Reconciliatory socialization: Conceptualizing the experiences of Evangelical Christian doctoral students in secular higher education

Abstract

Weidman, Twale and Stein’s (2001) model of graduate student socialization has served as a theoretical starting point for understanding the experiences of doctoral students. Although a number of scholars have critiqued the model for failing to account for the unique experiences of different student groups, none has specifically approached the model with Evangelical Christian doctoral students in mind. Building on the literature on Evangelical Christian students in secular higher education, this article offers a reconceptualization of Weidman et al.’s (2001) model that accounts for the unique experiences of Evangelical Christian doctoral students in secular higher education. This revised model, called reconciliatory socialization, serves as a conceptual framework by which to conduct empirical research on the experiences of Evangelical Christian doctoral students in secular settings.

Keywords

doctoral studies Evangelicalism graduate student socialization identity development spirituality student development theory

Introduction

Research on the role spirituality plays in the lives of undergraduates in secular higher education institutions occupies a significant portion of the higher education literature (Astin, 2004; Astin and Astin, 2003; Astin et al., 2003; Jablonski et al., 2001; Lindholm, 2007; Lindholm and Astin, 2008; Lindholm et al., 2013; Love, 2001; Tisdell, 2001, 2003). Within this burgeoning body of literature, some scholars have explored how Evangelical Christians navigate and experience higher education institutions (Argue, 2015;¹ Bryant, 2005, 2006a, b, 2007; Magolda and Ebben, 2006; Magolda and Gross 2009; Moran, 2007). However, although this literature continues to grow, research on the experience of Evangelical Christian graduate students—particularly those studying for a doctoral degree—is sparse (Coley, 2010: 396). As a result, a conceptual model exploring how this population navigates through graduate school does not currently exist.

Weidman et al. (2001), summarizing decades of research on the experiences of graduate students, proposed a four-stage model of graduate student socialization that attempts to understand how graduate students transition from students into professional researchers. Although some scholars have critiqued the model for not accounting for different student populations (Ellis, 2001; Nguyen, 2016;² Sallee, 2011a, b; Ward and Bensimon, 2002; Williams et al., 2016), none has specifically examined how the model fails to address students who identify as Evangelical Christians.

The purpose of this article is to modify Weidman et al.’s (2001) theory of graduate student socialization in light of the experiences of Evangelical Christian doctoral students. As there is little research on the experience of Evangelical Christian doctoral students, this article draws on previous studies to sketch an understanding of this population. Thus, my modification to Weidman et al.’s (2001) model will be conceptual in nature, and hopefully encourage educational researchers to use the model as a starting point for research on Evangelical Christian doctoral students. To begin the article, I explore the Evangelical Christian student population, detailing the unique experiences of these students. Next, I summarize Weidman et al.’s (2001) model and review literature that has critiqued the model, arguing that the model does not account for the experiences of Evangelical Christian doctoral students. I then modify Weidman et al.’s (2001) model to accommodate the Evangelical Christian doctoral student population and create a revised model which I term reconciliatory socialization. Finally, I highlight the limitation, benefits, and implications of this revised model.

Evangelical Christian students

Defining the Evangelical Christian student population

According to Bebbington (1992: 2–3), Evangelicals hold to four key tenets: “conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be termed crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.” Similarly, Balmer (2004) contends that Evangelical Christians adhere to the Bible as their guide for faith and life, actively share their faith with others, and emphasize the need for personal spiritual conversion in others. They are committed to following the teachings of Jesus Christ, working to honor God, and demonstrating to others that following Jesus is the best way to live one’s life (Balmer, 2004).

Based on research from the Gallup organization and the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College, self-identified Evangelical Christians comprise approximately 30–35 percent of the population in the United States (Gallup, 2005; Wheaton College, n.d.). Of college graduates, 66 percent identify as simply “Christian” and 21 percent identify as “Evangelical Protestant” (Wormald, 2015). “Unaffiliated” students, who either identify as atheist, agnostic, or “nothing in particular” comprise 25 percent of college graduates, with 14 percent identifying as “nothing in particular” (Wormald, 2015). Thus, Evangelical Protestants comprise roughly one-fifth of college graduates in the United States, the largest group of college graduates in terms of religious identification.

Evangelical Christian students and secular higher education

The majority status of Evangelical Christians in the United States has prompted scholars to explore the notion of “Christian privilege” (Schlosser, 2003; Schlosser and Sedlacek, 2003; Seifert, 2007), which Seifert (2007: 11) defines as “the conscious and subconscious advantages often afforded the Christian faith” in colleges and universities in North America. Christians enjoy a number of privileges that religiously minoritized groups do not, such as the national celebration of major holidays (Christmas and Easter), references to God on governmental artifacts and texts, members serving in the highest levels of government, and positive portrayals in mainstream media (Ahmadi and Cole, 2014; Clark and Brimhall-Vargas, 2003; Schlosser, 2003). Scholars such as Ahmadi and Cole (2014) and Shahjahan (2005) contend that the system of higher education privileges Christian students and, therefore, does not challenge their status as privileged citizens.

