University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Socialization and masculinities: tales of two disciplines

(USC Thesis Other)

Socialization and masculinities: tales of two disciplines

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SOCIALIZATION AND MASCULINITIES:
TALES OF TWO DISCIPLINES

by

Margaret W. Sallee

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

December 2008

Copyright 2008 Margaret W. Sallee
ii
DEDICATION
To my family—Tom, Joan, Kristie, Claire, and, of course, Sadie—for their unconditional
love and support
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people whom I wish to thank for their assistance throughout the
dissertation process. First, I owe a tremendous thank you to my advisor and dissertation
chair, Bill Tierney, for his guidance over the past three years. Because of his mentoring
and his unwavering high expectations, I am a better scholar. My other committee
members—Jean Morrison, Mike Messner, and Darnell Cole—have also been
tremendously helpful as I navigated graduate school and this dissertation. Through their
examples, I have learned the multiple ways that one can and should contribute to a
campus community.
To my cohort—Vicki Park, Sean Early, Lindsey Malcom, Jarrett Gupton, and
Hyo Lim—for their support over the past four years. What started out as casually
exchanging class papers in our first year turned into a dissertation writing group in our
last year. Thanks to each of them for their feedback and for pushing me to make my
writing and theoretical ideas stronger. I also owe a big thank you to Jaime Lester, a
recent USC graduate, for her support. Though she was contending with life as a new
assistant professor, she was always available for both academic and emotional support.
I owe a special thank you to my parents, Tom and Joan Sallee. From an early age,
they told me that I could accomplish whatever I wanted. I am grateful for their support
throughout my education and thank them for giving me the confidence to succeed. My
sisters, Kristie and Claire Sallee, have also been very supportive, particularly during the
final months of writing this dissertation. I’m grateful to my many friends from outside
the university—Jenny Buddenhagen, Kerry Buchholz, Hilary Welty, and Joanna Kidd, to
iv
name just a few—who, despite not always knowing what I was doing, were always there
with reassuring words or a good joke to make me laugh.
Last but not least, I would like to thank the students and staff who agreed to share
their stories with me. Without them, this dissertation would not have been possible.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vi
Abstract vii
Chapter 1: Socialization to the Academy 1
Chapter 2: Gender and Socialization 22
Chapter 3: Methodology: On Gender and Socialization 62
Chapter 4: Socialization and Masculinities: Tales of Two Disciplines 93
Chapter 5: Gendered Socialization 194
References 242
Appendices
Appendix A: Protocol for Interviews with Male Students
Appendix B: Protocol for Interviews with Female Students
Appendix C: Protocol for Interview with Faculty and Staff
Appendix D: Protocol for Focus Group
Appendix E: Informed Consent for Students
Appendix F: Informed Consent for Faculty and Staff
Appendix G: Letter of Introduction
249
249
251
253
254
255
259
263

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Doctorates Conferred in Engineering and English by Gender and Race,
2005

