Constructing Doctoral Students’ Professional Identity: Based on the Perspective of Identity Theory

Abstract

Professional identity (PI) is not only the goal of socialization of doctoral students, but also has a close relationship with their learning and practice. The PI establishment of doctoral students can promote their development. On the contrary, identity deficiency or conflicts struggling by doctoral students will bring a series of problems, such as students’ lack of self-confidence and scientific spirit, their inappropriate participation in academic competition, and their renunciation of pursuit in academic career. The identity theory directly derived from the structural symbol interaction theory explores the relationship between individuals and society, and is a powerful tool for analyzing the development of identity in doctoral education. This study defines doctoral students’ PI as the identity of two roles of “researcher” and “professional,” comprehensively using the identity theory of structural orientation and interactive orientation to analyze how to construct doctoral students’ PI, and proposes three countermeasures: (1) help doctoral students clarify the combination of salience hierarchy in social structure to provide reference for the PI; (2) create conditions to promote the role performance of doctoral students and provide possibilities for exploring the PI; and (3) promote the multi-subject interaction of doctoral students and seek role support to stabilize the PI.

1. Introduction

Graduate socialization refers to the process by which students acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and values ​​to enter a particular professional career; among them, the establishment of professional identity (PI) is one of the dimensions of socialization. Individuals can internalize the specific codes of behaviors and standards by socialization, and a sense of belonging and commitment to the professional field are established. Therefore, the graduate cultivation process represented by doctoral students is actually a process to help students transform from novices to members of specific groups, and to build and develop the PI. Identity development is not only the goal of socialization of PhD students, but also has a close relationship with the learning and practice of PhD students [1]. Building PI can promote their development [2]. On the contrary, the problems caused by the PI deficiency or conflicts of identities are also obvious. (1) From the perspective of the cultivation process, students will undergo frustration, disappointment, lack of self-confidence, and other problems in the doctoral student experience [3]; they are lack of the attitude required for scientific research and take inappropriate ways to participate in academic competition [4]. The attrition of doctoral education [5] and additional challenge facing in the socialization of international PhD students to their new foreign setting [6] and other problems also happen. (2) From the perspective of results, it may lead to a trend of diversification of employment, which can be proved by a series of empirical evidence. A survey of European developed countries shows that a very high proportion of doctorate recipients choose non-academic career: in the Netherlands, only 38% of doctors were employed in universities, 15% were in public research institutions, 13% were in the R & D department of enterprises, and 26% of them chose non-academic research work; in France, 49% of doctors chose academic careers, this figure was just over 40% in the UK. The ratio of German doctors who still chose academic careers after 10 years was 21–37% [7]. The doctorate career development survey in the United States showed that only 50–65% of doctoral graduates were engaged in academic careers [8]. In China, the empirical analysis of national doctoral graduates of Zhao and Shen [9] found that about 42% of doctoral students hope to be employed in colleges and universities. Luo and Gu [10] found that only 47.9% of doctoral students in the universities of Jiangsu province were willing to pursue academic careers. It has been shown in a recent survey that nearly one-third of the academic PhD graduates’ employment intentions were flowing to non-academic sectors [11]. Therefore, it is of double positive significance to study how doctoral graduates should construct the PI to promote the individual development of students and improve the quality of graduate education in China.

This study focuses on the construction process of the PI of PhD students. Scholars have studied and interpreted “identity” from different disciplinary perspectives; thus, the identity has evolved from the traditional psychological view of a single stable cognitive structure to multi-theoretical orientation sociological concept, which is relative, volatile, and multi-level [12]. At present, there are two main types of mature identity theories in Western academic: (1) in Social Identity Theory, “identity” is treated as a common identity in the social or collective category; (2) in Identity Theory, “identity” is treated as the “self” who plays a certain role in society [13]. The former emphasizes the relationship between individuals and groups, and maintains positive social identity to improve self-esteem through the individual’s social classification, inner group preferences, and outer group biases [14]. The latter focuses on how to construct an identity as the measurement of “self” and how individuals perform activities under the influence of identity, which is a sociological theory that explains individuals behaviors related to roles [13, 15]. Because the identity of PhD students more reflects the “self” of students than the group of “graduate students,” the identity theory is more suitable for exploring the PI formation of PhD students. This study refers to identity theory to analyze how PhD students construct their PI. It is specifically divided into two parts: (1) introducing the origin and main content of identity theory and (2) using identity theory as a perspective to analyze how doctoral students construct the PI.

