key: cord-0061038-tzo304ps authors: Antony, James Soto; Schaps, Tamara Lynn title: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: The Persistence, and Impact, of the Congruence and Assimilation Orientation in Doctoral Student Socialization and Professional Development date: 2021-03-12 journal: Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-44007-7_9 sha: a0b3c5a291b2677f21565cb80cd7b0ca12ce94ca doc_id: 61038 cord_uid: tzo304ps Nearly two decades ago, Antony (2002) contributed a chapter in this Handbook entitled, Reexamining Doctoral Student Socialization and Professional Development: Moving Beyond the Congruence and Assimilation Orientation. That chapter illuminated how extant theoretical conceptions of doctoral student socialization and professional development assumed a substantial degree of congruence and assimilation on the part of doctoral students in order for them to be considered successfully socialized and professionally developed. Revisiting the arguments of that chapter, we now delve into new literature on graduate student socialization, and incorporate new theoretical perspectives on career choice, that serve to strengthen the original argument, leading to the articulation of a revised theoretical position. Nearly two decades ago, Antony (2002) contributed a piece in this Handbook entitled, Reexamining Doctoral Student Socialization and Professional Development: Moving Beyond the Congruence and Assimilation Orientation. This piece illuminated how extant theoretical conceptions of doctoral student socialization and professional development assumed a substantial degree of congruence and assimilation on the part of doctoral students in order for them to be considered successfully socialized and professionally developed. At the time Antony wrote the original piece, the availability of tenure-track academic careers was continuing a steady decline. The notion that a Ph.D. program's sole purpose should be to train doctoral students for traditional academic careers seemed at odds with the empirical realities of the shrinking academic labor market. In addition, there was growing sentiment that many disciplines' foundations, theories, epistemologies, and the research questions they pursued too often ignored the diversity of society. Growing more salient were arguments that disciplines could no longer justify continuing to give short shrift to, or even ignore, essential questions pertaining to communities of color, the disenfranchised, or the underrepresented (Antony 2002) . Moreover, frustration was being shared with how, too often, these populations were studied in ways that marginalized them or de-centered their voices and experiences. The idea that doctoral programs were socializing and professionally developing future scholars in ways that were misaligned with the demands and promise of scholarship for a new century, Antony argued, was out of step (Antony 2002) . Against this backdrop, Antony contended that doctoral students needed to be socialized and professionally developed in ways that allowed them to understand the cannon, mores, and traditions of their disciplines, while simultaneously extending them the latitude to maintain their own identities, orientations, and cultures. Antony argued that implicitly or explicitly requiring doctoral students to supplant their own identities, orientations, and cultures with those long-dominant in their disciplineswhat Antony termed the congruence and assimilation orientation of socializationwas problematic. Such a requirement was also deleterious to the kind of disciplinary diversity that could be achieved if academia embraced a broader conceptualization of what it meant to successfully socialize and professionally develop a doctoral student. Over the past two decades our society has continued to steadily and progressively move in the direction of challenging academia to ask new questions, challenge old theories, adopt new approaches to teaching and research, and even evolve to create space for new disciplines and fields, and new subdisciplines and subfields. The academic labor market is as constricted as ever (Carey 2020; Dickey 2019; Milligan 2020) . Given this, it is easy to assume that doctoral training has evolved in response, and that this training's structure has moved in the expansive direction Antony argued for two decades ago. It is also easy to assume that, as academia has become somewhat more diverse (in its approaches, its theories, its faculty, and in whom it serves and trains) the traditional congruence and assimilation demands of doctoral student socialization and professional development that Antony identified two decades ago are no longer as prevalent today. But, as we will argue in the present piece, when it comes to the socialization and professional development approaches of doctoral education, the more things have changed the more they have stayed the same. As was true 20 years ago, traditional disciplinary Ph.D. programs continue mostly to be structured as training grounds for entry into a professoriate that no longer exists the way it once did. Even more true today than two decades ago, the availability of tenure-track academic posts in many fields has continued to decline and an everlarger percentage of doctoral degree recipients find themselves facing frustrating employment prospects, chief among them being contingent faculty positions, or other positions that create a treadmill-like existence with little chance of eventually obtaining secure academic employment (Benderly 2019 ; National Academy of Sciences 2014; Kolata 2016) . In STEM disciplines, field-specific cultures develop, and these cultures can resist concerns about such important matters as gender and racial inequalities (Posselt 2020) . Similarly, we believe that these cultures can resist acknowledgement or even discourage pursuit of alternative career pathways that are often viewed as less than desirable for doctoral degree holders. For example, often recent graduates pursue multiple postdoctoral positions over many years, with only a small handful ever converting these opportunities into stable academic employment. Most find this existence to be best described as "postdoc limbo" that, eventually, causes them to abort any dreams of an academic career (Kolata 2016; Zeddies 2017) . Thankfully, many of these individuals have the potential to find employment in the scientific industry or related sectors outside of academia. But, for individuals in fields where postdoctoral opportunities are rare, many may conclude the only viable career options lie in sectors far beyond academia. This has led to a whole new terminology emerging, such as "alt-ac" careers and the "quitlit" movement to describe the phenomenon of searching for alternatives to academic careers (Flaherty 2015; Lee 2015; Linder et al. 2020; Ross 2020; Sanderson and Dugoni 1997) . The growth of the so-called gig economy, in which independent contract work has become more readily available, albeit with less economic security and predictability, is yet another emerging sector where many doctoral students and underemployed recent graduates land. In these roles, students and recent graduates may find employment in which they can leverage their talents and skills to earn much-needed money but, all too often, not build the professional accomplishments widely considered necessary to land a traditional academic job (Kwok 2017; Wood 2018) . The reduced availability of traditional academic jobs in many fields has been made worse by downturns of the economy, such as in 2008, and with the nowprojected prolonged negative economic impact from the coronavirus/COVID-19 crisis. Aside from economic reasons for the paucity of traditional academic jobs, an additional reason few tenure-track positions exist today is quite simply because of higher education's now regularized reliance on contingent faculty and non-tenuretrack positions (Flaherty 2018; Griffey 2017; Kezar and Gehrke 2014) . The above trends were evident 20 years ago, when Antony argued that the increased migration of a variety of doctoral degree recipients to alternative careers, or careers in the private sector, would require many doctoral training programs to consider reforming the structure and learning outcomes of doctoral training. But little has changed over these two decades. As we will argue, we think the inertia is rooted in fear of changing what is familiar and comfortable to faculty who are at the helm of doctoral program structural decision-making. We address this idea later in the chapter, and even suggest avenues for future research to probe this idea more deeply. Twenty years ago, Antony imagined that the changing labor market, employment prospects, and professional aspirations of doctoral degree recipients inevitably would lead to progressive program reforms aimed at assisting doctoral students in becoming more employable by increasing their skill development and breadth of learning. Sadly, such progress has been slow. As we argue in this chapter, if doctoral training continues to stubbornly adhere to the same traditional socialization and professional development demands Antony identified two decades ago, the potential for doctoral training to meet the realities of the present time and, arguably, the future, will be limited. In this piece, we partially echo Antony's original argument, namely, that doctoral programs tend to structure the socialization and professional development of students in ways that demand congruence and assimilation with the dominant norms, traditions, values, and approaches of students' respective disciplines. But rather than simply restating that original argument, we delve into new literature on graduate student socialization, as well as incorporate new theoretical perspectives on career choice, that serve to strengthen the original argument, leading to the articulation of a revised theoretical position, which appears toward the end of the chapter. As a reminder, Antony's original argument was rooted in two theoretical traditions: career choice theory and socialization theory. As Antony explained, . . .career choice theorists lay the foundation for all future research on both career decisionmaking and professional career development and socialization. Career choice theorists have attempted to explain the factors that operate on the individual level to motivate career decision-making and development. Socialization theorists, on the other hand, have attempted to explain how the organization (either work or academic) has motivated individuals' career decision-making and development. The career choice and socialization theorists share the goal of explaining career decision-making and development. Where career choice theorists do so from the standpoint of the individual, socialization theorists do so from the standpoint of the organization. (Antony 2002; Arthur and McMahon 2018) We will strengthen the career choice and socialization theories that serve as the foundation upon which Antony's original (and, as we argue, still relevant) argument is based. We do this by introducing two additional career choice theories that fortify Antony's original conceptual position: planned happenstance theory and chaos theory of careers. Both bolster Antony's original position that career choice theories point to mechanisms operating at the individual level that help us understand how doctoral programs can socialize and professionally develop students beyond requiring assimilation and congruence. We also do this by introducing recent work by scholars who, like Antony did two decades ago, make calls for refinements to socialization theory (Weidman 1989; Weidman et al. 2001 ) that create room for more expansive socialization and professional development approaches. Finally, when it comes to expanding socialization and professional development practices, we suggest doctoral program inertia is rooted in fear of the unknown. Specifically, most faculty members fear trying new ways of socializing or professionally developing their doctoral students because they are not sure how to do it, or what the results of new approaches would be. There has been some progress on the margins, and we review studies of progressive efforts that attempt to push the boundaries of traditional graduate program structures. We review this work and offer a new theoretical stance. We believe that fear can only be conquered by building evidence for the efficacy of new approaches. As such, we will close this chapter by articulating an agenda for further research aimed at potentially building this empirical evidence. Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding Doctoral Student Socialization and Professional Development As Antony contended (2002) , two theoretical frameworks form the foundation for understanding doctoral student socialization and professional development: (1) the psychological and sociological frameworks of career choice and professional decision-making (Antony 2002; Katz 1963; Klein and Weiner 1977; Holland 1966 Holland , 1973 Holland , 1985 Holland , 1997 Williamson 1965; Zaccaria 1970) , and (2) frameworks of professional socialization (Antony 2002; Bragg 1976; Merton et al. 1957; Tierney and Rhoads 1994; Weidman 1989; Weidman et al. 2001) . Because a detailed review of these appears in the original piece, we will summarize the main elements. Psychological theories of career choice and aspiration development began to appear in the early 1900s. These early theories were narrowly focused on career guidance in the United States and also often purported gender-specific career guidance reflective of the times. A prime example is found in the work of Parsons (1909) . Parson's approach had three basic tenets. First, an individual should establish a clear understanding of their aptitudes, abilities, interests, ambitions, resources, limitations, and of their causes. Second, an individual should establish knowledge of the requirements and conditions of success, advantages and disadvantages, compensation, opportunities, and prospects in different lines of work. Third, an individual should establish true reasoning on the relations between these two groups of facts (Parsons 1909) . Rooted in Parsons' second tenet, the perceived need to select individual workers for the training required by specific jobs became the new orientation of career choice theorists. This led to the development of numerous tests (e.g., the Minnesota aptitude tests and the Army General Classification Tests) and occupational interest inventories (Antony 1996 (Antony , 2002 . The testing movement formed the basis of many psychological and social-psychological theories guided by what has been called the trait and factor approach to understanding occupational choice and decision-making. Perhaps, the best-known derivative theory among all trait and factor theories of occupational decision-making is Holland's structural-interactive theory of career choice (Holland 1966 (Holland , 1973 (Holland , 1985 (Holland , 1997 . Trait and factor theory is based upon the assumption that each individual is characterized by a unique pattern of capabilities and potentialities, or what might be called traits. Trait and factor theory, very simply, suggests that these traits are correlated with the requirements of specific jobs, and successful persons in any given job will tend to possess those traits (Katz 1963; Klein and Weiner 1977; Williamson 1965; Zaccaria 1970) . Although trait and factor theory led to the development of numerous tests, instruments, inventories, and scales, the application of the theory has not been without its critics, chief among them being that the theory is overly deterministic, ignoring interactions between personality and environment. In an effort to address this criticism of trait and factor theory, Holland created a structural-interactive theory of career choice (Holland 1966 (Holland , 1973 (Holland , 1985 (Holland , 1997 and, as a result, offered what is still considered one of the most widely cited career choice theories. Holland's structural-interactive theory of career choice (Holland 1966 (Holland , 1973 (Holland , 1985 (Holland , 1997 is derived from the notion that human behavior is a function of the interaction between individuals and their environments (Smart et al. 2000) . Three components make up Holland's theory: individuals, environments, and the fit or consonance between the two (Antony 1998a, b; Smart et al. 2000) . Holland developed six basic personality types to describe both individuals' personalities and environments: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional. Much has been written about these six types, but the key idea we convey here is that Holland's theory, like most of the psychological career choice theories before, form the theoretical basis for the congruence and assimilation orientation. For example, according to Holland, individuals can usually be viewed as belonging predominantly to one of his personality types, and environments are typically composed of individuals who share dominant personality characteristics. Ultimately, the more one resembles any particular personality type, the more likely he or she will be to exhibit the characteristics associated with that type, and the more likely he or she will be to choose to work in a job environment that is congruent with that personality type. Moreover, environments will tend to support the activities of individuals who more closely match the predominant personality type of others working in the environment. This match, or congruence, between individual and environment facilitates socialization in that individuals whose personalities are congruent with the environment are more likely to behave in ways that get rewarded and are more likely to be accepting of the culture and norms of the environment (Smart et al. 2000) . Lastly, according to Holland, the congruence between individual and environment is a primary determinant of successful achievement, satisfaction, and development. Individuals who are in environments that match their personalities are more likely to change or develop in ways that are consistent with the fundamental values and norms of the environment (Smart et al. 2000) . Said differently, academic or work environments are more likely to develop individuals in ways that are functional for professional success to the extent that there is a degree of consonance between the individual and the environment. Now, of course, even if one accepts the notion that certain personalities might dominate within a particular field, making such an observation falls short of explaining why or how that phenomenon of clustering occurs. Making this observation, yet failing to critically analyze how or why fields or disciplines come to be as reservoirs of certain personality types over others ignores the possibilities that there are sociological determinants at play. Holland's theory moved traditional psychological approaches to career aspiration development away from the highly deterministic trait and factor camp toward the structural-interactive camp, which is the foundation of many sociologists' theoretical perspectives on career choice. We will discuss this movement next, as it forms the other part of the foundation of traditional theories of graduate student socialization. First, we would like to address the language we use throughout this chapter. As we have indicated, this chapter is specifically aimed at understanding how to improve the socialization and professional development of doctoral students. But most early theoretical work addresses the broader category of graduate students. Therefore, when describing extant theories, we use the term graduate students when those theorists use that term so as to keep consistent with the language they have used. In this chapter our intent is to extrapolate from these early theories, to broaden these theories, and to advance new theoretical ideas that pertain specifically to doctoral students. The sociological approach to career choice and development is based upon the assumption that circumstances external to an individual, or elements beyond his or her control, have a profound influence on career aspiration. The sociological terrain has been well tread, and sociologists who have examined the relationship between social class and occupational aspiration have also concluded that variables such as race and racism, gender and gender discrimination, parental occupation and lack of opportunity, family income and poverty, place of residence and geographic descrimination, and parental marital status (to name a few) profoundly affect opportunities, training, life experiences, and professional and academic preparation. For our purposes, however, the important development within the sociological tradition is that of socialization theory. Socialization theory describes the stages or processes that individuals undergo as they evolve from early-career to full member of an occupation, and we summarize the major ideas next. Socialization is typically viewed as a process of active social engagement in which an individual or an organization directly influences the perceptions, behavior, and skill acquisition of another individual or organization. Traditional socialization theory, which we will review here, can benefit from some further refinement. We will set out to describe traditional theory and, with the introduction of new literature, offer this refinement. According to Daresh and Playko (1995) , the socialization process culminates in students' abilities to answer three key questions: (a) What do I do with the skills I have learned?; (b) What am I supposed to look like and act like in my professional field?; and (c) What do I, as a professional, look like to other professionals as I perform my new role? Weidman et al. (2001) describe socialization as an upward moving spiral carrying the new graduate student through recurring processes toward the goal of role acquisition. As the student ascends the spiral, they become more accomplished than at entry, having changed in specific ways at each step, and ultimately having been prepared to assume new professional roles. Socialization theorists such as Tierney and Rhoads (1994) and Mario (1997) have indicated that graduate and professional fields and disciplines in higher education exhibit the same structural dimensions of organizational socialization originally described by Van Maanen and Shein (1979) . Borrowing from these same organizational socialization roots and from the work of Thornton and Nardi (1975) , Weidman et al. (2001) describe how socialization is a developmental process. In so doing, Weidman et al. (2001) point out that identity and role commitment are not accomplished completely during professional preparation, but rather continue to evolve even after individuals begin professional practice. Thinking about socialization as a developmental process essentially ascribes a serial nature to the development of identity, commitment, and role acquisition. This serial development takes the early-career individual from initial thinking about what it might be like to be a member of a particular role and, through interactions with the training or professional preparation process, socializes them to become an accepted member of that profession or role. Throughout that socialization process, the new individual's conceptions of self and the role are challenged. These classical stage theories of socialization see the ultimate end of socialization as being one in which the early-career individual has adopted not only the identity of the role, but also the values and norms of the profession (for a more complete description of socialization theory, including its developmental aspects and core elements, see Antony 2002) . The conceptions of the socialization process we have reviewed underscore that, during the socialization process, doctoral students explore aspects of themselves and ideas about the career or field that go beyond their own original conceptions. These new conceptions may be uncomfortable at times, but socialization theory makes it clear that it is through a reconciliation of these newer ideas and, eventually, an adoption or integration of these ideas, that an individual becomes socialized into a field. Similar to how Thornton and Nardi (1975) , Weidman et al. (2001) describe, in the case of doctoral students, socialization can be thought of as a developmental process. In the initial stages of program identification and entry, the student carries great expectations and anticipations about what it will be like to be a student in a particular field and in a particular institution. During this initial anticipatory stage, a student becomes aware of the behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive expectations held for a graduate student, as well as for a professional in the chosen field. Role acquisition and identity formation occur in a serial nature. Through interactions with fellow students, faculty, and the overall professional preparation process, the new doctoral student is taken from their earliest thinking about what it might be like to be a member of a particular field to becoming an accepted member of that field. Along the way, the student picks up new skills, makes increased commitments and investments to the field, and becomes