7
Table 2: Demographic Information for Engineering and English Ph.D. Students at
Metropolitan University

11
Table 3: Summary of Three Socialization Models

29
Table 4: Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) Dimensions of Socialization

37
Table 5: Building a Theory of Gendered Socialization

58
Table 6: Demographics of Students in Each Discipline

69
Table 7: Research Methods Used

84
Table 8: AME Participants by Year in Program, Gender, and Source of Funding

99
Table 9: A Sample of Academic and Social Activities in AME

108
Table 10: English Participants by Year in Program, Gender, and Focus of Study

146
Table 11: A Sample of Academic and Social Activities in English

157
Table 12: Dimensions of Socialization by Discipline

205
Table 13: Intersections between Socialization and the Performance of Gender 225
vii
ABSTRACT
Although stage models of socialization explain how students acquire the skills to
succeed in an academic discipline, they are content- and identity-neutral. Since stage
models address how socialization occurs for all students, they cannot account for the
idiosyncrasies of disciplines or how social identity influences an individual’s integration
to a new department. This dissertation introduces gender into models of graduate student
socialization. Using interviews, observations, and document analysis, this study focuses
on the experiences of male doctoral students in English (a predominantly female
discipline) and Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (or AME, a predominantly male
discipline). The dissertation considers how socialization both shapes and is shaped by
gender as well as how socialization differs by discipline.
Theories of gender performance suggest that gender is created in response to
structures and through interactions. This dissertation proposes that the same holds true
for socialization and considers the ways in which the two theories inform each other.
Findings highlight the relationship between the features of a discipline, such as the
curriculum and the nature of students’ assistantships, and the types of masculinities that
are produced. Interactions with professors and peers also play critical roles in
transmitting skills and values, which shape students’ identities.
The dissertation uses analytical categories of structure, culture, and reflective
identity to illuminate the gendered nature of each discipline. Culture is further divided
into discussions of the future of the discipline, professional roles and relations, and
gender roles and relations. Findings indicate that AME is characterized by clarity in each
viii
of these areas while English contends with ambiguity across categories. For example,
strict hierarchies operate between professor and student in AME. Students understand
what is expected of them, both in their roles as students and in acceptable norms of
gendered behavior. In contrast, English students contend with more ambiguity in both
professional and gender roles. Such ambiguity translates into more latitude for students
to craft their own identities, thus creating openings for a wider range of identities to
pursue degrees in the field. This dissertation inserts gender into models of socialization
and explores how students’ experiences and masculinities differ by discipline.
1
CHAPTER 1
SOCIALIZATION TO THE ACADEMY
On the Monday after Thanksgiving, the combustion lab at Metropolitan
University was quietly humming with activity. Although it was the lunch hour, four of
the lab’s ten students worked at their desks. Jeff was staring intently at his monitor,
alternating between e-mailing a classmate about a homework assignment and poring over
legal documents pertaining to a patent on solar cells that he developed with faculty
members. Though devoid of any personal objects, Jeff’s desk is covered with a dozen
library books and five binders. Next to his desk is a small cabinet with two coffee
makers and a 52 ounce container of Folgers coffee, which serves as a gathering point for
students in the lab. Jeff told me that he regularly drinks six to eight cups of coffee a day
while working at his computer. Michael wandered over and made a fresh pot of coffee
and got into a debate with Jeff about the cheapest store to buy coffee grounds.
As the afternoon progressed, all students returned to work. Jenny started an
experiment while other students worked at their computers. Tyson, an undergraduate
student, entered the lab, muttering under his breath. He told Jeff and Michael about his
encounter with a woman who works at the registrar’s office. While making small talk
about the recent Thanksgiving holiday, he learned that one of her relatives had been an
accident, leading her to break into tears. “I am such a douche bag!” Tyson exclaimed.
Ravi momentarily looked up from his computer and tried to convince Tyson that the
woman’s outburst was not his fault. He then offered grapes to his labmates before
returning to work. Such is the pattern of engineering students’ lives. They spend their
2
time working on their own projects and occasionally joke and collaborate with their
peers. Although this lab houses three women, the majority of the engineering labs are
predominantly composed of male students, which fosters the development of particular
norms and values.
While students in engineering interact with each other primarily in their labs,
students in the English department rarely see each other outside of the classroom. As I
will discuss later, students in engineering tend not to chat with their peers in the
classroom while those in English build friendships with their classmates. One late
afternoon in September and the fourteen students in the melodrama course chatted
casually until the professor arrived. Eschewing a typical classroom, the professor held
class in the department’s Commons room. Students sat on sofas and in chairs that they
pulled into a circle. One student facilitated the first half of class, providing her
interpretations of the readings and posing questions to other students in the class. The
second half of class focused on discussion of the movie Beaches. While students found
commonality on their discussion of the texts, they were split along gender lines of their
discussion of the film.
“Let’s talk about Beaches,” the professor began. “I’m really curious why it’s
such an object of derision. So I thought we’d start by asking the men.” Her question
invited a series of quick and disgusted responses from many of the men in the room. “To
be honest, it really is the worst movie I’ve ever seen. It was painful to watch,” Ken
complained. “Bette Midler always irritates me. I just don’t buy it,” Doug added. Others
added that men should not be forced to watch such a movie. At this point, Nathan, a
3
student who identifies as queer jumped into the fray. “The worst movie for men to sit