2. The origin and content of identity theory

2.1 The origin of identity theory

Identity theory is a theory that explains individual behavior based on the interaction between self and society, and has a close relationship with symbolic interaction. Identity theory grew out of symbolic interaction, particularly structural symbolic interaction [16]. The term structural symbolic interaction was proposed by Stryker. “Self” is the core concept of symbolic interaction theory, reflecting the ability of humans to treat themselves as objects [17]. The self emerges in commutation or interaction with others. For the self, the other person is the “mirror” of the self [18]. Therefore, Mead [19] divided the self into I and Me. Interacting with others is a unique human ability [20].

Identity theory inherits the viewpoint of symbolic interaction theory that society structure impacts individual social behavior by affecting self, and also transforms symbolic interaction theory into a verifiable theory [21]. In identity theory, the core of an identity is the categorization of the self as an occupant of a role, and the incorporation, into the self, of the meanings and expectations associated with that role and its performance [22]. “There are some traditional symbolic interactionists who agree with the Blumerian assumption that we cannot create theory or use a priori theory to explain social behavior, because we would be predicting social behavior and such prediction is impossible. Many structural symbolic interactionists are committed to developing and testing predictive explanations of social behavior” ([16], pp. 36–37) (see Table 1). Identity theory is based on the assumptions, definitions, and propositions of structural symbolic interaction theory, “Society is patterned and organized, and the self emerges within the context of a complex, organized society” ([16], p. 37). It can be said that the identity theory comes directly from the structural symbolic interaction theory, and its three important concepts—self, language, and interaction have laid a conceptual foundation for the formation of the identity theory ([16], p. 9). Its basic viewpoints are also the ideological roots of the identity theory.

Traditional symbolic interaction	Structural symbolic interaction
Focuses on actions’ meanings	Focuses on actors’ meanings
Social structure is always in a state of flus	Social structure is stable, patterned, and organized
Constant creation and re-creation of selves, action, and society make us unable to use a priori theory or develop theory	Stability and constancy of selves, action, and society make us able to use a priori theory and develop theory

Table 1.

Roots of identity theory.

2.2 Identity theory

For the identity theory in the field of sociology, scholars who have made important contributions include Stryker, McCall and Simmons, and Burke. Their theories focus on different aspects of identity. The theory of Stryker and his colleagues focus on how social structure impacts individual identity and behavior; McCall and Simmons’ theory focuses on maintaining identity in face-to-face interactions; Burke and his colleagues’ researches emphasize the internal dynamics with the self that affects the actions ([16], pp. 37–38). Therefore, according to the interpretation of the performance or action of identity, identity theory can be divided into structural, interactional, and perceptual orientations ([16], pp. 54–55). This study mainly introduces the first two types of identity theory.

2.2.1 The structural emphasis: Sheldon Stryker

As mentioned above, the identity theory is derived from the structural symbol interaction theory. Identity theory is developed in the process of solving empirical issues [23] by trying to measure the basic concepts of symbolic interaction theory, especially re-examining the reciprocal relationship between society and self. Designations, salience hierarchy, and commitment are the key to understanding this theory.

1. Designations. Individual’s social behavior is organized by symbolic designations of all aspects of the situation, both material and social [23]. Among the most important designations are the symbols of people’s position in the social structure and the meaning of their connection, which carry with them shared expectations about how people to enact roles and, in general, to comport themselves in relation to others ([24]: p. 369). After these positionings are made, the most important thing is that “individuals designate themselves as objects in relation to their location in structural positions and their perceptions of broader definition of situation” ([24], p. 369). Here, the social structure that impacts individual behavior choices has three levels: large, intermediate, and proximate: large social structure does not directly impact the behavior of the individual, but instead plays a role by affecting the possibility of the individual entering into the intermediate, and proximate social structure; the intermediate social structure is a larger group to which the individual belongs and shapes the boundary of the individual’s social relationship; the proximate social structure is the interactive environment in the role performance of the individual, and these three social structures impact the individual’s social relationship, the identity salience of the specific role, and the performance of social roles [25, 26].