Despite the notion of Christian privilege, a number of scholars have argued that secular higher education indeed does challenge Evangelical Christian students in significant ways (Bryant, 2005, 2006a, b, 2011; Bryant and Astin, 2008; Hulett, 2004; Lowery, 2001; Magolda and Ebben, 2006; Mayhew et al., 2014; Moran et al., 2007). Hulett (2004) studied 301 students at a private liberal arts college to uncover attitudes toward Christian groups on campus. Students and faculty on campus accused these Christian groups of intolerance, arrogance, and exclusivity. Hulett’s (2004) study confirmed the findings of Lowery (2001), who studied the classroom experiences of Evangelical Christian students at a Midwestern comprehensive university. Students described feeling like “outsiders” to the dominant culture on campus, and were often the target of sharp challenges and attacks both inside and outside the classroom (Lowery, 2001).

Bryant (2005) studied the experiences of Evangelical Christian students in a west-coast research university. She discovered that these students experienced significant disdain and antagonism from other students who disagreed with their Evangelical beliefs, values, and behaviors. Furthermore, Bryant (2005: 24) concluded that “students experienced uneasiness upon recognizing the contrasts between their own beliefs and behaviors and those of the dominant peer culture on the university campus.” Schulz (2005) discovered that Evangelical Christian students did not feel comfortable expressing their viewpoint in the classroom for fear of receiving judgment from their peers. Similarly, Thomson (2009³) uncovered that students received negative feedback from composition faculty when seeking to integrate their Christian beliefs into their writing assignments. Furthermore, Evangelical Christian students described feeling “out-voiced,” “misunderstood,” and “unaccepted” on campus (Moran et al., 2007: 28–30).

As a means of social integration and spiritual support, Evangelical Christian students often become involved in Christian campus ministry organizations (Astin et al., 2010; Bryant, 2007; Lee, 2002; Magolda and Gross, 2009; Moran et al., 2007). These organizations, such as Cru, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Navigators, and Young Life, provide spiritual care and opportunities for service, fellowship, and worship. Schmalzbauer (2013) estimated that roughly 250,000 students belonged to Evangelical campus ministry organizations. Moran et al. (2007: 32) found that in order to cope with the challenges of being Christian on a secular campus, students would often join a campus ministry as a “coping mechanism.” Students described campus ministries as providing a familiar space for vulnerability, care, and support in the midst of antagonism inside and outside the classroom (Moran et al., 2007: 32–33). The antagonism that Evangelical Christian students face could be related not only to the religious privilege they experience in the United States, but also to the assumptions non-Christians carry regarding Christians (i.e., homophobic, racist, arrogant, hypocritical, etc.). However, the reasons as to why Evangelical Christians experience antagonism on secular college campuses are outside the scope of this article. Oftentimes, ministry leaders function as important role models, mentors, and counselors to Evangelical Christian students experiencing difficult circumstances (Craft et al., 2009).

Moran et al. (2007: 34) uncovered that Evangelical Christian students often face paradoxical feelings of both privilege and marginalization in the academy, a term they call “social status ambiguity.” They discovered that in secular higher education, Evangelical Christian students often experience a “cultural incongruity” wherein their faith was not as respected as other faiths, and their beliefs and behavioral choices (such as abstinence from drinking, partying, and sexual activity) were often met with disapproval from peers. However, although these students often felt religious antagonism, they did not recognize their privileged status in society and in the academy (Ahmadi and Cole, 2014; Clark and Brimhall-Vargas, 2003; Moran et al., 2007; Schlosser, 2003). Moran et al. (2007: 35) are also hesitant to define Evangelical Christian students as an “oppressed” student group because they do not experience systemic mistreatment as a result of their religious affiliation.

Evangelical Christian doctoral students

As the literature demonstrates, the pervasiveness of Christian privilege in secular higher education does not preclude the possibility of Christian marginalization on college campuses. The multitude of studies cited demonstrates a pattern of anti-Evangelical sentiment on secular university campuses. For Evangelical Christian doctoral students in particular, this may not necessarily extend to lifestyle choices (abstinence from alcohol, premarital sex, partying, etc.), but may apply in the classroom (Coley, 2010; Thomson, 2009³). The level of marginalization Evangelical Christian doctoral students experience might also depend on the discipline. For instance, in STEM departments in the United States, only 2 percent of faculty consider themselves Evangelical (Ecklund, 2010). In an essay for Inside Higher Education, Timothy Larsen, a historian, writes of the anti-Christian sentiment he received regarding a manuscript he submitted to a prestigious book series. The criticisms against his work were not academic in nature, but rather sustained critiques on Christianity instead. One reviewer admitted that they were “unsympathetic” to Larsen’s work for mainly “prejudiced” reasons (Larsen, 2010). Furthermore, in his survey of collegiate faculty, Yancey (2017) discovered that 53 percent of English professors and 59 percent of anthropology professors were less likely to hire faculty members who explicitly identify as Evangelical Christians.

Evangelical Christian students should not maintain a persecution complex; they must welcome the rich, challenging dialogue that exists in the secular academy. But these stories and studies suggest that Evangelical Christian doctoral students face special challenges in the secular academy, even when it comes to the hiring practices of secular institutions. Unfortunately, as Coley (2010) has suggested, empirical research on Evangelical doctoral students is sparse. Thus, there exists a need to reconceptualize student development models in light of the unique nature of the Evangelical Christian student population. The next section will explore Weidman et al.’s (2001) socialization model in order to construct a new model of socialization that accounts for the experiences of Evangelical Christian doctoral students and can be applied to empirical research on this student group.