through? I think we should interrogate what a man is. My main problem with the movie
was Barbara Hershey’s delivery of the line ‘I’m so happy to see you.’” He continued, “I
think there might be a big homosexual elephant in the room.” The professor picked up
on Nathan’s interrogation, “That’s really important. What kind of a man hates this
movie?”
With the professor’s prodding, fierce debate continued throughout the remainder
of the class. The majority of men continued to disavow the film while the women
expressed more fondness and attempted to engage in critical analysis. This class session
illustrates three features of the English department that appear throughout this
dissertation. First, students play a significant role in shaping the direction of class
discussions and the department itself. Second, the English department has expanded its
definition of a text to include films and other new media along with the written word.
Third, students adopt different approaches to discussions of masculinity. While the
majority of the straight men rejected Beaches for its sentimentality, Nathan pushed his
peers to consider why masculinity calls for men to hate the film.
Students in engineering and English learn the norms of the discipline, in part,
through interactions with others in the department. Such norms include both the skills
necessary for success along with those associated with gender. While some men in
English engage in critical reflection about masculinity, the same does not occur with their
colleagues in engineering. In the remainder of this chapter, I outline this study’s purpose
and research questions. I then provide an overview of engineering and English, both on
4
the national level and at Metropolitan University. I briefly review the literature on
graduate student socialization before presenting the theoretical framework that guides this
study.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to understand the ways in which the norms of a
discipline shape and reward particular types of behavior. I focus explicitly on the
socialization experiences of male doctoral students in two disciplines: English and
engineering. I explore how students are socialized to the norms of a discipline and how
men are socialized into and enact various forms of masculinity. With this dual-pronged
approach, I investigate how the features of a discipline, such as the curriculum and
students’ interactions with their peers and professors, shape students’ socialization and
the masculinities that are enacted. I investigate the experiences of men in a traditionally-
male (Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering) department and traditionally-female
(English) department to shed light on how socialization differs across disciplines and how
various disciplines privilege the production of a particular type of masculinity.
Research Questions
To understand the role that discipline plays in shaping socialization and
masculinities of male graduate students in two fields, I am guided by four questions:
1. How does a discipline shape socialization?
2. How are discipline and masculinities related?
3. How are disciplines, socialization, and masculinities inter-related?
4. What role do structures and interactions play in the socialization process?
5
Socialization to a discipline is not a value-free process. Rather, students learn the
norms and values that characterize each discipline during their doctoral programs.
English Ph.D. students spend much of their time reading and writing in solitude while
engineering students work with other students on experimental or computational research
in their labs. However, students do not begin their doctoral programs tabula rasa, as
clean slates ready to be imprinted. They bring with them past experiences and identities
that will inevitably influence their experiences as doctoral students. Certainly some
students’ interests and identities will lead them to pursue a degree in one discipline over
another. The student who does not like to write is unlikely to choose a graduate program
in English. The purpose of this study is not to explore what leads students to select a
particular discipline, but rather to understand the way in which the norms of the
discipline shape and reward particular types of behavior that represent the ideal for a
student in the discipline.
Men enter their doctoral programs with developed masculine identities. I am
interested in how the practices of a discipline reward displays of masculinities and, in
particular, which masculinities are favored above all others. R.W. Connell’s (1995)
definition of hegemonic masculinity informs my research. Hegemonic masculinity is
“the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to
the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees…the dominant position of
men and the subordination of women” (Connell, 1995, p. 77). Simply stated, hegemonic
masculinity represents the ideal to which all men are expected to aspire. Few men meet
the normative standards set forth by hegemonic masculinity. Though some men may
6
object to hegemonic masculinity and still fewer practice it, all men gain from its
existence since it relies on the continued subordination of women (Carrigan, Connell, &
Lee, 1985; Connell, 1987). Certainly, no man in either discipline sets out to subordinate
women. As one might expect, due to a lack of female representation in engineering, the
masculine identity is equated with an engineering identity. My work is more than simply
a reductionist assertion that an overrepresentation of one gender suggests that type will
dominate with regard to norms and socialization. As I describe, even though women are
overrepresented in English, men continue to dominate across settings—in the classroom,
in social gatherings, and at department events. Accordingly, my purpose here is to
understand the ways in which the norms of a discipline shape and reward particular types
of behavior.
Engineering and English: Disciplinary Contexts
The differences between English and engineering are in more than subject matter;
rather, the preparation of doctoral students differs considerably across contexts. I briefly
provide a national overview of the state of each discipline before summarizing each
department at Metropolitan University.
English and engineering Ph.D. programs attract different types of students. The
typical engineering student is much more likely to be a male from overseas while the
typical English Ph.D. student is more likely to be a White woman. In 2005, 6,547
students earned doctorates across all engineering disciplines while 1,212 students earned
doctorates in English. Table 1 elaborates upon these statistics, by both gender and race.
7
Table 1: Doctorates Conferred in Engineering and English by Gender and Race, 2005
Engineering English
Total 6547 1212