2. Salience hierarchy. Stryker believes that identities are “parts” of self. They are internalized self-designations that are associated with positions individuals occupy within various social contexts. Therefore, identity is a critical link that connects individuals to social structure because identities are designations that people make about themselves in relation to their location in social structures and the roles they play by virtue of this location ([24]: p. 369). The salience hierarchy is an important concept in Stryker’s identity theory. Individuals often have multiple identities, and identity salience represents the way in which identities that constitute self are organized. Identity is organized into a salience hierarchy, and those identities higher in the hierarchy are more likely to be evoked than those lower in this hierarchy ([24]: p. 369), which are more closely connected to individual’s actions.

3. Commitments. As a means of conceptualizing the link between social structure and self, commitment means that the relationship between an individual and others depends on the degree of identity with a specific position and role in the organized relationship structure. The greater this dependence is, the more a person will be committed to a particular identity and the higher this identity will be located in the person’s salience hierarchy ([24]: p. 370). It points out the close relationship between the salience hierarchy and commitments. If such an identity is based on the ideas of others and a broader social definition, he will produce behaviors consistent with these ideas and definitions ([24]: p. 370). The individual’s degree of salience is determined by its degree of commitment to a role, and Stryker distinguishes two types of commitments: (1) interactive commitments that represent the breadth of commitments, reflecting the number of roles associated with a particular identity, and; (2) emotional commitments that represent the intensity of commitment, involving the importance of relationships connected with identity [13].

In Stryker’s theory, the performance or behavior action of the identity is determined by the status of the identity in a person’s overall salience hierarchy identities and a more salient identity is more likely to be invoked in the situation. The factor that affects the salience of identity is the individual’s commitment to the identity. A stronger commitment to an identity depends on being connected to the larger social network that is premised on the identity and has stronger link in the network ([16], p. 54). On this basis, Stryker proposed a series of propositions (see Table 2).

The salience of identity; I. The more individuals are committed to an identity, the higher will this identity be in their salience hierarchy.; II. The degree of commitment to an identity is a positive and additive function of; The extent to which this identity is positively valued by others and broader cultural definitions. The congruence among expectations of others on whom one depends for an identity. The extensiveness of the network of individuals on whom one depends for an identity. The number of persons in a network on whom one depends for an identity.

The consequences of high salience; III. The higher in a person’s salience hierarchy is an identity, the more likely will that individual; Emit role performances that are consistent with the role expectations associated with that identity. Perceive a given situation as an opportunity to perform in that identity. Seek out situations that provide opportunities to perform in that identity.

The consequences of commitment to identity; IV. The greater the commitment to an identity, the greater will be; The effect of role performances on self-esteem. The likelihood that role performances will reflect institutionalized values and norms.

Changing commitments to identity; V. The more external events alter the structure of a situation, the more likely are individuals to adopt new or novel identities.; VI. The more changes in identity reinforce and reflect the value-commitments of the individuals, the less the individual resists change in adopting a new identity.

Table 2.

A revised formulation of Stryker’s hypotheses on identity.

Source: Turner [24], The Structure of Sociological Theory (7th edition), p. 371.

2.2.2 The interactional emphasis: McCall and Simmons

McCall and Simmons are concerned with how the self impacts actions. Their theory takes role identity as the core concept. A role identity is his imaginative view of himself as he likes to think of himself being and acting as an occupant of that position ([27], p. 65). McCall and Simmons remark that role identity has a conventional dimension, which includes the cultural expectations tied to social positions in the social structure, and they have an idiosyncratic dimension, which involves the distinctive interpretations that individuals bring to their roles; they also point out that individuals can be at one extreme or the other on these dimensions and most individuals fall somewhere between the two extremes ([16], p. 39). In their theory, the viewpoints of role identity and role support, the mechanisms for maintaining role support, and the salience of identities are also critical for our understanding.