increasingly involved in the field. As knowledge increases, investments continue, and as involvement intensifies the student gains insights into professional ideology, motives, and attitudes. Ultimately, adopting these motives, attitudes and ideologies brings about professional role identification. This role identification becomes the hallmark of socialization and allows the student to actually want to become, and be successful as, a member of the profession. This is what is the primary indicator of the student having been successfully socialized into the profession. As Antony (2002) argued before, psychological theories of career choice and the basic elements of socialization theory both have face validity and, as such, seem to accurately describe the socialization demands and professional development structure of most doctoral programs. Antony (2002) gave these demands and structure a name: the congruence and assimilation orientation. As in Antony (2002) our description of the psychological and sociological theories of career choice, and in our subsequent presentation of socialization theory, aimed to expose where the congruence and assimilation orientation finds its roots, theoretically speaking. But what is meant by the congruence and assimilation orientation? In short, the congruence and assimilation orientation found throughout psychological and sociological theories of career choice, and in socialization theory, requires the internalization or adoption of a profession's norms, values, and ethics so that the early career individual's own professional identity and self-image are defined by them. This internalization or adoption asks a student to replace their own norms and values with those of the field one aspires to enter. So the argument goes, to the extent a student's own values are congruent with those of the field, they will tend to maximize their chances of being a successful professional in that field. As we have already stated, the congruence and assimilation orientation is limiting for a host of reasons. Nonetheless, it persists. Conceptually, this orientation finds its roots in traditional career choice and socialization theories. More recent developments in these two broad theoretical areas, however, open up avenues leading away from the strict congruence and assimilation demands of earlier career choice and socialization theories. It is to these we turn next, as they illuminate new ways of imagining how to structure doctoral student socialization and professional development that do not require congruence and assimilation. Even though Holland's more refined structural-interactive theory describes the socialization demands of most graduate programs, Antony (2002) argued for an expanded conceptualizationone that did not assume the need for congruence and, as Antony added, assimilation. Holland's theory, and all career choice theories before it, operate with an assumed sense of order, a need for predictability undergirded by an epistemology rooted in the measurability of a career path and the elements that make up a successful match or fit within that career path. What seems missing from early career choice theories, including Holland's, is the recognition that career choice may have an element of unpredictability, and may not easily be assumed to follow the logic and order conveyed by a search for fit or congruence. More recently, newer theories have emerged in the career development literature. Two conceptualizations of career choice, in particular, eliminate the demand for congruence and assimilation as a measure of a successful career choice and pursuit and in fact encourage preparation for unexpected events, uncertainty, and transitions. After describing these two theories, we will show how they help to broaden our theoretical conceptualizations of doctoral student socialization in a manner that makes clear the disadvantages of requiring congruence and assimilation. Planned Happenstance Theory (a.k.a. Happenstance Learning Theory) Planned Happenstance Theory or Happenstance Learning Theory (HLT) was introduced in 1999 by Mitchell, Levin, and Krumboltz and centers the concept of chance within the career development process (Mitchell et al. 1999) . It posits that human behavior is the product of learning experiences made available by both planned and unplanned situations. Every situation can be seen as presenting potential opportunities, if individuals can recognize them and then take action to capitalize on them. It emerged in response to both the rapid pace of change driven by the knowledge economy and also the need for a career theory that addressed increasing levels of career uncertainty. As it became more common for workers to pursue nonlinear and less predictable career pathways and hold many different jobs over a lifetime (or even at the same time, such as in contract work), the trait and factor theories of the past were no longer sufficient. Job complexity also has increased and the skills needed to succeed in an ever-changing knowledge economy continue to shift away from the "hard" skills of the industrial economy and towards the "soft" skills in demand today (Pew Research Center 2016). It is known that unexpected events over which we have no control happen all the time and produce surprising results. HLT posits that although it seems we have no control over such events, we actually can control the actions we take in response and capitalize on the outcomes we experience, whatever they may be (Krumboltz et al. 2013) . Developing the skills needed to recognize these chance events and learning to harness such events for strategic use in one's career is vital. Central to HLT are five skills: (1) curiosity: exploring new learning opportunities, (2) persistence: exerting effort despite setbacks, (3) flexibility: changing attitudes and circumstances, (4) optimism: viewing new opportunities as possible and attainable, and (5) risk taking: taking action in the face of uncertain outcomes (Mitchell et al. 1999) . We explore each of these in-depth and discuss why these skills are important for doctoral students to develop, how doctoral students are uniquely suited to develop these skills, and how these same skills might also help doctoral students socialize into their academic disciplines in healthier and more productive (i.e., without feeling the need to capitulate to demands of congruence and assimilation) ways. Throughout childhood, most people are exposed to a very limited number of careers. When asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" many children will answer with the jobs of their parents or with a job they've already encountered early in life, such as a doctor, teacher, or dentist (Baloch and Shah 2014) . These simple answers are common because most people have little exposure to the broad array of careers that exist in the world even though new jobs and careers are being invented each day (Institute for the Future & Dell Technologies 2017). Consider that 5 years ago there was no such thing as an Uber driver and 10 years ago there was no such thing as a paid "social influencer." This rapid pace of change in the modern world of work calls us to remain curious about career options and be open to exploring new learning opportunities. This willingness to explore and learn is important to career success over a lifetime, perhaps more now than ever before due to the rapid pace of change and constant uncertainty in the world of work. Ensuring doctoral students are prepared for such a rapidly evolving career landscape is challenging, especially when traditional preparation programs still rely upon congruence and assimilation approaches that often aim students towards the narrow career goal of a tenure-track faculty position, a goal that most graduate degree holders may never achieve. Doctoral students should be encouraged to embrace curiosity and expand their career knowledge by identifying multiple career pathways that could bring them satisfaction. For example, a doctoral student interested in a tenure-track faculty role at a research university should reflect upon the most appealing aspects of that role, such as job duties, required skills, and nature of the work. Next, students should research and identify 3-5 additional jobs that require those same skills and arrange informational interviews with people (alumni are perfect for this!) currently performing that work; meeting with a mentor or career advisor can be helpful to identify potential interviewees. HLT encourages this type of purposeful career curiosity and developing curiosity in doctoral students will prepare them well for the modern world of work. Resilience and persistence are important career development skills to master because the modern knowledge economy has created stiff competition for roles now requiring advanced degrees, making it harder to stand out in a crowd of qualified applicants (Powell and Snellman 2004) . With increased competition in the job market, it's likely that applicants will experience more rejection and hence must be able to bounce back and learn from rejection. Career setbacks take many forms and HLT reminds us that it's important to plan for the unexpected events so that we can capitalize on them. One way to do this is to develop high levels of resilience and practice overcoming roadblocks in everyday life. For doctoral students, persistence is often cultivated through the processes of research and experimentation that are central hallmarks of graduate study. For example, a Ph.D. student in performing arts who experiments with a new dance technique may envision the movement series with a particular pattern, cadence, and emotion, but it takes multiple hours of practice before that vision is achieved. Between conceptualizing the idea and achieving the end vision is where persistence grows; the many failed attempts to execute the pattern perfectly, followed by the rushed cadence of several unfocused rehearsals, or the inability to access the appropriate emotion at the exact right moment to bring the piece to life. Yet the doctoral student returns to the stage time and again to overcome the setbacks and push forward towards achieving the vision-this is persistence. HLT prioritizes persistence and doctoral students who understand how they are developing and practicing this skill are poised for career success. Being able to adapt and flex when plans change unexpectedly or to realign a viewpoint when exposed to a new perspective is an important skill to harness when preparing for the modern world of work. Although the knowledge economy often requires deep content expertise or specialized skills for a particular job, applicants who can demonstrate not only a match in expertise and skills but also a willingness (or even an eagerness!) to adapt and grow with the organization are very appealing. The old adage of "other duties as assigned" is still included in many job descriptions, demonstrating the continued desire of many organizations to hire those who are able to change their attitudes and adapt to unexpected and new circumstances with relative ease. Doctoral programs should find ways to imbed more purposeful opportunities for students to learn flexibility. A recent example of both institutions and students unexpectedly being called upon to demonstrate extreme flexibility was during the global pandemic in early 2020 when thousands of universities across the United States moved to entirely remote learning formats seemingly overnight in order to stop the spread of coronavirus/COVID-19 on their campuses while also maintaining educational continuity (Chronicle of Higher Education 2020; Witze 2020). This rapid and extreme shift in learning modalities has proven that when pushed, higher education institutions and the undergraduate and doctoral students, who both teach and learn within these institutions, can flex and adapt quickly. While not discounting the need to assess the effectiveness of these shifts in learning modalities, HLT purports that in order to capitalize on the many chance events in a lifetime, we must practice being flexible, so it's vital that graduate programs find ways to cultivate this skill in students. Learning about new or different career options may be overwhelming for doctoral students and in particular for those who have only ever had one solitary career goal up to that moment. Career exploration is not for the faint of heart and it requires an optimistic approach that centers on one's ability to envision oneself obtaining and succeeding in a particular career. Self-efficacy is envisioning being able to achieve a realistic goal and also identifying the steps one must take in order to get there. For example, we can assume that doctoral students, in general, have fairly high levels of self-efficacy, since they successfully applied for and were accepted into an advanced degree program through a competitive admission processeven if the ways in which that admissions process works are opaque to many applicants (Posselt 2018) . However, with the increasing numbers of diverse students entering graduate programs, it is important to examine the many factors that may influence one's ability to "see oneself" as able to succeed in a particular career, such as traditional gender stereotypes, cultural norms, family expectations, or access to career guidance structures. Even if one is optimistic about newly discovered career opportunities, that doesn't automatically translate to having optimism about one's ability to attain the career goal. This is where faculty advisors and mentors can play crucial roles in helping doctoral students cultivate career optimism and high levels of self-efficacy so they are ready to pursue new career goals that may emerge during their time in school. 