Weidman et al.’s (2001) graduate student socialization model

Higher education researchers have explored doctoral socialization in depth for many years (Ali and Kohun, 2007; Antony, 2002; Antony and Taylor, 2004; Austin, 2002; Bircher et al., 2010; Gardner, 2008a, 2008b, 2010a, 2010b; Gardner and Mendoza, 2010; Golde, 1998; Nguyen, 2016;² Weidman et al., 2001). Golde (1998: 56) described the process of socialization as when “a newcomer is made a member of a community—in the case of graduate students, the community of an academic department in a particular discipline.” Building on the work of Thornton and Nardi (1975), Weidman et al. (2001) described doctoral student socialization as involving three core elements (knowledge acquisition, investment, and involvement), and occurring in four interactive stages: anticipatory, formal, informal, and personal.

Elements of socialization

Three core elements characterize the four stages of socialization. The first core element is knowledge acquisition. During socialization, a student’s understanding of disciplinary knowledge becomes more specific and complex. The doctoral student becomes “aware of his or her capacity to participate in a professional culture because he or she knows its language, heritage, and etiquette” (Weidman et al., 2001: 16). The second core element of socialization is investment. The process of socialization requires students to invest their time, mental capacity, and energy to their studies. As they progress throughout their programs, their ability to change professional course direction and pursue another line of professional preparation becomes substantially more difficult (Weidman et al., 2001: 17). The final core element of socialization is involvement. Throughout their doctoral studies, students frequently participate in professional activities, which serve as a powerful means of identity formation. Weidman et al. (2001: 18) wrote, “it is involvement in the role and thinking about the personal meaning of participation in that role that brings about professional role identification.” These core elements are prevalent in the formal and informal stages of Weidman et al.’s (2001) model, and form a powerful trifecta that socializes doctoral students into a chosen professional identity.

The anticipatory stage: The first stage of graduate student socialization, called the anticipatory stage, occurs primarily as students enter their programs and learn new roles, procedures, and agendas. New doctoral students tend to actively seek information and listen carefully to directions. Weidman et al. (2001: 12) described this stage as the student becoming “aware of the behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive expectations held for a role incumbent.” The student experiences ambiguity regarding the roles and values held by doctoral students, and most of their understanding in this area stems from pictures of the academic life perpetuated in the media (Weidman et al., 2001: 12).

The formal stage: The formal stage is characterized by the graduate student observing roles of incumbent and advanced students, while learning about role expectations. “Students are inducted into the program, practice role rehearsal, and thereby determine their degree of fitness, observe and imitate expectations through role taking, and become familiar faces in the program” (Weidman et al., 2001: 13). Students then become “veteran newcomers” who increasingly have more responsibility in the program (Weidman et al., 2001: 13). Students continue to learn the formal aspects of the program, and are still in need of “concrete information on normative standards, rewards, and sanctions” (Weidman et al., 2001: 13).

The informal stage: The informal stage is where “the novice learns of the informal role expectations transmitted by interactions with others who are current role incumbents” (Weidman, 2001: 14). At this time, the graduate student receives behavioral cues and observes acceptable behavior in order to respond and react accordingly. A portion of this information comes from faculty, but most comes from students, who “tend to develop their own peer culture and social and emotional support system among classmates” (Weidman et al., 2001: 14). Student cohorts emerge as sources of emotional support and belonging. The student practices elements of the formal stage by continuing to meet role requirements and fulfill formal expectations, but acquires informal cues about expectations through interactions with others. At this stage, the doctoral student adopts the practices and values of the professional academic culture and feels “less student-like” (Weidman et al., 2001: 14). This is evident through further involvement in professional academic organizations, experience presenting and publishing papers, and engagement in academic service activities.

The personal stage: Weidman et al. (2001: 14) described the final stage, the personal stage, as a time when the students’ “individual and social roles, personalities and social structures become fused and the role is internalized.” During this final stage, the graduate student accepts the value orientation of the specific disciplinary culture and adjusts their behavior in order to meet the expectations that exist in a particular disciplinary culture. In their words, the student will “relinquish former ways, and resolve any conflict impeding a total role transformation” (Weidman et al., 2001: 15). The personal stage is a continually evolving process, where students “mature and experience compliance with values and attitudes, higher expectations of themselves as well as from the faculty, and more freedom” (Weidman et al., 2001: 15). Students sharpen their research interests, they seek validation and legitimacy through acquiring research grants, fellowships, and scholarships, and eventually evolve into their “ultimate role as scholar and colleague” (Weidman et al., 2001: 15). Students ponder their next steps, searching for faculty positions, assessing their marketability, reflecting on how their research interests contribute to the advancement of knowledge, and committing to “personal and professional development beyond graduation” (Weidman et al., 2001: 15).

Critiques of graduate student socialization

Despite providing a useful framework by which to understand the doctoral experience, several scholars have critiqued Weidman et al.’s (2001) socialization model on many grounds. Ward and Bensimon (2002) argued that the socialization process is not gender-blind, colorblind, or neutral. They argued that “higher education has been and continues to be a male-dominated enterprise. As a result, academic culture and the socialization that accompanies it reflect the experiences of men” (Ward and Bensimon, 2002: 433). Many scholars have followed the critique of Ward and Bensimon (2002), offering divergent reflection on socialization emerging from the voices of marginalized doctoral students.