1. Role identity and role support. Role identities become part of individuals’ plans and goals because legitimating one’s identities in the eyes of others is always a driving force for human behavior. Moreover, people evaluate themselves through the role performances intended to confirm a role identity ([24]: p. 372). However, Stryker related to the relationship between individuals and others, which depends on the individual’s designation in the social context, is diffident from McCall and Simmons. McCall and Simmons suppose the relationship reflects that people must seek role support from relevant audiences to confirm their role identity, and the audience includes others related to the role and the self which is the most important one ([24], p. 372). This support includes not only the viewer’s approval of the individual’s right to occupy a certain position and his actions on this position, but also the style, emotion, personality, and tone of role performances designed to legitimate a role identity ([24], p. 372).

2. The mechanisms for maintain role support. In order to successfully perform role identity, McCall and Simmons emphasize the importance of negotiating with others in the context. In the context of certain identities that are threatened and cannot be legalized, McCall and Simmons [27] propose a legalization mechanism to coordinate the negative emotions of individuals, one is “short-term credit,” which refers to individuals using previous identity support to withstand currently unsuccessful role performance; the second is “selective perception,” which individuals only see clues that they believe to be supported; other strategies also conclude “disavowing” unsuccessful role performance, switching to a new role identity, “scapegoating” audiences, and abandoning interaction.

3. The salience of identity. Similar to Stryker’s viewpoints, McCall and Simmons believe that individuals have multiple identities organized in a sequence, but their theories are more refined ([16], pp. 39–45). In their theory, individuals include situational self and ideal self ([24], p. 375). They point out that the salience hierarchy, which reflects the situational self and impacts the individual’s actions, is affected by four factors in the context ([16], p. 41): (1) the first is prominence, which is the most important factor that affects the role identity, means that the more important the role identity is, the greater the likelihood that the role identity will appear in the context; (2) the second is support, the individual will decide whether to continue to act in accordance with the expectations of the role according to whether the recent role is supported by others, especially important others; (3) the third is rewards, which refer to the type and number of the internal and external rewards obtained by the individual through the role performance; and (4) the fourth is the perceived opportunity structure in the context, in which opportunities include the benefits (reward-cost) that individuals receive from the role performance in specific contexts.

However, the preferences of situational self are fluid and changeable ([24]: p. 375). McCall and Simmons point out that individuals will give different identities different prominences, which means the higher the position in the sequence of identity prominences, the more important the status of identity is. The ideal self is more related to the prominence sequence, which has relative durability and stability, and the prominence sequence of an individual is affected by three factors ([16], p. 40): (1) the first is the support that the individual’s identity receives in the situation, including self-support and the support from others; (2) the second is the individual’s commitment to the role identity; (3) the third is the rewards that the individual receives from the identity, which also includes extrinsic and intrinsic ones; the former include resources such as money, valued items, favors, and prestige, and the latter include the gratification that the individual obtains through the role performance. As far as rewards are concerned, whether it is an ideal self or a situational self, among extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, role support is the most important ([24], p. 374).

In short, the center of McCall and Simmons’ theory is the role identity. They believe that the performance of identity is the result of the actor’s attempt to associate himself and others in the situation. When contradictions and conflicts occur between the two identities, coordination strategies and compromises need to be used to ensure that the appeal of each role identity is satisfied and the interaction proceeds smoothly.

3. How doctoral students should construct professional identity

3.1 The PI of doctoral students

The PI is that an individual has the competence and commitment to legally participate in a certain professional, and develops the self related to this professional [28]. The education of graduate students, especially doctoral students, is mainly to train scholars or scientists, and the primary goal is to train the next generation of university faculties [29]. Therefore, the ideal result of the PI for doctoral students should be directed to academic departments engaged in academic work, and Weidman et al. [30] emphasized that PI appears to be gradually formed in the socialization process of these students. According to the social position and role of doctoral students, the PI that needs to be constructed in socialization includes the two roles identities of the “researcher” and “professional.”

