balance within the groups. This approach may not have provided strong group ties and forthrightness among the group members. Villa et al. (2013) discussed their findings with regard to strong group ties and a sense of camaraderie, which supported the development of group members’ self-confidence. Although the assumptions for strong group ties correlate to the number of group members and an unstructured team building strategy, this strategy may have an effect on the relationships between group members.

The second problem identified by the participants of the first cycle was related to time constraint. The participants could not adequately contribute to their groups in general within the ARWG. The participants also reported feeling overwhelmed because of their workloads, and as a result, this most probably negatively affected their contribution to the group. Finally, a lack of feedback mechanism was emphasized by the participants, proposing an ARWG practice to critique each other’s research ideas and methodologies. Similarly, Villa et al. (2013) reported that the most prominent characteristic was commenting on other groups’ research and receiving critique from others within the CoP. This may be a crucial factor in helping the development of students’ professional and research skills. Wisker et al. (2007) also stated that peer support groups, which provide help on research-related issues, are important for critical thinking and for the development of professional skills.

Second Cycle of the Research

The initial findings were that newly added ARWG structures, including weekly meetings for formed groups, monthly face-to-face meetings among groups, and research topics, all provided positive experiences for the group members. The participants were able to undertake research and to elaborate on their research ideas within distinct groups, and then had the opportunity to brainstorm along with other group members at the face-to-face meetings, and also to receive feedback on their proposed research ideas and methodologies. This feedback mechanism was positively welcomed by the ARWG members, and may be due to the need for professional socialization and intellectual support from other researchers. Thiry and Laursen (2011) highlighted the importance of the relationship between academic advisors and their students in supporting both emotional/intellectual development and professional socialization.

Similarly, within the context of providing professional socialization for novice researchers, researchers who had passed their PhD qualification exams, but who had yet to begin their PhD studies interacted with each other and practiced within the CoP. However, some of the group members noted an insufficiency in the feedback received and suggested inviting other professionals to join the CoP or to elicit external support to foster a broader academic and professional community. Villa et al. (2013) also attempted to maintain group relations by fostering connections with broader communities. They reported that such professional connections increased the possibility of collaborative working within different projects, and that students with a defined role within the group were more motivated to participate in the group. In the current study’s ARWG, the graduate students defined their roles within the group, whereas the coordinators defined the roles among the groups. Having a role within the group may motivate group members to participate wholeheartedly.

The final interviews conducted at the end of the first cycle revealed that some group members had not been able to develop a sense of belonging to the community (CoP). This may be caused by a lack of communication and brainstorming between group members, or from a lack of coordination within the groups. In this cycle, the researchers had no direct advice with regard to sense of belonging; however, group members were able to contribute to their groups and to communicate with each other as part of a weekly routine. Such motivation may depend upon the initial orientation of each individual member of the ARWG. During this orientation, individual members were informed about the schedule and encouraged to set targets to achieve that goal. This may facilitate the enculturation process of graduate students within the ARWG; as they become active participants of the group, they may contribute more within the group. Hemmings (2012) discussed that, over time, researchers who collaboratively work with other researchers, and have the opportunity to be supported themselves, belong to the social fabric of that community and thereby contribute more. Similarly, Curtin et al. (2013) reported that sense of belonging highly correlates with the relationship between the academic advisor and graduate student. In the current study’s ARWG, there were no advisors for individual members, but peers each took on the advisor’s role for each other.

Implications

To address the academic needs of graduate students, CoPs offer great opportunities to conduct research within a collaborative and cooperative environment. The main issue that should be emphasized in composing a CoP is that it is necessary to gather the opinions and feedback of participants throughout the process. Involving users in the process ensures that the solution is fit for purpose and therefore fit for participants. Based on the findings of the current study, the main impact is that CoPs provide informal interaction between graduate students who have mutual interest in a specific topic and thus encourage persistence in the discipline. Considering the challenges PhD students face during their academic journey, ensuring an adequate level of engagement within the learning environments to become active participants of the discipline is critical. Thus, graduate students can improve their professional socialization and thereby their professional identity. CoPs should be incorporated into graduate programs to help students to improve their professional and independent research skills, which therefore provides additional value for their academic life. Also, CoPs help students to acquire additional skills, instead of just being a good course-taker.

Limitations

Data of the study were limited to the semi-structured interviews. Further research could utilize triangulation to improve the trustworthiness of the research data. For instance, an identity development inventory could be applied within the CoP.

The other limitation relates to the membership process. Either individuals or groups can participate in the activities at the beginning of the semester. However, throughout the semester, not all individuals or groups can participate fully in the CoP. It is still open to question whether voluntary members should be able to contribute to a CoP as a guest.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Tugba Kamali Arslantas

Okan Arslan

References

Bieber

J. P.

Worley

L. K.

(2006). Conceptualizing the academic life: Graduate students’ perspectives. Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1009–1035.

Campbell

R. A.

(2003). Preparing the next generation of scientists: The social process of managing students. Social Studies of Science, 33(6), 897–927.

Curtin

Stewart

A. J.

Ostrove

J. M.

(2013). Fostering academic self-concept: Advisor support and sense of belonging among international and domestic graduate students. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 108–137.

Deem

Brehony

K. J.

(2000). Doctoral students’ access to research cultures-are some more unequal than others? Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–165.

Gina

Gillian

Miri

(2007). Postgraduate research success: Communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(3), 301–320.

Hasrati

(2005). Legitimate peripheral participation and supervising Ph.D. students. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249252

Hemmings

(2012). Sources of research confidence for early career academics: A qualitative study. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 171–184.

Hunter

A. B.

Laursen

S. L.

Seymour

(2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36–74.

Irving

P. W.

Sayre

E. C.

(2014). Conditions for building a community of practice in an advanced physics laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 10(1), 010109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.010109

10.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

11.

Lee

(1998). Doctoral research as writing. In Higgs

(Ed.), Writing qualitative research (pp. 124–142). Hampden Press.

12.

Lovitts

B. E.

(2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Rowman & Littlefield.

13.

Lovitts

B. E.

(2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500043093

14.

MacLure

(2003). Discourse in educational and social research. McGraw-Hill Education.

15.

Marshall

Rossman

G. B.

(1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

16.

Reeves

T. C.

(2000, April). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies [Paper presentation]. The annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. http://treeves.coe.uga.edu/AERA2000Reeves.pdf

17.

Reigeluth

C. M.

Frick

T. W.

(1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In Reigeluth

C. M.

(Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 633–651). Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Richardson

. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 379–396). SAGE.

19.

Scott

Usher

(2010). Researching education: Data, methods and theory in educational enquiry. Bloomsbury Publishing.

20.

Thiry

Laursen

S. L.

(2011). The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 771–784.

21.

Villa

E. Q.

Kephart

Gates

A. Q.

Thiry

Hug

(2013). Affinity research groups in practice: Apprenticing students in research. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 444–466.

22.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.

23.

Wenger

(2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002

24.

Wenger

E. C.

Snyder

W. M

. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard business review, 78(1), 139–146.

25.

Wenger

McDermott

Snyder

W. M.

(2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard University Press.

26.

Wisker

Robinson

Shacham

(2007). Postgraduate research success: Communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(3), 301–320.