Male 5329 (81%) 494 (40%)
Female 1218 (19%) 718 (60%)

White 1822 (28%) 899 (74%)
African American 111 (1.7%) 80 (6.6%)
Latino 104 (1.6%) 39 (3.2%)
Asian American 399 (6.6%) 60 (5%)
Native American 6 (<.01%) 15 (1.2%)
Non-Resident/International 4105 (63%) 119 (10%)
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2005.
Eighty-one percent of students in engineering are men while 19% are women.
Separating the domestic from the international students, a total of 2442 U.S. citizens
earned doctorates in engineering in 2005, or 38% of all students. Of these, 505 (21%)
were women and 1937 (79%) were men. Within engineering, the gender representation
remains comparable between domestic and international student populations. Further
disaggregating engineering by field of study, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering are
both more heavily male-dominated. In 2005, 178 men and 27 women earned doctorates
in Aerospace Engineering while 802 men and 113 women earned doctorates in
Mechanical Engineering. Eighty seven percent of doctorate recipients in Aerospace
Engineering and 88% of doctorate recipients in Mechanical Engineering are men. In
contrast, only 40% of English doctoral recipients are men. Even in English departments,
women comprise only a slight majority. The majority of doctoral students in engineering
come from overseas; nearly two out of every three engineering students are international
students. Whites represent the majority of domestic students. In contrast, English
students are far more likely to be from the United States and to be White. Although
8
students within each discipline may differ from one another, all must follow the same
steps to earn the doctorate.
The road to the English Ph.D. is a long one; the national average for degree
completion is nine years (Golde & Walker, 2006). This lengthy time to degree may be
attributed to a lack of accompanying financial support. Not all English graduate students
receive financial support from their departments. Students typically hold teaching
assistantships, which entail serving as instructors for undergraduates. While such
assistantships provide both experience and financial support, teaching, holding office
hours, and grading papers often impede students’ academic progress on their dissertation.
English doctoral students are expected to produce a book-length dissertation, which
serves as a signal of their readiness to join the profession. Although the majority of
English Ph.D. recipients intend to enter the professoriate, a significant gap exists between
the number of students graduating each year and the number of tenure-track positions
available (Golde & Walker, 2006). Consequently, some students are on the job market
for several years before landing a tenure-track position, or any academic position at all.
In contrast, Ph.D. students in engineering spend the majority of their graduate
career conducting research for their advisor (COSEPUP, 1995; Goldman & Massy,
2001). Though time-to-degree has increased over the past several decades, it is still
considerably less than the national average in English; the average engineering student
takes 6.2 years to earn the doctorate (COSEPUP, 1995). Across engineering disciplines,
63% of students work as research assistants while 45% are employed as teaching
assistants (COSEPUP, 1995). However, the primary source of funding—and primary
9
emphasis—comes from conducting research in a lab. Such experience serves to advance
the professor’s research agenda and as a basis for the student’s original research required
for graduation. Unlike the dissertation in English, the engineering dissertation is
typically composed of a series of related articles. Such a format has more utility in a field
where less emphasis is placed upon writing and more on scientific discovery and
application. Despite the traditional role of the doctorate in preparing future faculty, the
majority of engineers do not pursue positions within academe (Goldman & Massy, 2001).
According to a 1990 survey of engineers conducted eight years after graduating, only
32% were employed within academe while 58% were employed in business and industry
(COSEPUP, 1995). The trends are similar at Metropolitan University.
Metropolitan University
For the most part, students at Metropolitan University (or Metro U.) mirror their
counterparts across the nation. In the School of Engineering, the Aerospace and
Mechanical departments merged a decade ago to become one department. The
department currently houses 28 full-time faculty and employs about a dozen more who
hold either joint appointments with other departments or are research or adjunct faculty.
Faculty in the department work on a range of topics including combustion, fluid
mechanics, and dynamical systems and controls. In recent years, faculty hires have
tended toward those who work in nanotechnologies, an increasingly popular trend across
fields of study within engineering.
There are a total of 87 students between the Aerospace and Mechanical doctoral
programs. Of these, 77 (or 89%) are men. The Aerospace program has a higher
10
percentage of domestic students. Of the 29 students in Aerospace Engineering, 17 (or
59%) are American citizens. In Mechanical Engineering, 19 of the 58 students (33%) are
U.S. citizens. On average, students in the AME Department take approximately five to
six years to earn both their Master’s and their Ph.D., putting them slightly below the
national mean. The majority of doctoral students in the department are employed as
research assistants in a faculty member’s lab. A few students work as teaching assistants
while a few others are employed full-time and are being paid by their companies to earn
their degree.
The doctoral programs in the English Department at Metro U. reflect nationwide
trends as well. Within the past decade, the department began offering two separate Ph.D.
tracks: literature and creative writing. Faculty teach courses in both disciplines. The
department currently employs 40 tenure-track faculty members. Over the past five years,
the department has undertaken a senior scholar hiring initiative, bringing in well-regarded
faculty from all over the country. Whereas the department and its faculty once defined
itself by focusing on the study of particular genres and time periods, the newer faculty
bring a commitment to cultural studies, which seeks to situate texts and other media in
historical and cultural contexts. Both the faculty and the graduate students are now split
about the direction of the future of the study of English.
There are 85 students currently pursuing their doctorates in one of the two tracks
in the English department. Of these, 58 (or 68%) are women and 27 (32%) are men. The
vast majority of students in the department are U.S. citizens: 78 students (or 92%) are
U.S. citizens. The few non-U.S. citizens tend to come from Canada. Although funding
11
packages have changed over the past decade, students who enter the doctoral program are
now guaranteed five years of funding; the first and fifth year of funding comes in the
form of a fellowship while the middle three years comes in the form of a teaching
assistantship with an undergraduate writing program on campus. A few students work as
research assistants for professors, but their primary source of funding comes from their
work as instructors. No guarantees are made for additional funding, though the typical
student tends to be in the department for at least seven years. However, the Metro U.
administration has recently announced its intention to reduce the time to degree for
students, making it more difficult for advanced students to find sources of funding.
The following table summarizes the demographic information of students in each
department.
Table 2: Demographic Information for Engineering and English Ph.D. Students at
Metropolitan University
Aerospace and Mechanical
Engineering
English
Total 87 85