3.1.1 Researcher

Graduate students are engaged in research work, and academic research is the origin of graduate students’ identities, especially doctoral students [4]. The recognition of the researcher role is one of the connotations of the PI of doctoral students. From the perspective of cultivation goals, the doctor degree is research-oriented. Therefore, doctoral students should establish the identity of researchers [31]. A doctorate requires doctoral students to become “knowledge producer” rather than “knowledge consumers” through original research activities, and this is why in addition to acquiring academic skills, doctoral students need to establish their identity as scholars [32]. Judging from doctoral students’ responsibilities, they are engaged in scientific research and teaching including academic guidance, academic reading and writing, establishing social networks, and administrative affairs, which is highly similar to the daily work of researchers [33]. Bøgelund and Graaff [6] used the concept of “legitimate scholar” to describe the role of doctoral students after socialization. In research activities, doctoral students value individual autonomy; at the same time, they also need to complete most of their work independently [34], so the learning and research activities of doctoral students are self-centered [33]. However, since the cultivation of doctoral students is a procedural activity, it is a process of transition from learner to researcher [35], and the role switching is very challenging [3].

3.1.2 Professionals

Becoming a professional researcher requires new PhD students to negotiate with their new identity and re-conceptualize themselves as professionals who learn specific skills [12]. The PI established through the socialization process is to give doctoral students a “feel of becoming a professional,” meaning that individuals can obtain a sense of fit and satisfaction when they play the desired role; when individuals as professional members develop the attitudes, beliefs, and standards that support this role, and the identity of professional members with clear responsibilities, the PI can only be established [36]. For graduate students, socialization is to become a member of the community. Newcomers of doctoral students begin to prepare for becoming professionals while taking on the role of graduate students [37]. For a doctoral student, the identity of a professional is to recognize the role of the academic career in terms of cognition and emotion [38]. It is also the identity to the disciplinary community, that is, to become future members of the community and the disciplinary “stewards” [39]. Therefore, the PI of doctoral students is closely related to their subject areas. Due to the changes in knowledge production models and the diversification of doctoral employment [40], the PI of doctoral students gradually is transformed from the traditional apprenticeship model of disciplinary knowledge, research skills, and science standard into a model of knowledge workers of interdisciplinary knowledge, research and transformation skills, reflection ability, and practical experience [1].

3.2 The PI construction of doctoral students

As mentioned above, identity stems from the interaction between individuals and society. The construction of identity is still considered as an on-going process [41]. Identities are relational, which meanings a person attributes to the self as an object in a social situation or social role [42]. According to the points emphasized by the social structure-oriented and the interactive-oriented identity theory, the PI construction of the doctoral students can make efforts in the following three aspects.

1. Help doctoral students clarify the combination of salience hierarchy in social structure to provide reference for the PI. There are two important concepts of social structure-oriented identity theory: identity salience and commitment, the premise of which is that the individual is clear about what kind of organized salience hierarchy he is in the social structure. Salience hierarchy determines the composition of multiple identities; in other words, it is a series of combinations, because doctoral students have different identities in different social structure levels, namely, large, intermediate, and proximate level. A doctoral student can be a member of a specific discipline, a member of a university or a research institute, specifically subordinate to a faculty as a student, or belong to a research team, or even an academic school. The disciplines, universities or research institutes, faculties, research teams, and schools here all have a prominent social status and reputation. These salience hierarchies are relatively easy for doctoral students to feel, and often have relatively objective evaluation indexes, which can provide a basic reference for the PI of doctoral students, forming the identity salience or McCall and Simmons so-called situational self. It has been proved that the construction of graduate student identity has disciplinary differences [43]. Disciplinary culture has created different academic research cultures that include disciplinary or interdisciplinary ideas and values, particular kinds of expert knowledge and knowledge production, cultural practices and narratives, departmental sociability, other internal and external intellectual networks, and learned societies [44], and it impacts the doctoral student’s experience of changing roles. The salience hierarchy combinations of PhD students usually change with their basic institutional identities (i.e., from PhD students to PhD candidates, from the candidates to doctors) to further enhance their self-identities such as self-esteem and satisfaction, and renew their identity salience, which reflects its dynamics. The general examination of the doctoral cultivation process has the function of the enlightenment ceremony and symbolic meaning, and through the examination, the self-image of the doctoral students is developed and is getting closer to the role of the professional, and the cognition of self-efficacy and self-ability is also improved [45]. The combination of the above-mentioned salience hierarchy forms the social situation of the clear structured part of the PhD students. Institutions and disciplines have their expectations of doctoral students like specific knowledge and skills, and doctoral students who actively adjust to adapt are more likely to succeed, otherwise they will be marginalized [12]. Determining the combination of salience hierarchy in the social structure for doctoral students is often closely related to the interaction with the educational environment necessary to form the PI advocated by Bragg [46].