5. Risk taking: taking action in the face of uncertain outcomes Courage is a major component of career success and one must act courageously when taking risks in the face of career uncertainty, such as accepting a job offer that requires a cross country move to a small town in the rural Midwest or calling the hiring manager to follow-up on the interview that didn't go very well for a job you really want. HLT centers on embracing the uncertainty that is increasingly present in life, recognizing the risk inherent within each event or nonevent, and harnessing the energy purposefully to take action in order to achieve success. Risk taking is a personal endeavor and each individual has differing levels of risk tolerance that ebb and flow throughout life depending upon circumstance (Warrell 2013) . For example, a 25-year-old single doctoral student may have a higher risk tolerance than they will at age 35 when they are married with children. Taking risks related to career development is usually a smart move and almost always the risk feels greater than it actually is (Warrell 2013) . Moreover, with taking risks comes reaping rewards and in the realm of career development the rewards can be exponential. For example, doctoral students could be encouraged to develop a practice of risk taking in their own professional development. This practice may involve intentionally reflecting on a career challenge the student is facing, identifying the barriers that exist as well as the opportunities to overcome, assessing risks and developing an action plan, implementing the plan, and then debriefing afterwards to see if the risk paid off. HLT calls for a move away from the traditional approach of congruence and assimilation as the primary means of socialization and instead centers on an approach where a doctoral student's life experiences, values, fears, and goals are welcomed into the conversation and play a central role in determining potential career pathways. Doctoral students experience nonlinear pathways as they navigate their degree programs and progress through the socialization process. The five dimensions we have described show the potential for HLT to free a doctoral student from having to identify one single occupational goal, such as a tenured faculty role at a research university, and instead encourages the asking of broader questions like what kind of work might make the student happy or allow them to live their values. These questions are asked so students think broadly about potential career options and remain open to possibilities with the aim of capitalizing on the inevitable chance events that interrupt the plan (such as job loss, not receiving an expected job offer, or even discovering a dream job doesn't actually make you happy). As we know, no matter how much planning goes into a career goal, there is a high likelihood that an unexpected chance event will change the course of that goal over time. Especially in today's volatile world of work, helping doctoral students develop skills like curiosity, persistence, flexibility, optimism, and risk-taking is vital. Chaos Theory of Careers (CTC) was introduced by and recognizes that individuals are complex systems and also are part of interconnected systems that continually influence both stability and change within and beyond those systems. Nonlinearity and recursiveness are two important concepts that define CTC; nonlinearity describes when elements add up to more than the sum of their parts and recursiveness is how elements within and between systems influence one another in unexpected ways . Although systems can seem predictable and stable on some levels, they are susceptible to sudden changes that could dramatically alter outcomes. As such, it's important to understand the elements and variables that comprise the system so individuals can capitalize on chance events and learn to make broad predictions about potential outcomes. Similar to the Happenstance Learning Theory discussed above, CTC centers on change, but goes even further by situating change within complex and interactive systems. This view of career development again moves us away from traditional trait and factor approaches by recognizing the need to continually revise career goals due to the constant changes happening within and between individuals and systems. In order to create doctoral programs that encourage an examination of, and flexibility to revise, career goals four key constructs of complexity, change, chance, and construction must be understood by those who hope to capitalize on chance events (Bright and Pryor 2011) . We will explore each of these in-depth and discuss how understanding these aspects of CTC can help doctoral students prepare for successful careers and succeed in their academic programs. We will also show how CTC offers new strategies for socializing doctoral students into their academic disciplines, intentionally moving beyond outdated and potentially harmful congruence and assimilation approaches. Individuals are complex and the intersectionality of various identities and their impacts on careers has been underestimated in traditional career theories that rely on static codes or types. CTC recognizes the importance of continually examining the whole person, their networks, as well the environment, and external influencers instead of assuming an individual has complete agency over their own career decisions or that career goals remain static. Acknowledging that career development is a complex and ever-changing process occurring continuously over the lifespan can be freeing, especially for doctoral students who may feel pressure to pursue one steady career goal during a degree program. Encouraging doctoral students to understand and eventually embrace complexity in both academic and career environments is a helpful exercise. For example, doctoral students should be encouraged to explore the various systems, identities, and contexts that influence their career goals and to share openly with colleagues as well as mentors and faculty advisors who can help them make meaning of these complexities. Understanding how one's familial background, religious beliefs, or racial identity impacts their career goals can be incredibly helpful (as we will see, below, other researchers make a similar argument) and graduate school would be an ideal time to consider how those goals intersect with one's chosen academic discipline. Change is a central tenet of CTC and should be examined closely by doctoral students who themselves are experiencing significant life change as they begin and progress through their degree programs. Viewing change as a constant in career as well as understanding one's own orientation towards change can be a helpful frame of reference. For example, doctoral students might find it helpful to reflect upon the significant changes they've encountered during their transition to graduate schoolwhat unexpected roadblocks they overcame, what surprised them, how it felt to be accepted/rejected from a program, what it was like to leave a job to attend school, how their families felt about relocating, and the list continues (Watson and Kenny 2014) . Acknowledging how change has impacted their careers thus far, how these changes have made them feel, and how multiple changes often interconnect across various systems can normalize change and help prepare doctoral students to navigate it successfully in the future. 3. Chance: the possibility that something might occur The role of chance events largely has been neglected in career theory, yet they are now the norm . In today's rapidly changing world we face surprising yet increasingly common chance events like global pandemics, devastating natural disasters, and polarizing political figures, so it's vital to incorporate chance into career planning. By understanding the role of chance and learning to recognize chance events, individuals can begin to capitalize on them . Our reading of CTC would suggest benefits to doctoral students of learning about chance because doctoral students are surrounded by countless chance encounters, both at the macro (e.g., at the level of the discipline or field) and micro (e.g., at the level of their specific doctoral program) as they progress through a degree program. Introducing doctoral students to the concept of chance should be coupled with an introduction to positive uncertainty, which helps individuals make decisions in times of uncertainty and capitalize on chance events (Gelatt and Gelatt 2003) . For example, encouraging a doctoral student to make a list of 3-5 appealing and achievable careers as a way of increasing confidence when one or more options doesn't work out or helping a doctoral student identify chance events by expanding their viewpoint to include not only the shocking events, like by chance being injured in a motor vehicle accident and needing to go on leave, but also more common events like attending a birthday party and by chance meeting the hiring manager from a dream organization and receiving an internship offer . Creating positive uncertainty around chance events can help familiarize doctoral students with what they will inevitably encounter in professional settings and is good preparation for career success. Ultimately the goal might be to prime doctoral students to recognize and capitalize on chance events. By this we mean that students could perhaps be taught to reframe chance events as opportunities for new outcomes, rather than becoming paralyzed when something unexpected happens and interrupts their previous plans. Construction is the act of claiming agency over one's own life and making choices about the complex systems, constant change, and chance events that influence careers. Because humans crave predictability we often lean heavily on the methods that allow for us to set goals and plan ahead, however these plans can go awry and we must learn to navigate through inevitable challenges. One navigation strategy is to identify the patterns that guide our careers over time and to rely upon these patterns to guide decision-making in times of uncertainty. CTC provides several tools to assist with identifying the patterns that exist within complex systems, including attractors, fractals, nonlinearity, emergence, and phase shifts, which we will not dive into deeply here, beyond acknowledging that identifying the patterns within complex systems can help individuals become active participants in creating their careers, rather than passive watchers of the process (Bright and Pryor 2011). To help doctoral students construct meaningful careers, they should be encouraged to identify the complex systems at play in their lives, embrace the constant change that surrounds them, and recognize the importance of chance events (some might even choose to frame such chance events as opportunities). Universities and the graduate degree programs housed within them are complex systems, so learning to identify and navigate complexity early on is an important step to successful doctoral student socialization. Next, embracing change and capitalizing on chance events are also helpful socialization strategies in preparation for modern career pathways, in particular for careers outside of academia. Higher education institutions are not necessarily known for eagerly embracing change or capitalizing on chance events, so it will be important for graduate program administrators and faculty alike to think creatively about how to develop these competencies in students and perhaps even incorporate these competencies into graduate program curricula. These