Male 77 27
Female 10 58

U.S. Citizens 36 78
Non-Citizens 51 7

I focus specifically on the experiences of male graduate students in each
department. I further limit the scope of study to U.S. citizens as the types of
masculinities that men enact vary by cultural background. Given that a large number of
students in the AME Department come from overseas (and, in particular, China and
India), their notions of masculinity are bound to differ from those of their American
12
peers. To be able to make comparisons across men and across departments, I have
limited my sample to men from the United States.
Socialization and Gender in Organizations
As I discuss in detail in Chapter 4, various features of a discipline—such as the
relationship between advisor and student and the nature of students’ assistantships—
shape students’ socialization as well as the production of masculinity. Previous scholars
have examined gender in organizations along with socialization. Although each of these
areas is informed by robust scholarship, few attempts have been made to discuss the
linkages between them.
Gender in Organizations
Early scholarship in organizational studies assumed that organizations were
gender-neutral. Since men composed the majority of employees in the workplace, the
male perspective was taken to represent the human perspective (Acker, 1991). Little
scholarship considered the degree to which gender identity influenced the experiences of
employees in the workplace. As women entered the workforce in greater numbers,
feminist scholars such as Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977) called attention to the challenges
that women faced in the workplace and the degree to which they were expected to
assimilate to male norms. Kanter’s work led to a transformation of organizational
studies, leading to work by many scholars (i.e., Acker, 1991; Collinson & Hearn, 2005;
Hearn, 2002) who explore the gendered nature of organizations and the degree to which
gender shapes organizational life.
13
Dana Britton (2000) suggests that organizations are typically thought of as
gendered in three ways. First, an organization might be gendered to the degree to which
it has been structured based upon a distinction between masculinity and femininity. Such
organizational processes will continue to reproduce distinctions that privilege masculinity
while marginalizing femininity. Second, an organization might be gendered simply to the
extent to which it is either male- or female-dominated. For example, nursing is
considered to be a feminized field, since women compose the overwhelming majority of
nurses. Finally, an organization might be considered gendered in that it is “symbolically
and ideologically described and conceived in terms of a discourse that draws on
hegemonically defined masculinities” (Britton, 2000, p. 420). The use of such discourse
and symbols helps to explain the marginalization of women in fields that are not male-
dominated. Although women’s representation has increased in a variety of organizations
and careers, the majority of fields were designed to focus on the needs of the male
worker. As a result, many organizational practices require employees to conform to
particular norms that favor one definition of the ideal, masculine worker.
The introduction of a focus on gender can illuminate the production of gender and
the accompanying discriminatory practices of organizations. Traditional studies of
organizations took the male worker as the norm, thereby assuming that organizations
were ungendered. However, organizations are inherently masculine cultures (Hearn,
2002). Most are structured based upon hierarchies, in which a boss is responsible for
directing the actions of his subordinates. Such a patriarchal structure mimics practices of
traditional families, in which the husband and father takes total responsibility for his wife
14
and children. As Mark Maier (1999) suggests, organizations reinforce a “competitive,
zero-sum view of power, in which being ranked over others and beating them (winning)
takes precedence” (p. 84). Such practices reinforce what are typically identified as
masculine values. Ultimately, the practices of organizations can shape the construction
of gender identities of and relations between members (Hearn, 2002).
Gender in Universities
Like organizations, universities too can be thought of as gendered either to the
extent that they are dominated by men or women or to the extent that they adopt practices
that replicate distinctions between masculinity and femininity. Men continue to dominate
higher education faculty. According to the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty, 64% of full-time faculty in four-year institutions are men while 35.9% are
women. The disparities in some fields are even greater. Only 9.5% of all full-time
faculty in engineering are women; nine out of ten engineering faculty members are men.
Given this pronounced disparity, we might expect that female faculty and students
assimilate to the norms established by the overwhelming male majority. Education is the
only field in which women outnumber men: 58% of full-time education faculty are
women. Whether in education or engineering, women in all disciplines generally
perform different tasks than their male counterparts.
Although faculty in higher education are expected to fulfill the three primary
functions of teaching, research, and service, men and women tend to spend their time on
different tasks. Female professors frequently spend more time on teaching and service,
activities not highly rewarded in the tenure process (Park, 1996). William Tierney and
15
Estela Bensimon (2000) argue that female faculty are often expected to perform “mom
work,” or to make themselves available to students, both in their role as course instructor
and as an advisor. In addition, women often have greater advising loads than men
(Hollenshead, 2003; Park, 1996). This is particularly true for women who are the only
female faculty members in the department as they are often sought out as mentors by
female students. However, teaching and service are not as heavily rewarded in the tenure
review process as research productivity, thus putting many female faculty members at a
disadvantage (Glazer-Raymo, 1999).
Scholarship on gender within universities has tended to explore the challenges
that women face on campus. Such a focus stems from the fact that gender is often
characterized as an attribute of women. Only within the past decade have scholars begun
to focus on the impact of gender on men in higher education. The majority of scholarship
focuses on the ways in which universities are gendered at the institutional and faculty
level. The gendering of graduate programs tends to get overlooked. However, graduate
students are socialized into the gendered norms associated with their disciplines and with
faculty work.
Socialization
Socialization arms organizational newcomers with the skills necessary to succeed
in their new roles. In the following chapter, I discuss the literature on socialization in
greater detail. Here, I provide a brief introduction to the literature on socialization to
roles in organizations and universities in particular.
16
Broadly speaking, socialization is the process through which individuals acquire
the skills necessary to fulfill new roles. By interacting with others, they learn about
cultural norms and what behaviors are expected of them to become part of their new
organization (Van Maanen, 1976; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Initial socialization
models suggest that organizational newcomers progress through three stages:
anticipatory, encounter, and metamorphosis (Van Maanen, 1976). Individuals come to an
organization with a set of expectations. Their entry and adjustment to the organization is
shaped by the degree of congruence between their values and those of the organization.
Anticipatory socialization refers to the degree to which an individual is prepared to enter
the organization (Van Maanen, 1976). In this stage, individuals interact with others to
begin to learn about the values, attitudes, and behaviors that characterize their new
position (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). Not all
anticipatory socialization imparts accurate information. The degree of similarity between
anticipatory socialization and the values of the new organization significantly shapes the
individual’s socialization.
Formal socialization begins with the newcomer’s first contact and subsequent
entry into the organization. Early experiences depend on the degree of fit with an
individual’s previous expectations. Individuals whose values are similar to those of the
organization will have an easier transition than individuals whose values conflict with
those of the organization. In such situations, newcomers will find their old values
destroyed and replaced with those of the organization. The ultimate goal of this stage is
to inculcate new members with organizational values. In fact, a change in values
17
typically marks passage into the final stage of metamorphosis. Individuals in the
metamorphosis stage will also have acquired the skills necessary to successfully navigate
the organization.
Socialization in Universities
Although Van Maanen’s (1976) model explains the socialization of newcomers to
a generic organization, such models do not take into account the idiosyncrasies of
academic life. Using generic models as a starting point, scholars have developed models
to explain the socialization of new faculty members (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994) and
graduate students (Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001) to academic life. Both models