2. Create conditions to promote the role performance of doctoral students and provide possibilities for exploring the PI. Although McCall and Simmons have inherited the salience hierarchy proposed by Stryker, compared with the latter’s conventional dimension of identity, the former emphasizes the idiosyncratic dimension of identity. Therefore, the combination of the salience hierarchy of doctoral students mentioned above provides a basic reference for their PI, which is only a part of their individual identity. It is also necessary for doctoral students’ actual role performance of researcher and professionals to promote their role identity. Researches has shown that doctoral students develop professional self-concept by participating in graduate programs and playing professional roles; for instance, Pavalko and Holley [47] have found that researches about Teaching Assistant (TA) support the conclusions of previous research regarding the positive effects of opportunities to enact the professional role, amount of exposure to the socialization context, and perceived success in professional tasks on the development of a professional self-concept. Teaching and participating in academic conferences at the doctoral stage, from passively accepting knowledge to writing and publishing for knowledge production and other activities, doctoral students in social sciences can eventually establish the identity of the professional social scientists [3] and realize role transformation. In China, the role identity of professionals by doctoral students often needs to be linked with the transformation of research results. That is, the research team or individual where the doctoral students are located can provide academic consultation or applied research (i.e., crosswise projects) of the front line of educational practice. The peak experiences help doctoral students to test the reference of the individual’s salience hierarchy combination in the social structure, and complete the imaginative construction of self in the role-performance of actual scientific research activities. Research activities such as TAs, graduate projects, and domestic and international academic conferences often depend on the institutional arrangements or policy support of the university or research institute where the doctoral students are located. They are more systematic, sustainable, and stable than the opportunities the individuals bypass these conventional arrangements to find for themselves. It should be noted that the individual race, class, and gender of the graduate students affect the possibility of their participating in the graduate programs [48].

3. Promote the multi-subjects interaction of doctoral students and seek role support to stabilize the PI. Bragg [46] and Sweitzer [49] both emphasize that the successful establishment of PI is indispensable for the interaction between graduate students and teachers, and the interaction with peers. These two dimensions fully reflect the proximate level of the social structure emphasized by the social structure-oriented identity theory of Stryker. Here, we still want to further integrate the core role identity of the interactive-oriented identity theory raised by McCall and Simmons to move forward. PhD students participate in actual scientific research activities to play a role only to provide the possibility of forming the PI. Turning this possibility into reality often requires them to be able to form a role identity steadily under the condition that the individual role performance is smooth. Whether the PhD students are supported by the “audience” is the key. The audience here includes others and self; that is, the objects of interaction include others and self. Teachers, especially doctoral supervisors and peers, are the main source of role support for PhD students. First of all, teachers represented by supervisors are the primary factor. They spread their attitudes, values, ​​and behavior norms through formal courses and informal student guidance, academic guidance, and social activities, which affects the definition of the doctoral students’ self. Here, we need to introduce the academic self-concept that is more extensive than professional self-concept. It is commonly viewed as incorporating “attitudes, feelings and perceptions” relative to one’s intellectual or academic skills [50]. The academic self-concept of doctoral students refers to whether they regard themselves as successful academic personnel. Ostrove, Stewart, and Curtin [51] have found that academic self-concept is a strong predictor of academic interest in academic research. In the cultivation of graduate students, students’ awareness of the importance of supervisors affects the establishment of academic self. Doctoral students can be encouraged to pursue academic career interests and provide effective feedback on academic development [52]. In short, the supervisors’ support is of great significance in the process of establishing academic self for graduate students [53]. The supervisors’ support can be reflected through extrinsic incentives, which can be tangible material incentives and intangible discourse feedback, or provide doctoral students with more challenging academic practice qualifications. This is an important basis for the role performance of doctoral students after being converted into intrinsic motivation.