According to some scholars, Weidman et al.’s (2001) socialization model assumes that doctoral students experience socialization to the same degree, are preparing for faculty positions, enroll full-time, and possess adequate resources to attend school (Ellis, 2001; Nguyen, 2016;² Williams et al., 2016). Recognizing how Weidman et al.’s (2001) model perpetuates homogeneous assumptions, Gardner (2008a: 128) argued that “the experiences of the students who do not fit the traditional mold of graduate education (i.e., anyone other than young, White males) are explainable in that these students’ socialization experience is not entirely normative due to differences in their underrepresented status.” Other scholars such as Felder et al. (2014), Gildersleeve et al. (2011), and González (2006) explored how the socialization process can serve as an oppressive force against racially minoritized student populations. González (2006) especially highlighted how socialization diminishes the agency students possess in contributing to, and pushing back on, the epistemological assumptions of their respective disciplines. Gardner (2008b) discovered students of color consistently expressed a general lack of satisfaction in their programs as well as difficulty integrating into programmatic standards. Gardner (2008b) also critiqued Weidman et al.’s (2001: 135) socialization model for not accounting for disciplinary, personal, or institutional differences. Sallee (2011b) critiqued Weidman et al. (2001) for their assertion that students need to abandon their personal values as a means of seeking legitimacy in their chosen discipline. Sallee (2011b: 174) wrote that this assumption “has damaging effects for any graduate students who deviate from the norm. For example, a student who values service to the community will learn that such behaviors are not rewarded in academia.”

In a recent update to Weidman et al.’s (2001) socialization model, Twale et al. (2016) explored how the socialization model could be modified to account for the experiences of African American doctoral students. Weidman and Twale recognized that despite providing a useful model for conceptualizing the doctoral experience, their 2001 model was “criticized for not going far enough in addressing specific student populations and institutional conditions” (Twale et al., 2016). Twale et al. (2016) do not overhaul the Weidman et al. (2001) model, but rather “tweak” the model in order to account for racial and ethnic concerns. They maintain the original four stages of the model, but add suggestions such as weaving a “diverse” curriculum throughout the doctoral program, adding more faculty of color, and encouraging students to explore “African American issues” (Twale et al., 2016: 88).

Evangelical Christian doctoral students and the socialization process

Relevant literature demonstrates that Weidman et al.’s (2001) model does not account for the perspectives of minoritized or underrepresented populations, an oversight that Weidman and Twale have acknowledged (Twale et al., 2016). Although Evangelical Christian students are the beneficiaries of Christian privilege, they nonetheless feel unsupported in secular higher education settings. Jonathan Walton, a Black Evangelical who teaches at Harvard Divinity School, muses “the same arguments I hear people make about Evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor” (Kristof, 2016: para. 17). Conceptualizing Evangelical Christian students as an unsupported population provides a useful bridge between the literature critiquing Weidman et al.’s (2001) model and my own critiques of the model.

As previously demonstrated, Evangelical Christians often experience marginalization on college campuses owing to the conflict between their beliefs and values and the dominance of secular discourse in higher education (Bryant, 2005; Hulett, 2004; Magolda and Ebben, 2006). This leads Evangelical Christian students to find religious communities (a church, Bible study, or campus ministry) that provide needed encouragement and support in their navigation of academia (Argue, 2015;¹ Astin et al., 2010; Lee, 2002; Magolda and Gross, 2009; Moran et al., 2007), similar to how minoritized populations seek out the same kinds of communities (Quaye and Harper, 2014). Weidman et al.’s (2001) model does not suggest the possibility that students with certain identities (whether racial, ethnic, or religious) will experience marginalization in their programs. The model only accounts for academic challenges, but not challenges to religious identity. Students entering doctoral programs can expect to be challenged academically. but religious challenges, such as those brought against Evangelical Christians, can be especially marginalizing. Thus, Weidman et al.’s (2001) model does not fully account for the possibility of marginalization based on religious identification, Moreover, the socialization process prescribed by Weidman et al. (2001), while acknowledging the role of such communities in the development of a doctoral student’s identity, diminishes the role that non-academic communities play in the formation of students. In the lives of Evangelical Christian students who feel unsupported or disconnected from campus life, membership in religious groups provides a space to normalize experiences, receive support, and maintain religious convictions in the face of external influences toward intellectual conformity (Magolda and Gross, 2009).

Weidman et al. (2001) assumed that the development of a professional identity is the primary goal of the doctoral experience. However, as some scholars have indicated, many students often attend college as a means of following a call on their life which they believe to be from God (Bryant, 2005; Lindsay, 2008; Moran et al., 2007). Weidman et al.’s (2001: 19) model demands that the doctoral student “relinquish former ways,” yet the relinquishment of former ways may be a non-negotiable for Evangelical Christian students. James KA Smith (2009, 2016) has asserted that the habits that comprise our daily lives ultimately point toward a telos, or ultimate goal. For the Evangelical Christian, daily practices should ultimately direct one toward greater love for both God and neighbor (Smith, 2009, 2016). In contrast, the socialization process demands that doctoral students abandon their “former ways” and resolve impediments to their total transformation as professionals (Weidman et al., 2001: 15). The model thus assumes that the only goal of doctoral studies is to become an academic professional, whereas Evangelical Christian students may enter doctoral studies for other reasons. For Evangelical Christian doctoral students intent on maintaining their religious identity, the zero-sum nature of socialization conflicts with Evangelical beliefs regarding the need to completely devote oneself to God through their work (Lindsay, 2008; Schuurman, 2016).