strategies do not align with traditional congruence and assimilation approaches to socialization that still are prevalent in graduate education. Doctoral students are still expected to fit into predictable methods of operation, expected roles, or singular careers and often are not professionally developed in ways that prepare them for success in the modern world of work. Change and chance are newer ideas in the career development literature and more empirical research is needed to discern the efficacy of these theories when applied to graduate education and students. Often university faculty and program administrators fear what they do not know, so it's not surprising that these newer career development concepts haven't become commonplace in doctoral student socialization. Now is the time to take actionable steps towards making such changes in graduate education to ensure that doctoral students have positive experiences while enrolled and also are well prepared for a lifetime of career success upon graduation. Both CTC and HLT provide two frameworks from where graduate programs might start looking for new approaches to how they socialize students. Recent work from contemporary scholars examines many facets of socialization. Much of this work raises critical questions about traditional theoretical conceptions of socialization, calls for a centering of minoritized students' experiences, and challenges faculty members to take up the mantle of creating structural change. We find this work not only helpful in expanding theoretical conceptions of socialization, but also useful in supporting our core argument that congruence and assimilation, though still a feature of doctoral programs' socialization and professional development approaches, remain problematic and limiting. What follows is a brief summary of some of these scholars' supporting ideas, followed by a clarified statement of a modified doctoral student socialization framework. Garcia et al. (2020) use Latino Critical Theory and Community Cultural Wealth as guiding frameworks to enhance Weidman's model and make it more relevant to Latinx students. Their core argument is that students of color should not have to assimilate in order to succeed in educational environments, and that many models don't account for the need to navigate larger systems of oppression or different success frameworks. They critique Weidman's theory for not appropriately accounting for the assets and values brought by minoritized students, in particular cultural wealth, and its impact on student success. In addition, Garcia et al. (2020) point out that the lack of other Latinx graduate students as well as predominantly white faculty/staff make graduate-level socialization more challenging for Latinx students. Having a Latinx faculty mentor, and a curriculum that supports and addresses Latinx perspectives can reduce the tension between the scholarly or professional identities dominant in a field and the racial identities of Latinx students. We agree with Garcia et al. (2020) when they call for revised models of socialization, and when they call upon institutions, faculty, and staff to disrupt the legacy of discrimination, exclusion, and white supremacy pervasive on college campuses. We also agree with their suggestions that, right now, the socialization demands on college campuses can often be detrimental to Latinx graduate students. New models should examine how Latinx students' cultural assets and wealth may actually change and enhance the university (instead of only asking how the university changes the student), while also enhancing a student's own identity development (Garcia et al. 2020) . Communities of support that students bring with them to graduate school are assets that are intertwined with their socialization experiences. These communities of support should not be separated out in models of socialization. And, they should not be disregarded or depicted in ways that suggest students' reliance upon these communities of support is, by default, deleterious to successful socialization. Griffin et al. (2020) show how Black and Latinx graduate students struggle to establish relationships that translate into connections within their fields of study, particularly in STEM fields where numbers are small. Many encounter racism or low expectations from mentors. Griffin et al. (2020) indicate that at the core of good mentoring lies an inclination to offer specific guidance through core tasks; overall advocacy of the student, balancing support with autonomy; and exposure to key experiences. They discuss how effective mentors play a key role in providing opportunities for students to engage in the work of scientists (lab research, presentations, teaching, etc.); provide care and personal connection; and guide their students towards opportunities for learning and knowledge acquisition all while providing psychosocial and emotional support within a broader programmatic culture of care. Mentors who push students to achieve while also showing confidence in their abilities to succeed are socialized to understand the idea that mistakes and challenges are just part of doing good science (Griffin et al. 2020 ). Phelps-Ward (2020) advances emancipatory research counter-spaces as a framework for examining socialization. In so doing, Phelps-Ward (2020) introduces intersectional identities as another important aspect of graduate student socialization to consider. In this conception of a doctoral program socialization and professional development approach, administrators and faculty acknowledge the racialized experiences of students, and the power of race and racism in shaping the experiences of Black doctoral students (Phelps-Ward 2020). Key to our understanding of effective socialization structures is the idea that graduate programs must center race in research and practice in order to dismantle systems that inhibit student success, and that this is not the responsibility of the students to doit is the responsibility of graduate programs (Phelps-Ward 2020). By centering race and racism, faculty mentors are encouraged to ask themselves questions about race in mentorship and how they feel about mentoring students from other racial backgrounds. This faculty-driven inquiry takes the pressure off of students to do this stressful work and instead places the burden on faculty and administrators. And, simply put, centering race and racism in the curriculum and in structural decision-making provides a better environment within which minoritized students, and all other students, can develop and learn. Three realms for successfully socizaling and professionally developing Black doctoral students are identified by Phelps-Ward (2020). The first revolves around faculty advising, and includes: using holistic, asset-based approaches to understand a student's background, adopting a variety of teaching strategies that incorporate diverse perspectives, and developing racial awareness of how to mentor diverse students. The second revolves around programmatic-level approaches, such as creating collaborative faculty-student research opportunities, organized programlevel or cohort-based mentoring, seriously examining what prevents successful Black faculty recruitment and retention, developing more robust avenues for students to offer programs feedback, and incorporating anti-racism into the curriculum. A third area, which can be described as extra-programmatic, involved codifying support beyond the institution through enhancing deeper student connections with professional associations and mentorship organizations, and creating additional training opportunities outside of the program or university, perhaps in affiliated organizations, industry, and so forth (Phelps-Ward 2020). Ultimately, it is also the responsibility of faculty and administrators to create structural support for Black doctoral students to ensure their success (Phelps-Ward 2020). Faculty members are the ones who determine how doctoral programs are structured, and have the power to make systemic changes. What this work advances is a philosophical orientation that faculty members could consider adopting that would lead to actual structural changes that reshape doctoral student socialization and professional development. These changes would maximize the chances that doctoral programs socialize students in ways that are not limited by congruence and assimilation. Similarly, Winkle-Wagner et al. (2020) make an argument similar to the anticongruence and assimilation view we are advancing here, and that Antony (2002) originally offered. Specifically, Winkle-Wagner et al. (2020) state that "...one reason for the persistence of racial inequities is the often-used one-way socialization process in graduate programs that assumes that students must set aside their differences to integrate themselves and their ideas into the norms of their disciplines" (p. 74). By examining how social reproduction theory applies to Black student socialization, Winkle-Wagner et al. (2020) use this theoretical approach to discuss how the oneway socialization process can be disrupted. They outline how aspiration capital is brought to the table by students and, when a graduate program uses a bi-directional socialization process, students' backgrounds can be leveraged as assets rather than something that has to be given up in order to succeed. This is a concept also discussed by critical race theorists and, in particular, Yosso (2005) . There is ample evidence to suggest that an assets-based approach that values students' backgrounds and experiences makes for better learning environments. The same mechanisms that operate in theories of social reproduction (i.e., use and value of cultural and social capital) operate here, except that the backgrounds underrepresented students bring to graduate school can be seen as forms of capital that, if the graduate program allows it (i.e., the programs do not demand congruence and assimilation), can be useful to students' development and socialization. Of course, this requires connecting the social capital of origin families to academia in a way that encourages academia to value that capital. What is evident is that contemporary scholars continue to raise this issue and interrogate why little has changed either in academia, generally, or within doctoral programs, specifically. The Role of Mentoring and Advising, and its Long-Term Impact Several scholars, such as Baker (2020), Gardner and Doore (2020) , and Perry and Abruzzo (2020) , have also studied the socialization of doctoral students into professional careers. Baker (2020) examined the early-career socialization of faculty in liberal arts colleges, and the role of mission as driver of behavior, governance, and success. What Baker found was that graduate school in research university environments does a poor job of preparing or socializing these individuals for early faculty careers in liberal arts colleges. Baker (2020) compares and contrasts the Weidman model (Weidman 1989; Weidman et al. 2001) to career cycles and learning approaches to understanding the early careers of faculty. This research makes evident that early career socialization needs organizational networks that are fostered at the college or university level and move beyond the expertise of single mentors, as older mentors' expertise might be out of date. What is evident in this research is that the role of advisors or mentors impacts not only the experiences during the doctoral program years for a student, but also impacts the kind of faculty member a doctoral student becomes. Advisors and mentors really matter and, as such, Baker's (2020) work suggests that doctoral students need to develop their own networks (both with other senior individuals and within societies and associations, etc.) that allow them to tap into mentoring outside of their own doctoral programs. In recognition of this, Baker suggests that doctoral programs need to invest in departments, to make sure structures and supports are embedded to aid doctoral students' wider network formation activities, and thatwithin liberal arts collegescontinued socialization and support of junior faculty must happen within departments. Mentoring Students for More than Just Academic Careers Gardner and Doore (2020) examine how well doctoral programs socialize doctoral students for a diverse set of careers. They argue that doctoral programs need to move away from simply socializing for academic careers and, instead, need to professionalize students for other careers. They suggest that current programmatic socialization approaches prepare students with an outdated map to pursue one particular kind of career, butas