suggest that all individuals experience anticipatory socialization. Most doctoral students
begin their graduate programs with an image in their minds of the typical faculty
member. Many build this image of faculty life through interactions with their own
professors as undergraduates, conversations with their families and peers, and exposure
to images and messages in the media (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Weidman, Twale, &
Stein, 2001). Variation occurs in consideration of the tasks involved upon organizational
entry.
As in the generic model, the second stage begins with first contact with the
organization. For doctoral students, this socialization might begin during orientation and
continue through the early years of the program. During this period, new students
interact with faculty and advanced students to learn what it means to be a successful
graduate student and faculty member. As suggested above, graduate students who enter
the organization with inaccurate understandings of faculty responsibilities may have a
18
difficult transition. The steps involved in the final stage of socialization differ across
models. In Tierney and Rhoads’s (1994) model of faculty socialization, their final stage
of role continuance focuses on continuing socialization. For example, although third-year
assistant professors have certainly learned departmental norms and culture, they still have
much to learn as they progress through the faculty ranks. Individuals build and refine
skills throughout their careers. Unlike Tierney and Rhoads, Weidman, Twale, and Stein
(2001) suggest that the final stage of socialization requires that the individual acquire and
internalize a new professional identity. They argue that to be successful in the academy,
graduate students must abandon their previous habits and values to adopt the norms of
academe. As I will discuss in the next chapter, such an assumption has damaging effects
for any graduate students who deviate from the norm.
Higher education scholars have moved research on socialization forward
considerably by applying generic socialization models to the university environment.
They have identified actors who play significant roles in the socialization process. More
importantly, they have raised questions as to the directional nature of socialization.
Socialization is no longer thought of as a process in which an individual must conform to
established organizational norms. Rather, scholars now recognize that individuals have
agency and may shape organizational norms and the culture of the organization.
Although recent literature (ie Antony, 2002; Tierney & Rhoads, 1994) hints at the impact
that social identity characteristics might have on the socialization process, few studies
have examined these questions in depth. One should not expect that socialization to the
faculty role would be the same for all graduate students. Socialization is bound to be
19
influenced by an individual’s past experiences as well as by gender, race, social class,
and other salient characteristics. As my previous discussion of gender suggests,
universities are gendered environments. Some disciplines have a majority of male
students while others have a majority of women. In addition, the tasks that women and
men are expected to accomplish vary; women are often socialized to focus on teaching
while men are socialized to focus on research. This study aims to fill this gap in the
literature by focusing on the role that gender plays in graduate student socialization.
Theoretical Framework
Although scholars of socialization have neglected the role of gender, other
theories of gender permeate the research literature. I utilize theories of gender
performance, which point to the ways in which masculinity is created through interaction
with others. In this section, I provide an overview of theories of gender performance and
briefly review three of its salient features, which helps explain the ways in which gender
and socialization are intertwined.
Gender as Performance
Proponents of gender performance argue that gender is a process accomplished in
interaction with others. Theories of gender performance owe a debt to the work of
symbolic interactionists, namely that of Erving Goffman. Symbolic interactionists liken
all interactions to performances in which individuals engage based on the expectations of
others. Goffman (1959) argues that all behaviors are essentially performances, either for
an audience or for oneself. Individuals perform an identity that others expect of them.
Most will offer up idealized performances associated with their roles. As Goffman
20
suggests, “when the individual presents himself before others, his performance will tend
to incorporate and exemplify the officially accredited values of the society, more so, in
fact, than does his behavior as a whole” (p. 35). In other words, people shape their
behavior to fit the expectations of those around them. As opposed to those who see
socialization in a linear manner, suggesting that individuals progress through a series of
stages to become organizational insiders, I suggest that newcomers may adopt behaviors
with which they do not necessarily agree. For example, doctoral students may recognize
that certain behaviors (ie the primacy of research) are valued over others and accordingly
shape their actions to meet group expectations, without necessarily adopting those values
as their own. Traditional socialization models would suggest that adopting such
behaviors without internalizing the values is a failure of socialization. In contrast,
socialization models that are informed by performance theories incorporate the agency of
the individual in shaping one’s own behavior while potentially influencing the behavior
of one’s peers.
Candace West and Don Zimmerman (1987) are among recent scholars of gender
who have continued scholarship of gender performance. Like their symbolic
interactionist predecessors, theorists of gender performance suggest that gender is created
through interaction. West and Zimmerman (1987) argue that “gender is created through
interaction and at the same time structures interaction” (p. 131). Individuals shape
definitions of gender and gender practices while simultaneously relying upon previously
established gender norms to guide their behavior. Their definition of gender draws upon
three points. First, they posit that gender is dependent on context; different masculinities
21
and femininities are enacted in different situations. Second, gender is collectively
created. Gender is not a characteristic inherent in an individual; rather, people
collaborate to produce gender. Third, both men and women adopt particular gender
displays that others expect of them. Although gender is collectively created, men and
women know the expectations that are associated with each gender.
Theories of gender performance help illuminate the gendered nature of doctoral
student socialization. Past research on socialization has been both content- and identity-
neutral. Much of the socialization literature seeks to describe socialization across
disciplines and students, rather than focusing on particular disciplines or groups of
students. I draw upon performance theories to explain not only the way in which students
are socialized into producing certain behaviors, but also to provide further evidence of
scholars’ contention that socialization is a bi-directional process. By interacting with
their peers, students produce gendered behavior that shapes the culture of their
department, thereby influencing the socialization of future students.
Organization of Dissertation
In the following chapter, I provide a more detailed examination of the literature
on socialization and performance theories. In Chapter 3, I discuss the methodological
framework for this study. Chapter 4 contains an exploration of students’ experiences as
they relate to theories of socialization and performance discussed in Chapter 2. In the
final chapter, I offer discussion and analysis of the data and consider the ways in which a
focus on gender informs the literature on socialization.
22
CHAPTER 2
GENDER AND SOCIALIZATION
Mark sat across from me in an empty conference room in my office building. The
room’s mahogany furniture is a far cry from the cluttered lab where he spends the
majority of his days. “Can you describe a typical day for me?” I asked. Mark carefully
removed his glasses and placed them upon his binder on the table. As he considered his
answer, he fidgeted with the empty Styrofoam cup I had filled with water for him only
fifteen minutes earlier. He took a deep breath:
If it’s a day I have classes, I would like to wake up at about 6, get out of the house
by 7. I live off-campus, so I have to drive. Without traffic, it’s 20 minutes, but I
park across the interstate at the parking center, so, it’s about an hour. On a good
day, it’s about 30 to 40 minutes to get from my house to school. A normal day,
it’s probably an hour. So I spend an hour of my life in the morning and another
40 minutes going home. My life revolves around traffic. I stay here. I plan my
day about when I come and when I go around traffic. If I have class, I’ll do stuff
for class and then I’ll start working. If I have a homework assignment, I usually
try to get that done and out of the way. And whatever time I have left over, I’ll
spend working. I probably should allocate just a certain amount of time to just do
homework and school work, but I just tend to just focus my time on that until I’m
done with it and then start doing research. But pretty much the whole day is just
spent working. Every now and again, you need a break.