Finally, Weidman et al. (2001) failed to account for the importance of hiring faculty from minoritized populations as a means of helping students from such populations explore their interests and develop professionally throughout their doctoral studies (Felder et al., 2014; Gardner, 2008b; González, 2006). Doctoral students whose Evangelical Christian identities are at the center of their life and work may find an academic setting that lacks faculty who share their beliefs to be unsupportive, deterring students from full involvement in the program. Weidman et al. (2001) fail to account for the role of faculty in supporting the individual identities of their students, such as religious identity. As Hulett (2004) and Schulz (2005) discovered, the higher education classroom can be a particularly unsupportive space for Evangelical Christian students, especially when faculty do not defend these students from attacks by their peers. Evangelical Christian students, while remaining open to critiques and challenges to their beliefs, are in need of some structural support from faculty who share, or are sympathetic to, their beliefs.

Reconciliatory socialization

Building on Weidman et al.’s (2001) model, I propose my revised model, which I term reconciliatory socialization. Reconciliatory socialization is the process by which Evangelical Christian doctoral students reconcile their identities as academics and people of faith. I call this model “reconciliatory,” not only because of the reconciliation that occurs between professional and religious identities, but also to push back on the dualism we perpetuate between our faith and our work. As Schuurman (2016: 60) writes, a key aspect of the Protestant Reformation was the notion that faith and life go hand in hand. Thus, “our callings offer opportunities to serve our neighbors. Whether it is changing diapers or working for an employer, all ‘secular’ work is infused with religious meaning as a spiritual service or worship of God.” Reconciliatory socialization includes three core elements, much like Weidman et al. (2001), and is comprised of four interactive stages held together by the three core elements (see Figure 1). The inclusion of dotted lines and shades of gray indicates the fluid nature of the model, and emphasizes the reconciliation that occurs between academic and religious identities.

Figure 1.

Reconciliatory socialization.

Elements of reconciliatory socialization

Mirroring Weidman et al. (2001), my model contains three core elements which interact with one another throughout the process (see Figure 1). The first core element is Moran et al.’s (2007) term “social status ambiguity,” which describes the dual sense of privilege and marginalization Evangelical students experience in a secular educational environment. As I will demonstrate, this is present throughout the process of reconciliatory socialization. The second core element is the push/pull of academic and religious perspectives. Throughout the process, students will seek to reconcile the knowledge they acquire in their program with their faith-based assumptions (Jacobson and Jacobson, 2004; Marsden, 1997; Noll, 1994; Smith and Smith, 2011). This depends on how conducive particular disciplines are to conversations around faith–learning integration. Students will critique the perspectives of the academy from a Christian perspective, and will critique their religious beliefs and faith communities from an academic perspective. The push/pull can ultimately lead to a reconciled identity owing to the students’ ability to effectively navigate both academic and religious realms. The final element of reconciliatory socialization is dual community involvement. Rendón et al. (2000) propose the notion of academic biculturalism, which allows students to fully integrate into both academic and home cultures. For Evangelical Christian doctoral students, involvement in a religious community is essential in their continued development as people of faith. These three elements are present throughout the process of reconciliatory socialization, and form a trifecta that serves as a reconciling force between one’s academic and religious identities.

The fragmented stage: In the first stage of reconciliatory socialization, the fragmented stage, Evangelical Christian students enter doctoral programs and learn the roles and procedures that program personnel expect from them. They have preconceptions of doctoral study which they may have gathered from the media (Weidman et al., 2001: 12), or fellow Evangelical Christians who have attained doctorates. In addition to learning information about what the department or program expects from them, Evangelical Christian students will seek community with other Evangelical Christians through a church or campus ministry group (Astin et al., 2010; Lee, 2002; Magolda and Gross, 2009; Moran et al., 2007). In the initial stages of reconciliatory socialization, while students are navigating their programs, they are also figuring out what it means to be Christian in a secular environment (Magolda and Gross, 2009). These students seek the mentorship of faculty who share their beliefs, and explore how to relate their Christian faith to their studies. Moreover, there is a distinct sense of separation between their academic and religious identities (as represented by an arrow pushing the two apart in Figure 1).

The liminal stage: In the liminal stage, Evangelical Christian doctoral students observe the roles of advanced students and continue to examine how to relate their beliefs to their academic work. By this time, students will have experienced some “social status ambiguity” (Moran et al., 2007), having felt both a sense of privilege and marginalization in their program. They continue to learn how “Christian” they can be in their programs while seeking to excel academically and professionally. Their involvement in a religious community may have deepened as a result of their “social status ambiguity” (Magolda and Gross, 2009; Moran et al., 2007). Resulting from their status as “veteran newcomers” (Weidman et al., 2001: 13), students may already have been public about their Christian identity, and will be known within their program for espousing Evangelical beliefs. This may invite criticism or apathy from colleagues depending on the distinct culture of the program or discipline (Gardner 2008a, b), particularly in their writing projects (Thomson, 2009³). In sum, these students inhabit a liminal stage where they are “betwixt and between” their academic and religious identities, and seek to make sense of how the two relate (Conroy, 2004; Turner, 1974). The separation between their commitments to the academy and their religious identities continue to exist, but they begin to ponder the possibility of integrating the two. Figure 1 shows the academic and religious identities moving closer together in this stage, as the core elements create a dialogue between both.