we have stated earlier in the chapterit's highly likely nowadays that a graduate will pursue multiple different types of careers and, as a result, needs to be professionally prepared to do so (Gardner and Doore 2020) . Echoing elements of Baker's (2020) work reviewed, above, Gardner and Doore (2020) underscore the essential role of advisors, but clearly show that advisors are limited in their traditional approaches, unless they are deeply connected to industry or sectors outside of academia that might be attractive to their students. They helpfully point out that effective doctoral student socialization and professionalization are facilitated by mentors who know how to keep track of job market trends, and are able to help doctoral students stay current with the realities of the job market (Gardner and Doore 2020) . By extension, these mentors would structure their programs' socialization approaches in such a way as to help doctoral students develop skills relevant to the existing job market (Gardner and Doore 2020) . In essence, Gardner and Doore (2020) remind us that effective doctoral student socialization and professional development provides professional development programs and collects data on employment outcomes of alumni that can be used to guide enhancement of future socialization and professional development efforts. The literature reinforces the idea that doctoral programs need to more effectively recognize the characteristics of doctoral students, themselves. We saw elements of this in the literature reviewed, above, which called for the centering of minoritized students' experiences, and in the need for doctoral programs to adopt an assets-based structural approach. Similarly, a growing focus of the literature is on international students, both those matriculating within US-based programs, and those in programs outside the US. International students constitute a large percentage of doctoral students in the United States, especially in STEM areas. When considering the socialization and professional development needs of international students, several scholars have discussed the ways in which traditional socialization and professional development approaches fail to aid international student adjustment and success. Veliz (2020) reminds us that international graduate students face unique challenges, including navigating different national, institutional, and educational cultures and customs. At times, these students face culture shock, language barriers, and challenges when trying to connect with domestic peers. Mentorship is critical for international student success, but programs need to help international students understand what is meant by mentorship in the United States, especially when defining what a mentoring relationship will entail, and how to go about identifying a mentor early on in a doctoral degree program (Veliz 2020) . With all the challenges international students face, they may need a different kind of socialization that recognizes the unique aspects of their experiences. (Veliz 2020 ). This conclusion is not dissimilar from one we might arrive at when considering the critical race perspectives reviewed above, or when considering how to make doctoral programs more responsive to the assets that minoritized students bring into programs. Our analysis, conceptually, is that the literature is arriving at a type of convergence herewhether discussing minoritized US-based students, or international students studying in the USA, scholars are making clear that the structure of doctoral education needs to shift in ways that make it more responsive to these students, centers their needs and experiences, and promotes the kind of advising and mentoring that diversifies how students are supported (so as to not restrict students' outcomes to academic careers, alone). More evidence for our analysis can be found in examining literature that studies international students. When probing international graduate student socialization, with a particular focus on Chinese tourism and hospitality graduate students, Sonnenschein (2020) examines how "Work Integrated Learning" can lead to successful socialization. Sonnenschein's underlying premise is that international students need additional support securing professional opportunities due to language barriers and more limited in-country networks. Sonnenschein introduces the concept of graduate programs preparing students for boundaryless careers. The idea here is that few employees now spend their whole careers in or at one place. As such, the necessity for developing career management skills among all international graduate students, and professionally developing them to become increasingly comfortable with professional transitions, looms large. Again, the core argument in Sonnenschein is that, even in highly professional graduate programs like hospitality or tourism, traditional (and restrictive) approaches to socialization and professional development aboundin this case, to the detriment of international students. It is not lost on us that we have heard this refrain in the literature before. Traditional approaches to socialization and professional development may be perceived as effective in shaping a narrow set of career possibilities (i.e., academic careers), but do little to effectively shape the futures of those who choose other types of careers. Of course, our analysis suggests that the literature is calling into question whether traditional forms of socialization and professional development are even doing, if they ever did, a good job preparing doctoral students for traditional faculty careers, as Baker (2020) reminds us, above. Similarly, when examining the socialization of doctoral students in Germany, Hottenrott and Menter (2020) reinforce the notion that more integrated, more deeply coordinated, socialization and professional development structures can aid doctoral student success. Specifically, they introduce the notion of shifting doctoral programs towards shorter, more structured programs organized around Research Training Groups, which are interdisciplinary and international groups that focus on collective identity development, and that distinguish between formal and informal socialization. Such programs help students understand the nature of both random and sequential steps through the doctoral education experience, allow for flexibility so that pacing through the program is not always fixed but can at times be purposefully variable (Hottenrott and Menter 2020) . Our analysis is that helping students understand the nature of both random and sequential steps through the doctoral education experience might be a structural feature that leverages what, conceptually, both Planned Happenstance Theory and Chaos Theory of Careers (reviewed above) suggest as optimal best practice. The advancement of career choice theory makes clear that congruence and assimilation are no longer needed as elements in a conceptual foundation undergirding the study of career choice and decision-making, nor are these seen as requirements for guiding work with individuals when assessing what accurately describes the career choice process. Likewise, contemporary critiques of socialization theory continue to be aimed at the shortcomings of congruence and assimilation as conceptual requirements for guiding studies of effective socialization and, by extension, professional development of doctoral students. These socialization studies provide evidence that doctoral programsin their very structures and socialization approachesremain rooted in traditionalism, still demanding congruence and assimilation. The modified framework for doctoral student socialization Antony (2002) initially created still has currency. And, yet, given recent work in both career choice and socialization theory, the Antony framework can be enhanced in ways that strengthen its capacity to describe methods doctoral programs can use to divest from the congruence and assimilation orientation. The original Antony (2002) framework described three components that make up doctoral programs which have the capacity to socialize and professionally develop students in ways that extend beyond simple congruence and assimilation. Specifically, such doctoral programs: 1. Instill an awareness of a field's content, values, and norms without expecting a student to accept those values and norms as one's own 2. Allow room for more than one method for socializing doctoral students 3. Enhance, and support the assertion of, intellectual individuality Revisiting this framework, and taking into account advances in career choice and socialization theories, we assert that the framework must do more. The literature continues to support the idea that doctoral programs should help students develop an awareness of, versus developing a personal acceptance of, a field's content, values, and norms. This type of socialization recognizes that an individual can master content and develop the acumen to work within the traditional norms, values, and standards of a profession without having to internalize, or accept as one's own, those norms, values, and standards. A doctoral student socialized in this way learns about the values and norms that drive a profession but is not expected to adopt those values and norms as his or her own to be considered successfully socialized. Our reading of modern sociological theories suggests that there is one more requirement on the way to helping students develop an awareness of, versus developing a personal acceptance of, a field's content, values, and norms: namely, to simultaneously encourage students do this work while critically questioning the role their field's content, values, and norms play in devaluing traditionally marginalized people and their lived experiences. This critical stance will serve to enhance scholarship in every field, and also embed an additional valuethat of centering the marginalizedwhich can only serve to finally decenter the traditionalism (too often rooted in unexamined race/racism, whiteness, gender bias, patriarchy, social classism, elitism, homophobia, xenophobia, and so forth) that has historically shaped the structure of graduate training. It is hard to be all those things when, at the very core of a program's structure, lies the imperative to critically examine the roots of a field's content, values, and norms. Our reading of current career choice and socialization theory also lends evidence for the continued assertion for the second component of Antony's framework: allow room for more than one method for socializing and professionally developing doctoral students. Yet, we believe this component now needs elaboration in order to account for new theoretical advances. Simply stating programs should allow for a diversity of socialization approaches is too anemic a statement in that it allows for some of those methods to be the now well-understood ineffective approaches of hands-off, disinvested, and disconnected from broader extra-discipline developments and demands. Such an anemic statement also allows space for programs to adopt socialization and professional development approaches that are hostile, and do not place student wellness at their center. Continuing to use ineffective socialization and professional development approaches, especially when ample empirical evidence illuminates their ineffectiveness, is tantamount to educational malpractice. Therefore, a modified statement of the second component of Antony's framework must make clear that doctoral training that is not rooted in congruence and assimilation doesn't just allow room for multiple methods of socialization, but specifically adopts multiple methods of socialization and professional development that have been empirically shown to be efficacious in preparing students for the many professional outcomes that exist todaynot just traditional academic career outcomes. Finally, the third component of Antony's original frameworkdoctoral programs that have the capacity to socialize and professionally develop students in ways that extend beyond simple congruence and assimilation enhance, and support the assertion of, intellectual individualitystill has currency. But, knowing what we now know from a modern reading of the literature, we suggest an elaboration here, as well. Doctoral programs should ensure faculty do not penalize students for asserting their intellectual individuality but, rather, help students develop the critical, technical, and theoretical skills and tools to maximize the effectiveness of their intellectual individuality. Also, doctoral programs should teach students to appreciate the responsibilities that come with asserting