From this perspective, Mark is not unlike many in this city who plan their lives
around traffic. Mark is not alone; many of his peers report arriving on campus before
most of the offices open.
“What time do you end up going home?,” I asked.
“Some days, if I’m just tired of working, I’ll probably go home around 6 or 6:30.
Well, about 7,” Mark responded.
“And is that the norm for grad students in your department?” I asked.
23
Mark fidgeted some more with the Styrofoam cup while he considered his
response. “Um, I honestly don’t know. It depends on how serious some people are.
Some people want to do work at home and… people just have different desires about
what they want to do. My advisor, you know he’s a workaholic. He stays here until
probably 7 or 8. He puts in 14 hour days. You know some of the people in our group
don’t work too hard and then others do. I don’t know. I honestly don’t know. I can only
vouch for people in our group.”
As Mark and I continued to talk, he told me that he worries that pursuing a career
in academia may not be the best choice for him. He sees how much his advisor works
and does not know if he is willing to put in long days as his advisor does. However, he
still has two years before he will finish the program and needs to decide upon a career
path.
As I elaborate in Chapter 4, Mark is typical of many in the Metro U. engineering
department. He arrives to campus early in the morning and stays for ten or twelve hours,
working on both class work and lab work. In part, the time he spends in the lab is shaped
by traffic conditions. Since Metro U. is located in a large city, students and faculty alike
have to fight traffic to come to campus. Like many other engineering students, his social
world is limited to students in his lab. Like his peers, Mark can only identify a few other
Ph.D. students in the department. Although most faculty assume that students want to
pursue careers in academia, few of the students seem certain that such a path is right for
them. Are students being turned off by academic life or do they not understand what
academic life entails? How do individuals learn what is expected of them? In this
24
chapter, I consider this question on two fronts. First, I discuss the socialization literature
and explore the ways in which graduate students learn the expectations of faculty life. I
then discuss how individuals learn about gender roles and, specifically, how men both
learn and shape the norms of masculinity. Although seemingly quite different, theories
of socialization and the performance of gender both consider the ways in which
individuals adopt new identities. I conclude by discussing the ways in which theories of
socialization and gender performance inform and complement each other. Both occur in
response to institutional and societal structures combined with interpersonal interactions.
I begin with a discussion of socialization.
Learning the Ropes: Features of Socialization
The path to the professoriate is a complicated maze filled with a series of
challenges. Some students enter their doctoral programs with an understanding of the
multiple responsibilities that characterize faculty work while others are determined to
carve out new paths for themselves. In part, students’ success depends upon the
socialization and training they receive in their programs. I begin this section by
providing a brief definition of socialization and describe its key features. I then outline
three models of socialization and discuss various elements of the socialization process. I
discuss key actors and various features that shape socialization before turning to some
criticisms of socialization. Successful socialization practices arm graduate students with
the knowledge and skills to navigate the graduate school maze to enter faculty life.
25
Defining Socialization
Socialization is the process through which individuals learn about cultural norms
and acquire the necessary behaviors and skills to enter an organization and fulfill new
roles (Austin, 2002; Van Maanen, 1976; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Doctoral training
is generally regarded as socialization into the faculty role. Students enter doctoral
programs and through a series of interactions with their professors and peers, they are
expected to acquire the knowledge, skills, and values to assume faculty positions
themselves. As I will suggest throughout this dissertation, socialization occurs in
response to institutional structures and through interactions with organizational members,
including faculty members and other students.
Scholars differ over how socialization occurs and the degree to which it varies
across individuals. Early scholars like Robert Merton (1957) argue that socialization is a
one directional process; the individual’s task is to learn what is expected of members and
conform to the existing culture. Such a definition assumes that culture is static and
simply exists to be discovered, thereby denying the individual the opportunity to shape
the organization’s culture (Tierney, 1997). Furthermore, Merton assumes that
socialization will be the same for all. In their study of medical students in the 1950s,
Howard Becker, Blanche Geer, Everett Hughes, and Anselm Strauss (1961/2005) found
this to be the case. They argued that students’ backgrounds or past experiences had no
influence on their performance in medical school. However, the authors’ sample was
relatively homogenous, consisting of White, middle class, Protestant men from small
towns in Kansas. Although individuals bring different experiences to their graduate
26
training, the students in their sample had similar backgrounds. By the Mertonian
definition, if a student fails to assimilate to the norms of the program, socialization has
failed (Antony, 2002; Tierney, 1997).
Other scholars (Austin, 2002; Tierney, 1997; Tierney & Rhoads, 1994) argue that
the Mertonian perspective of socialization neglects to account for the impact of the
individual on the socialization process. Instead of looking at socialization as simply the
process of acquiring culture, this group of scholars argues that socialization is bi-
directional and varies from person to person. In part, these differences between the two
groups of scholars come from different definitions of culture. George Kuh and Elizabeth
Whitt (1988) define culture as “the collective, mutually shaping patterns of norms,
values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions that guide the behavior of individuals and
groups…and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning of
events and actions” (pp. 12-13). Their definition highlights two important features. First,
individuals actively participate in creating culture. Culture is not static, a non-evolving
entity that is transmitted across groups and time (Kuh & Whitt, 1988; Tierney, 1988;
Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). Rather, each new member to a culture plays an active role in
maintaining past traditions and shaping new ones. Second, culture is not an individual
undertaking. It is created through collective action and through interactions between
people (Kuh & Whitt, 1988).
William Tierney and Robert Rhoads (1994) argue that individuals must adapt to
the organization, but that the organization also simultaneously adapts to the individual.
Socialization varies from student to student due to the different experiences and
27
interpretations of culture that each individual brings to bear (Tierney, 1997; Weidman,
Twale, & Stein, 2001). However, disagreement remains as to the importance of adopting
and internalizing cultural norms for successful socialization. John Weidman, Darla
Twale, and Elizabeth Stein (2001) maintain that individuals have to relinquish their own
norms to complete the socialization process. Others (Antony, 2002; Van Maanen and
Schein, 1979) suggest that newcomers can successfully learn the procedures of a new
organization without having to compromise their own principles.
Models of Socialization
Although individuals’ socialization experiences differ, all tend to follow roughly
similar trajectories. In this section, I discuss three common models of socialization.
Although scholars have developed socialization models to describe the experiences of
those within higher education, initial models were developed in organizational studies.
Accordingly, I present the socialization model set forth by John Van Maanen (1976)
designed to describe the socialization of a newcomer to a generic organization. I then
narrow the focus to academe by reviewing Tierney and Rhoads’s (1994) model of
socialization of new faculty members before analyzing the graduate student socialization
framework as presented by Weidman, Twale, and Stein (2001).
Individuals come to an organization with a set of expectations. Their entry and
adjustment to the organization is shaped by the degree of congruence between their
values and those of the organization. Table 3 summarizes these models, providing an
overview of the tasks of each stage as well as the actors who are particularly critical to
earlier stages. The table also illustrates the ways in which the latter stages differ across
28
models. The tasks are separated into different columns. Following the table, I describe
each of the stages in greater detail. Rather than describing each model in isolation, my
discussion focuses on the similarities and differences of the various stages across models.
29
Table 3: Summary of Three Socialization Models
Author/Focus of
Model
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Van Maanen
(1976)