The integrative stage: In the integrative stage, Evangelical Christian doctoral students continue to navigate their programs and learn informal cues related to their place in the program. In their socialization model, Weidman et al. (2001) proposed that students “tend to develop their own peer culture and social and emotional support system among classmates” (Weidman et al., 2001: 14). Evangelical Christian doctoral students may or may not have a friend group comprised of non-Christians, but at this point in their studies, they most likely will have identified fellow Christians in either their own doctoral program or in other programs. The student will have internalized formal expectations of an academic program, especially with regard to the extent they can integrate their faith with their work. Their involvement in a religious community may have intensified if there has been considerable challenge to their core beliefs in their academic program (Argue, 2015¹). As they continue to progress through their program and engage in professional academic activities, such as publishing and presenting papers, they will already have a sense of how they can integrate their faith with their work (Noll, 1994; Smith and Smith, 2011). They will already have started to develop a vocabulary that allows them to effectively navigate academic and religious communities. The separation between their academic and religious communities will continue to diminish as they inhabit and embrace the third space between the two (Moran et al., 2007). Figure 1 shows academic identity growing lighter and religious identity growing darker, as the two continue to interact with one another.

The reconciliatory stage: In the final stage, Evangelical Christian doctoral students will have reconciled their core beliefs with the values and practices of their chosen discipline. The conflict between their academic program and religious convictions will not be fully resolved, but resolved enough in order to begin their academic careers. They will embrace their “social status ambiguity” (Moran et al., 2007) because it enables their involvement in both academic and religious communities. In contrast to Weidman et al. (2001: 15), Evangelical Christian students will integrate their values and beliefs into their profession, rather than “relinquish” them. Although they may seek professional validation through competing for grants, scholarships, and positions, Evangelical Christian students will ultimately view these accomplishments not as ends, but as a means of fulfilling a call that God has placed on their lives (Hulett, 2004; Magolda and Ebben, 2006). Reflecting on their time in the program, Evangelical Christian doctoral students may seek to mentor incoming Evangelical doctoral students (Craft et al., 2009; Parks, 2000). Figure 1 represents the reconciliatory stage as a gray circle that symbolizes the reconciliation between academic and religious identities. Although the reconciliatory stage is the culmination of the doctoral process for Evangelical Christian students, in actuality, this final stage lasts for the duration of their careers, as they continue to navigate academic and religious contexts.

Limitations and benefits of reconciliatory socialization

There are a number of limitations to the model I have proposed. First, the model does not account for the multiple identities which Evangelical Christian doctoral students may possess (race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.). This multiplicity of identities may create multiple levels of marginalization (intersectionality), as scholars such as Crenshaw (1991) have observed in depth. As Argue (2015¹) has noted, scholars must conduct more research into campus religious groups, particularly how welcoming they are of students who carry multiple marginalized identities. Second, for Evangelical Christian doctoral students, reconciliation may not be possible. Reconciliatory socialization assumes that Evangelicals will actively seek to reconcile their identities as academics and people of faith. A student may enter into a program intent on maintaining their faith, but throughout the program may begin to question their religious assumptions and ultimately lose their faith. Conversely, a student may perceive that their faith and academic pursuits are incompatible, and ultimately withdraw from the program. A third option would be embracing a non-integrated dual identity as an academic and Evangelical Christian, maintaining separation between the two identities. A final limitation of this model is its strictly conceptual nature. Research on Evangelical Christian graduate students is significantly lacking, and more empirical work must be conducted in this area. Reconciliatory socialization can serve as a theoretical starting point for making sense of the experience of Evangelical Christian doctoral students.

There are also several benefits to this revision of Weidman et al.’s (2001) socialization model. First, it accounts for “social status ambiguity” which many Evangelical students in secular higher education experience (Moran et al., 2007). Challenges to Evangelical Christian identity in academia lead students who identify as such to find spiritual and cultural support in campus ministry organizations and churches (Argue, 2015;¹ Astin et al., 2010; Lee, 2002; Magolda and Gross, 2009; Moran et al., 2007). Evangelical Christians then create a unique space that both challenges and supports their development as students and future researchers. Thus, “social status ambiguity” becomes a potential transformative space to challenge their deeply held beliefs while remaining tied to their religious beliefs, values, and communities. Second, the model enables institutions to reflect on their capacity to encourage doctoral students who identify as Evangelical Christians. Third, the model can empower Evangelical doctoral students to lead in both academic and religious communities through consistent involvement in both arenas, and the development of a unique vocabulary which enables the Evangelical student to succeed in both realms. Finally, this model creates a theoretical starting point by which to study the experiences of other people of faith pursuing doctoral studies. As Mayhew et al. (2014) suggest, many scholars have studied the experiences of people of faith pursuing undergraduate studies. However, there is little research on the experiences of believers who pursue doctoral education. Reconciliatory socialization can thus serve as a model for others interested in pursuing research on the experiences of religious doctoral students.