intellectual individualitythe responsibilities of open-mindedness and debate; of learning how to work with, incorporate, and compellingly challenge studies that offer alternative conclusions; and to create a respectful and vibrant doctoral program climate that allows students and faculty to respectfully engage in intellectual conversations and debates without fear of retribution. Taking into account the latest literature, the modified and more elaborate Antony-Schaps framework for effective doctoral student socialization and professional development is outlined in Table 1 , below. Our modified framework, we believe, can serve as a guide for reshaping doctoral program socialization and professional development practices. As we stated above, when it comes to expanding socialization and professional development practices, doctoral program inertia is rooted in fear of the unknown. Faculty members and graduate program directors fear trying new ways of socializing or professionally developing their doctoral students because they are not sure how to do it or what the results of new approaches would be. Such fear can only be conquered by building evidence for the efficacy of new approaches. In what follows, we suggest a research agenda organized around three broad categories. These are studies that might examine the efficacy of each of the following: (1) enhanced advising approaches, (2) modified programmatic requirements, and (3) deeply integrated professional development strategies. Advising is the foundation of doctoral training. Although advising is often thought of as the interaction between an individual advisor or mentor and an individual Table 1 Antony-Schaps framework for effective doctoral student socialization and professional development Doctoral programs that socialize and professionally develop students in ways that extend beyond congruence and assimilation: Instill an awareness of a field's content, values, and norms... Adopt multiple methods of socialization and professional development that... Enhance, and support the assertion of, intellectual individuality, while... Without expecting a student to accept those values and norms as one's own; Have been empirically shown to work well, incorporate students' unique backgrounds and goals and enhance holistic wellness among students; Simultaneously ensuring faculty do not penalize students for doing so but, rather, help students develop the critical, technical, and theoretical skills and tools to maximize the effectiveness of their intellectual individuality; By structuring their curriculum, professional development, and training approach to encourage students to critically examine whether, and how, the field's content, values, and norms center one people's perspective or lived experience over that of others; Recognize the rapidly changing modern world of work and purposefully prepare students with skills needed to navigate multiple career transitions over a lifetime; Teaching students to appreciate the responsibilities that come with asserting intellectual individuality - The responsibilities of openmindedness and debate; of learning how to work with, incorporate, and compellingly challenge studies that offer alternative conclusions; By challenging students to imagine expanding the content, values, and norms of the field in the direction of developing more inclusive theoretical approaches, methodologies, epistemologies, and research agendas. Prepare students for the many legitimate professional outcomes that exist today -Not just traditional academic career pathways. Proactively and actively creating a respectful and vibrant doctoral program climate that allows students and faculty to respectfully engage in intellectual conversations and debates without fear of recrimination or retribution. student, other models of advising are used in doctoral programs, as well. These include group advising, lab-based advising, peer-to-peer advising, and so forth, and much has been written about the efficacy of various forms of mentoring and advising (Breitenbach 2019; Barnes and Austin 2009; Grady 2016; Hande et al. 2019; McConnell et al. 2019) . Many approaches to advising recognize there are two fundamental, and simultaneously essential, approaches: transactional advising, where specific goals or objectives for the student's academic progress are discussed and addressed, and holistic approaches to advising, wherein broader topics about students' lives that are notat least on the surfaceperceived as directly related to the taking of courses or the accomplishment of program goals are also discussed (Gildehaus et al. 2019; Luedke et al. 2019) . The opportunity for research exists in extending the advising and mentoring literature to better understand how to effectively advise and mentor doctoral students. We recommend the following questions be asked by researchers, perhaps controlling for discipline or even comparing across disciplines: Are the holistic advising and mentoring approaches shown to be effective for undergraduate students also effective for doctoral students (Huggett 2004; Luedke et al. 2019; Museus and Ravello 2014) ? In what ways do various approaches to advising and mentoring produce differential outcomes for doctoral students? How do faculty members arrive at their goals and objectives for their doctoral students, and to what extent do these goals and objectives match what students hold for themselves? What methods of advising can faculty members use to most effectively help students simultaneously achieve traditional programmatic goals and objectives while also achieving students' own professional goals and objectives? Within disciplines, what is the variation of advising and mentoring models that exist and what is the efficacy of each (in helping students achieve both traditional, and their own, goals and objectives)? Do individual, one-on-one, mentoring and advising approaches work better in helping students achieve both traditional, and their own, professional goals and objectives than alternative approaches? If a goal of doctoral training is, partly, to diversify (by gender and race) who obtains a doctoral degree, then what are the methods of advising and mentoring used by those programs most successful in achieving this goal, and to what extent can these methods be generalized to other programs? What advising practices work particularly well for enhancing the recruitment, retention, and success of Black, Latinx, Native American, and other historically underrepresented groups in doctoral programs? We would suggest asking the same question aimed at increasing the participation of women in STEM, as well. What is the efficacy of extending the source of advising and mentoring beyond just faculty members, and including other students, mentors, and advisors from industry and outside of academia? Program requirements vary greatly, even within disciplines, across different universities. For example, in some fields, programs are heavily course-based, whereas others have few course requirements. In other fields, the first-year is cohort-based with all students following the same sequence of courses, whereas in others there are no courses in the first year at all, rather having students rotate in and out of faculty labs. Some programs require comprehensive examinations midway through the program as a mechanism for assessing student knowledge and the passage of which signifies eligibility to continue toward the degree. Other programs have no such degree requirements and, rather, assess student progress simply on course grades. What is amazing is that such variation is observed not only across disciplines but even within disciplines, with students pursuing the same exact degree at different institutions having distinct programmatic structures. This programmatic variation is often rooted in the simple fact that different programs have different faculty members who, collectively, represent unique areas of expertise. Often, programmatic requirements are as much a reflection of the expertise of the faculty on the program's roster (which affects what can be taught, and what programs of research are pursued) as they are of any common, field-driven, understanding of what a doctoral student should know, or how they should be trained. Unlike in professional fields, such as medicine or law, where there is broad-based consensus around a typical curriculum, and even profession-specific qualifying tests or examinations (e.g., the medical boards, or the bar examinations), variation in the programmatic requirements of doctoral programs is more the rule than the exception. Researchers should examine whether this variation is a net positive or negative when it comes to the outcomes we care about. For example, do deeper levels of consensus, within fields or disciplines, about programmatic curriculum or requirements yield better-trained students? Can such levels of consensus be achieved without risking student individuality, and without further reinforcing the very congruence and assimilation demands we have argued against in this chapter? What is the experience within fields (e.g., medicine, law, etc.) regarding this tension between conformity to field-specific standards and fostering student individuality? Is there anything doctoral programs can learn from these professions (both to do better, and to avoid)? What do students, within fields and disciplines, say about programmatic requirements (such as what is confusing, what serves as barriers to progress, what seems anachronistic or archaic, and what is missing)? What do employers (academic institutions, professional organizations, private labs, industry, etc.) say about recent doctoral recipients' readiness for employment, and what do they identify as missing from these graduates' preparation? What are the sources of resistance among doctoral program faculty to shifting programmatic requirements so that they align more fully with the demands of the current labor market, and how can institutions balance the possibilities of broadening programmatic requirements without threatening faculty autonomy and expertise in shaping those requirements? What can we learn from the way programs are structured in other nations that have a reputation for strong doctoral training? Deeply integrated professional development approaches could be useful in helping to transform doctoral education so students are prepared to succeed in traditional academic roles as well as increasingly common alternative careers, ready to navigate inevitable career transitions over a lifetime, and encouraged to develop and pursue their own individual career goals. By deeply integrated, we mean that professional development is nested within the programmatic experience, as opposed to only being extracurricular. Many doctoral programs are experimenting in this regard. For example, some programs are embedding required internship or field experiences, so that students rotate in industry-based labs or get exposed to field-specific applications of the topics being studied in the program. Other programs embed outside experts in the curriculum, inviting these experts to be part of the core faculty and requiring students to address disciplinary topics in ways that speak to outside interests or audiences. Many programs require a sequence of professional development seminars, taught by various experts, that help students address such topics as career development, presenting research to non-technical audiences, applying and interviewing for non-academic jobs, and so on. There are many other examples of ways in which programs are experimenting with embedding professional development into the structure of the programs. But, do such approaches work well? What are the best ways to help students develop themselves, professionally and personally, so that they become experts within their disciplines but also develop broader skills useful beyond those needed for success in traditional academic roles? And is such broader professional development advantageous, or deleterious, to student academic success within the programs, and why? Given that the academic roles of today and tomorrow are very different than those of prior years, how should professional development prepare students for academic roles? How should professional development prepare students for increasingly common alternative careers? In what ways can faculty members help shape meaningful professional development experiences, and what are the specific metrics faculty and programs should use to measure the effectiveness of their efforts? In what ways can students, themselves, be engaged to assist with professional development creation, delivery, and