Peers and other groups who are parts of the audience for role support have also played an important role in establishing PI for doctoral students. The relationship with peers is one of the interpersonal relationships that influence the development of doctoral students [32]. Becker and Carper [43] believe that informal peer groups or student groups are one of the important organized groups that affect the construction of the identity of graduate students. Since the relationship between doctoral students and peers is easier to obtain the sense of equality in interaction in Chinese cultural context, their role support may be more likely to be obtained than that from the interaction between doctoral students and their supervisors. In addition, the self-interaction of doctoral students is still indispensable. As mentioned above, the idiosyncratic dimension of identity is a unique interpretation of the individual’s role. Even if the supervisors and peers give their full role support, they still need to internalize the support through the individual’s reflexivity to form a relatively stable sequence of prominences for personal understanding, that is, “ideal self,” which will help form a stable PI for doctoral students.

In summary, we believe that it is necessary to help doctoral students determine the combination of salience hierarchy forms a “situational self” from the intermediate level of social structure to provide external reference for obtaining the PI. The faculties where the doctoral students are located should also create conditions for their role performance of researcher and professional, and at the proximate level of social structure, the role support of the doctoral students from their interaction with the supervisors, peer, and themselves lead a unique interpretation of their role and form their “ideal self” to stabilize the PI. In short, through interaction with social structures, investing time and energy, and participating in professional activities, doctoral students can realize the transformation of self-image and gradually build up their PI.

4. Conclusion and discussion

The research on the issue of “identity” of PhD students is an important part of exploring the experience and socialization process of graduate students in the field of graduate education. This study utilizes the identity theory to analyze how doctoral students can construct their PI.

Specifically, this study defines the connotation of the PI of doctoral students in two identity roles: researchers and professionals. We chose the identity theory as a tool, combined with the social structure-oriented identity theory of Stryker and the interaction-oriented identity theory of McCall and Simmons, we answered how to construct the PI of doctoral students from three aspects: (1) help doctoral students clarify the combination of salience hierarchy in social structure to provide reference for the PI; (2) create conditions to promote the role performance of doctoral students and provide possibilities for exploring the PI; and (3) promote the multi-subject interaction of doctoral students and seek role support to stabilize PI.

We make full use of the salience hierarchy in the social structure recognized by both orientations to help doctoral students form a “situational self” and provide role references for their PI. However, according to the identity theory of interactive orientation, doctoral students also need to form an “ideal self,” that is to say, role positioning requires both a regular part and a special part based on self-imagination. Then, the faculty where the doctoral students are located can create conditions to promote the role-playing experience of researchers and professionals. These conditions can be the TA system, graduate programs, projects, participation in domestic and international academic conferences, etc. These are the possibilities for doctoral students to explore the PI. It is also necessary to form the role support audience by promoting the interaction between doctoral students and supervisors, peer interaction, and individual self-interactions. The stable realization of role identity means further strengthening their PI.

The limitation of this research lies in that the mainstream identity theory, in addition to the social structure-oriented identity theory, and interactive-oriented identity theory, there are also the cognitive-oriented identity theory of Burke and Stets, and the role theory. In particular, the identity theory of perceptual orientation puts more emphasis on the meaning dimension of the individual’s cognition, and pays more attention to the internal operating mechanism of a certain identity. This is precisely what this study does not emphasize enough. This can be another new perspective for the explanation of the PI construction of doctoral students. Due to the limitation, it is difficult for us to explore all in this study, but we will try in the future research.

Funding information

This study has been supported by the Open University of China Grant Program for Junior Scholars- Research on courses with ideological-political elements of Education Majors in the Open University of China (No. Q22A0003).