Conclusion

In this article, I have attempted to modify Weidman et al.’s (2001) graduate student socialization model to account for the experiences of Evangelical Christian doctoral students. This new conceptual model, reconciliatory socialization, seeks to reconcile the academic and religious identities of Evangelical Christian doctoral students. Scholars of spirituality and higher education must conduct further research that tests the potential of this model, and find ways to support all students in higher education, including those of faith.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

References

Ahmadi

Cole

(2014) Engaging religious minority students. In: Quaye

Harper

(eds) Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations, New York: Routledge, pp. 171–186.

Ali

Kohun

(2007) Dealing with social isolation to minimize doctoral attrition: A four stage framework. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 2: 33–49.

Antony JS (2002) Reexamining doctoral student socialization and professional development: Moving beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, XVIII. New York: Agathon Press, 349–380.

Antony

Taylor

(2004) Theories and strategies of academic career socialization: Improving paths to the professoriate for black graduate students. In: Wulff

Austin

(eds) Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies for Enriching the Preparation of Future Faculty, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 92–114.

Astin

(2004) Why spirituality deserves a central place in liberal education. Liberal Education 90(2): 34–41.

Astin

(2003) Spirituality in college students: Preliminary findings from a national study, Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Inst., Inc.

Astin

Lindholm

Bryant

Calderone

Szelenyi

(2003) The Spiritual Life of College Students: A National Study of College Students' Search for Meaning and Purpose, Los Angeles: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute.

Astin

Lindholm

(2010) Cultivating the Spirit: How College can Enhance Students' Inner Lives (1 edn), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Austin

(2002) Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education 73(1): 94–122.

10.

Balmer

(2004) Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

11.

Bebbington

(1992) Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

12.

Bircher

O'Brien

Pech

Bintz

(2010) Doctoral student socialization: Moving from the margins to the center. Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning 4(2): 46–56.

13.

Bryant

(2005) Evangelicals on campus: An exploration of culture, faith, and college life. Religion & Education 32(2): 1–30.

14.

Bryant

(2006a) Assessing the gender climate of an Evangelical student subculture in the United States. Gender and Education 18(6): 613–634.

15.

Bryant

(2006b) Exploring religious pluralism in higher education: Non-majority religious perspectives among entering first-year college students. Religion & Education 33(1): 1–25.

16.

Bryant

(2007) The effects of involvement in campus religious communities on college student adjustment and development. Journal of College & Character 8(3): 1–25.

17.

Bryant

(2011) Evangelical Christian students and the path to self-authorship. Journal of Psychology and Theology 39(1): 16–30.

18.

Bryant

Astin

(2008) The correlates of spiritual struggle during the college years. The Journal of Higher Education 79(1): 1–27.

19.

Clark

Brimhall-Vargas

(2003) Diversity initiatives in higher education: Secular aspects and international implications of Christian privilege. Multicultural Education 11: 55–57.

20.

Coley

(2010) Opening a dialogue about religious restraint in graduate professionalization. Rhetoric Review 29(4): 395–413.

21.

Conroy

(2004) Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Imagination, Education and Democracy, New York: Peter Lang.

22.

Craft

Weber

Menke

(2009) Campus ministers in public higher education: Facilitators of student development. The College Student Affairs Journal 28(1): 61–79.

23.

Crenshaw

(1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299.

24.

Ecklund

(2010) Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

25.

Ellis

(2001) The impact of race and gender on graduate school socialization, satisfaction with doctoral study, and commitment to degree completion. The Western Journal of Black Studies 25: 30–45.

26.

Felder

Stevenson

Gasman

(2014) Understanding race in doctoral student socialization. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 9: 21–42.

27.

Gallup (2005) Another look at Evangelicals in America today, 2 December. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/20242/Another-Look-Evangelicals-America-Today.aspx (accessed 17 March 2017).

28.

Gardner

(2008a) Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education 33(2): 125–138.

29.

Gardner

(2008b) “What’s too much and what’s too little?” The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education 79(3): 326–350.

30.

Gardner

(2010a) Contrasting the socialization experiences of doctoral students in high- and low-completing departments: A qualitative analysis of disciplinary contexts at one institution. The Journal of Higher Education 81(1): 61–81.

31.

Gardner

(2010b) Keeping up with the Joneses: Socialization and culture in doctoral education at one striving institution. The Journal of Higher Education 81(6): 728–749.

32.

Gardner

Mendoza

(2010) On Becoming a Scholar: Socialization and Development in Doctoral Education, Sterling, VA: Stylus.

33.

Gildersleeve

Croom

Vasquez

(2011) ‘Am I going crazy?!’ A critical race analysis of doctoral education. Equity and Excellence in Education 44(1): 93–114.

34.

Golde

(1998) Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. In: Anderson

(ed.) The Experience of Being in Graduate School: An Exploration, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 55–64.

35.

González

(2006) Academic socialization experiences of Latina doctoral students: A qualitative understanding of support systems that aid and challenges that hinder the process. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 5(4): 347–365.

36.

Hulett

(2004) Being religious at Knox College: Attitudes toward religion, Christian expression, and conservative values on campus. Religion & Education 31(2): 41–61.

37.

Jablonski

Schuh

Whitt

et al. (2001) The Implications of Student Spirituality for Student Affairs Practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

38.

Jacobson

(2004) Scholarship and Christian faith: Enlarging the Conversation, New York: Oxford University Press.

39.

Kristof N (2016) A confession of liberal intolerance, 7 May. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0 (accessed 29 April 2017).

40.