evaluation within their academic programs? What is the best delivery modality for various kinds of professional development? And, when done well, what does doctoral student professional development look like, by discipline? As we write this chapter, higher education faces one of the greatest challenges it has ever faced: addressing the multifaceted effects associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. The spring of 2020 brought with it a complete halt to normal operations for every college and university. Leaders were faced with having to make decisions about whether campuses could stay open and operate normally, andin nearly every casethe obvious priority of needing to protect the health and safety of students, staff, and faculty members led most colleges and universities to make unprecedented decisions. For highly residential institutions, most students were sent home. Staff and faculty were asked to retool their work and teaching, delivering both remotely. Aside from higher education institutions that were already universally delivering services remotely or online, few if any of our colleges and universities were equipped to rapidly shift operations in this manner. It was a Herculean task that required everyone to drop everything they were doing, and to completely rethink all aspects of their work. Research in many disciplines has been adversely impacted, as researchers and doctoral students find it increasingly difficult to carry out traditional forms of data collection during a period of time characterized by intense social distancing and limited travel. Even in fields where research activity was maintained, or where it slowly ramped up again, overall research activity has been slowed down. The training model for doctoral students has thus been impacted in ways one could never imagineduring the spring and summer of 2020, few students were able to work in labs, or on research projects, to the extent that they had in the past, and there was no clarity as to when such work would resume at the rates realized before the pandemic. The end result is a profound slowdown in the progress to degree for most doctoral students. There is little end in sight for a return to completely normal operations. In some sense, higher education may never be the same again. Rounding the corner into the 2020-21 academic year, confusion abounds as the virus continues to actively spread across most communities. For doctoral students, the stakes are quite high. Budgets are in tatters, and many institutions' efforts to reduce expenses included cuts to doctoral student funding, as well as reductions in the numbers of students accepted into doctoral programs. For doctoral students already matriculating, the job market outlook is bleak and is expected to be so for years to come, as colleges and universities engage hiring freezes in an effort to save their institutions from financial ruin. One might ask whether these conditions, the long-term impact of which are not yet fully clear, teach us anything about the ways in which we are preparing the current, and even next, generation of doctoral students? We think they do. For one, higher education will likely not return to business as usual ever again. Any person who is fortunate enough to earn a faculty position in the coming years will most certainly be required to have proficiency, dare we say high skill, in delivering instruction online or remotely. But doctoral programs have always been illequipped to teach doctoral students how to teach, in general, let alone how to teach remotely or online. Doctoral programs can now, more than ever, ill afford to prepare students in a limited fashion, for jobs that do not exist. As the availability of academic postings slows to a trickle, with the timing of a rebound in hiring hard to predict, those doctoral students on the cusp of graduating need to be prepared to approach their training and the eventual job market with the goal of developing, and offering, a diversity of skillsnot just ones suited for traditional academic jobs. The future is unclear, but what we have outlined in this chapter held true even before the pandemic. The pandemic is only intensifying the clarity of our argument, which we restate, quite simply, here: doctoral programs must move beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation in their socialization and professional development approaches. For generations, recipients of doctoral degrees have gone on to reshape every sector of society. The impact of the work of doctoral degree recipients on society is sometimes thought to be intangible. But even the casual observer, if they take the time to think about it, might notice how every facet of life is enriched by what those with advanced degrees bring to society. The technical advances, whether in medicine or biomedical research, especially during times of pandemic, are an obvious example. But there exist equally profound, albeit not necessarily life-and-death oriented examples, as well. The clean water many of us drink in our cities and towns; the properly engineered bridges and highways and transportation infrastructure that we use on a daily basis; the museums or concerts or other cultural events that enrich our hearts and minds; the schools and school systems we send our children to; the libraries that serve as information hubs for our world; the pocket-sized supercomputer-like phones that are so ubiquitous and allow nearly everyone to communicate and gain access to information; the very infrastructure that supports the internetall of these, and countless more, are examples of works we take for granted but, if not for those who possessed advanced degrees (many, doctoral degrees) would simply cease to exist. Doctoral degree recipients have an impact, directly and indirectly, on everyone's lives. What happens in doctoral degree programshow these students are trained, and how their socialization and professional development is structuredstands to have long-term effects not just on the individuals graduating with these doctoral degrees, but on the potential for these individuals to shape, and even help fundamentally change, the world. It is for this reason we believe doctoral programs have an obligation to assess their programmatic structures, and to embrace the possibilities and potential of moving beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation when socializing and professionally developing their students. Reexamining doctoral student socialization and professional development: Moving beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation Factors influencing college students' abandonment of medical career aspirations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California Exploring the factors that influence men and women to form medical career aspirations Personality-career fit and freshman medical career aspirations: A test of Holland's theory. Research in Higher Education Contemporary theories of career development The professoriate in liberal arts colleges: Early career faculty socialization and learning The significance of awareness about selection and recruitment processes in students' career decision making The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the advisor's perspective. Innovative Higher Education A warning from the academic underground of adjuncts and contingent faculty The socialization process higher education Evaluating a model to increase doctorate program completion rates: A focus on social connectedness and structure The chaos theory of careers: A user's guide. The Career Development Quarterly The chaos theory of careers The role of chance events in career decision making How will the pandemic change higher education? The Chronicle of Higher Education Alternative career formation perspectives: Lessons for educational leadership from law, medicine, and training for the priesthood. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administrators The academic job market is a nightmare. Here's one way to fix it Escape from the doll's house: Women in graduate and professional education The rise of "Quit Lit" Soon-to-be former academics are taking their grievances public A non-tenure-track profession? Inside Higher Education Rethinking Weidman's models of socialization for Latinxs along the postsecondary educational pipeline Doctoral student socialization and professional pathways Creative decision making: Using positive uncertainty The research, advising, and mentoring professional: A unique approach to supporting underrepresented students in biomedical research Doctoral students in a distance program: Advising and degree completion strategies Decline of faculty tenure: Less from an oversupply of PhDs, and more from the systematic devaluation of the PhD as a credential for college teaching. The Labor and Working Class History Association Good" mentoring and its role in the socialization of graduate students of color in STEM Socialization in higher education and the early career: Theory, research, and application Appreciative advising pilot study The psychology of vocational choice Making vocational choices: A theory of careers Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments The socialization of doctoral students in the emergence of structured doctoral education in Germany Advising in undergraduate honors programs: A learner-centered approach Decisions and values: A rationale for secondary school guidance Why are we hiring so many non-tenure-track faculty? Liberal Education Interest congruency as a moderator of relationship between job tenure and job satisfaction and mental health So many research scientists, so few openings as professors Applying the happenstance learning theory to involuntary career transitions. The Career Development Quarterly Flexible working: Science in the gig economy September 8). I have one of the best jobs in academia: Here's why I'm walking away Going alt-ac: A guide to alternative academic careers Students' perspectives on holistic mentoring practices in STEM fields Professional socialization of university lecturers in Mozambique. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Self-reflective mentoring: Perspectives of peer mentors in an education doctoral program The student physician The situation for recent history graduates: The job market, rethinking the idea of "Plan B," and some ideas for the future Planned happenstance: Constructing unexpected career opportunities Social theory and education: A critique of theories of social and cultural reproduction Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to racial and ethnic minority student success at predominantly white institutions Choosing avocation Preparing the scholarly practitioner: The importance of socialization in CPED-influenced EdD programs The state of American jobs Emancipatory research counter-spaces. Re-examining black doctoral student socialization Inside graduate admissions: Merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping Equity in science: Representation ,culture, and the dynamics of change in graduate education The knowledge economy Early career academics 'victims of their own brains Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Survey of earned doctorates Student satisfaction with graduate education Academic disciplines: Holland's theory and the study of college students and faculty Professional socialization and career development of Chinese international tourism and hospitality students and graduates: A revised framework Socialization at a protestant seminary. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Socialization in graduate school: A conceptual framework The socialization of doctoral students to academic norms The dynamics of role acquisition Organizational socialization in higher education Faculty socialization as cultural process: A mirror of institutional commitment Toward a theory of organizational socialization The socialization of international doctoral students in the USA Take a risk: the odds are better than you think Teaching critical reflection to graduate students Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Vocational counseling: Trait and factor theory Creating porous ivory towers: Twoway socialization processes that embrace black students' identities in America Universities will never be the same after the coronavirus crisis PhDs and the "gig" economy. University Affairs Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth Theories of occupational choice and vocational development Who is to blame for postdoctoral collapse? A reflection on four stressors that many postdocs feel in academia, and how they can contribute to burnout. University Affairs