Larsen T (2010) No Christianity please, we’re academics. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/07/30/no-christianity-please-were-academics (accessed 23 April 2017).

41.

Lee

(2002) Religion and college attendance: Change among students. The Review of Higher Education 25(4): 369–384.

42.

Lindholm

(2007) Spirituality in the academy: Reintegrating our lives and the lives of our students. About Campus 12(4): 10–17.

43.

Lindholm

Astin

(2008) Spirituality and pedagogy: Faculty's spirituality and use of student-centered approaches to undergraduate teaching. Review of Higher Education 31(2): 185–207.

44.

Lindholm

Astin

(2013) The Quest for Meaning and Wholeness: Spiritual and Religious Connections in the Lives of Faculty, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

45.

Lindsay

(2008) Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

46.

Love

(2001) Spirituality and student development: Theoretical connections. In: Jablonski

(ed.) The Implications of Student Spirituality for Student Affairs Practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 7–16.

47.

Lowery

(2001) Walking the halls of ivy with Christ: The classroom and residential experiences of undergraduate Evangelical students. Dissertation Abstracts International 61: 4308.

48.

Magolda

Ebben

(2006) College student involvement and mobilization: An ethnographic study of a Christian student organization. Journal of College Student Development 47: 281–298.

49.

Magolda

Gross

(2009) It's All About Jesus! Faith as an Oppositional Collegiate Subculture, Sterling, VA: Stylus.

50.

Marsden

(1997) The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, New York: Oxford University Press.

51.

Mayhew

Bowman

Rockenbach

(2014) Silencing whom? Linking campus climates for religious, spiritual, and worldview diversity to study worldviews. Journal of Higher Education 85(2): 219–245.

52.

Moran

(2007) The public identity work of Evangelical Christian students. Journal of College Student Development 48: 418–434.

53.

Moran

Lang

Oliver

(2007) Cultural incongruity and social status ambiguity: The experiences of Evangelical Christian student leaders at two Midwestern public universities. Journal of College Student Development 48: 23–38.

54.

Noll

(1994) The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

55.

Parks

(2000) Big Questions, Worthy Dreams: Mentoring Young Adults in their Search for Meaning, Purpose, and Faith, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

56.

Quaye

Harper

(2014) Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches to Diverse Populations, (2 edn). New York: Routledge.

57.

Rendón

Jalomo

Nora

(2000) Theoretical considerations in the study of minority student retention in higher education. In: Braxton

(ed.) Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle, Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, pp. 127–156.

58.

Sallee

(2011a) Performing masculinity: Considering gender in doctoral student socialization. Journal of Higher Education 82(2): 187–216.

59.

Sallee

(2011b) Toward a theory of gendered socialization. NASPA Journal about Women in Higher Education 4(2): 170–192.

60.

Schlosser

(2003) Christian privilege: Breaking a sacred taboo. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 31: 44–51.

61.

Schlosser

Sedlacek

(2003) Christian privilege and respect for religious diversity: Religious holidays on campus. About Campus 7(6): 28–29.

62.

Schmalzbauer

(2013) Campus religious life in America: Revitalization and renewal. Society 50: 115–131.

63.

Schulz

(2005) The big chill: Are campuses turning a cold shoulder to religious students? Religion and Education 32(2): 31–45.

64.

Schuurman

(2016) To follow Christ, to live in the world: Calling in a Protestant key. In: Cahalan

Schuurman

(eds) Calling in Today’s World: Voices from Eight Faith Perspectives, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. 52–81.

65.

Seifert

(2007) Understanding Christian privilege: Managing the tensions of spiritual plurality. About Campus 12(2): 10–18.

66.

Shahjahan

(2005) Spirituality in the academy: Reclaiming from the margins and evoking a transformative way of knowing the world. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 18: 685–711.

67.

Smith

JKA

(2009) Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

68.

Smith

JKA

(2016) You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit, Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

69.

Smith

JKA

Smith

(2011) Teaching and Christian Practices: Reshaping Faith and Learning, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

70.

Thornton

Nardi

(1975) The dynamics of role acquisition. American Journal of Sociology 80(4): 870–885.

71.

Tisdell EJ (2001) Spirituality in adult and higher education. ERIC Digest, ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH.

72.

Tisdell

(2003) Exploring Spirituality and Culture in Adult and Higher Education, (1st edn). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

73.

Turner

(1974) Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Publishing.

74.

Twale

Weidman

Bethea

(2016) Conceptualizing socialization of graduate students of color: Revisiting the Weidman-Twale-Stein framework. The Western Journal of Black Studies 40(2): 80–94.

75.

Ward

Bensimon

(2002) Socialization. In: Martinez Aleman

Renn

(eds) Women in Higher Education: An Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, pp. 431–435.

76.

Weidman JC, Twale DJ and Stein EL (2001) Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 28, no. 3. Association for the Study of Higher Education, Washington, DC.

77.

Wheaton College (n.d.). How many Evangelicals are there? Available at: http://www.wheaton.edu/ISAE/Defining-Evangelicalism/How-Many-Are-There (accessed 17 March 2017).

78.

Williams MS, Burnett TJB, Carroll TK and Harris CJ (2016) Mentoring, managing, and helping: A critical race analysis of socialization in doctoral education. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116657834.

79.

Wormald B (2015) Religious landscape study. Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/educational-distribution/college (accessed 17 March 2017).

80.

Yancey

(2017) Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.