Focus:
Socialization to
new organization
Anticipatory:
Individual’s past
experiences and
interactions with
key agents shape
preparation for
new occupation.
Process can
include acquiring
skills or values.

Actors: Family,
peers, education,
media
Encounter: Individual
enters the
organization. Early
experiences depend
on degree of fit with
expectations. Good
fit equals affirmation
of values; bad fit
equals destruction of
old values and
replacement with new
ones. Goal is to
inculcate new
members with
organizational values.
Metamorphosis:
The individual
learns to
navigate the
organization and
solve problems
discovered
during the
encounter stage.
Tierney and
Rhoads (1994)

Focus:
Socialization of
faculty members
Anticipatory:
Individual
acquires the
attitudes, actions,
and values of
future role.

Actors: Past
faculty, past
graduate student
peers
Initial Entry:
Interactions during
recruitment and early
period of employment
characterize this
stage. Initial
socialization depends
on the values the
individual brings
from the anticipatory
stage.

Actors: Faculty
colleagues
Role
Continuance:
Individual
continues to
master the
skills required
for successful
career in the
academy.

Weidman, Twale,
and Stein (2001)

Focus:
Socialization of
graduate students
Anticipatory:
Individual learns
about what it
means to be a
faculty member.

Actors: Mass
media, past
faculty
Formal: Begins with
organizational entry.
Role expectations
remain idealized, but
individual receives
instruction required
for future role. Stage
focuses on mastering
content knowledge,
meeting normative
expectations, and
determining fit.

Actors: Faculty,
advanced students
Informal:
Individual
learns about
informal role
expectations
and tacit
assumptions of
faculty life.

Actors:
Advanced
doctoral
students,
classmates,
faculty
Personal:
Individual
internalizes a
professional
identity. S/he
reconciles
conflict between
previous self-
image and
professional
identity by
letting go of
previous habits
and ways of
thinking.
30
Stage 1: Anticipatory Socialization
Socialization begins long before an individual enters the organization.
Particularly for those entering faculty positions, individuals learn about the role before
they assume it themselves. Anticipatory socialization occurs before organizational entry
and focuses on the ways in which an individual is prepared for his or her new role (Van
Maanen, 1976). Individuals interact with others to learn about the values and attitudes
that are associated with their new position (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Weidman, Twale, &
Stein, 2001). Some future graduate students acquire knowledge of faculty life through
the images they see on television or read about in books. Others piece together an image
of faculty life through interactions with their professors as undergraduates (Tierney &
Rhoads, 1994; Van Maanen, 1976; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). However, not all
anticipatory socialization accurately prepares the future faculty member. Undergraduates
who interact with professors at major research universities may conclude that a
professor’s primary responsibility is to teach and mentor students (Bieber & Worley,
2006). Since undergraduates rarely engage in research with faculty, they may fail to
appreciate the significant emphasis placed upon knowledge production in the academy.
This incongruence between anticipatory socialization and organizational reality will
impact the newcomer’s transition to the organization.
Stage 2: Entry into the Organization
Generic models of socialization suggest that socialization begins with the new
recruit’s entry into the organization. Within higher education, such socialization occurs
from the first point of contact. For doctoral students, initial contact might occur during
31
interviews for admission or through a visit to campus. Even such early experiences can
help doctoral students begin to evaluate their degree of fit with the department and
university. Throughout the initial period of entry, new students look to faculty members
and more advanced doctoral students to learn the rules of being a successful graduate
student. As I suggested earlier, not all students enter their doctoral programs with an
accurate understanding of faculty life. Such students may find their transition to academe
more difficult. For some, this period involves re-evaluating their decision to enter the
program. Other students will replace their old values with a set of new ones (Van
Maanen, 1976). Doctoral students who enter graduate school with little knowledge of a
faculty member’s research responsibilities will quickly learn of the primacy of research.
The tasks that an individual must accomplish during this stage are monumental.
As Weidman, Twale, and Stein (2001) argue, doctoral students experience both formal
and informal socialization. Formal socialization begins upon entry into the doctoral
program. Students interact with faculty and advanced students, but tend to maintain
fairly rigid conceptions of a faculty member’s lifestyle. Although students are beginning
to master content knowledge, they continue to hold on to many previously held values.
Students’ understanding of faculty life is altered through informal socialization, which
primarily occurs through interactions with advanced doctoral students as well as their
classmates. Students in this stage begin to learn about the informal role expectations and
tacit assumptions of faculty life. In many respects, informal socialization plays a more
critical role in conveying the often unspoken values that drive the professoriate.
32
Stage 3: Commitment to Organization
Scholars disagree about the ultimate goal of socialization. Tierney and Rhoads
(1994) suggest that socialization is never complete. Rather, as they encounter new tasks
and assume different responsibilities, graduate students and faculty members will
continue to be socialized throughout their careers. Van Maanen (1976) similarly argues
that individuals in the final stage will have acquired the skills to successfully navigate the
organization. However, he also suggests that individuals in this stage may possess
different values than they did upon entry. While these two models suggest that
socialization is an ongoing process, Weidman, Twale, and Stein (2001) suggest that
successful socialization necessitates that graduate students internalize a new professional
identity and, in the process, abandon their previous values. As I discuss later, such an
assumption has the potential to exclude graduate students from underrepresented groups
who may have different motives for entering the academy. I now turn from providing an
overview of socialization models to describing elements that shape the socialization
process.
Key Elements of Socialization
How do doctoral students come to identify with careers in academe? John Van
Maanen and Edgar Schein (1979) suggest that socialization might best be thought of as
learning both the content and processes needed to successfully perform a new
organizational role. Although socialization models suggest that individuals must
accomplish these two tasks, the methods of socialization may vary considerably. Van
Maanen and Schein (1979) present six dimensions upon which an organization can
33
structure socialization. Socialization can be collective or individual; formal or informal;
sequential or random; fixed or variable; serial or disjunctive; or emphasize investiture or
divestiture. I briefly discuss each of these processes and consider how each might occur
in an academic setting.
Collective versus Individual Socialization
Organizational newcomers experience either collective or individual socialization.
In collective socialization, individuals undergo a set of common experiences together
while individual socialization typically involves training the individual in isolation. With
few exceptions, the majority of graduate students experience collective socialization.
Many students begin their doctoral programs with a group of peers; they typically take
similar courses and undertake similar milestones at the same time. In the English
department at Metro U, all first-year doctoral students take an introductory course
together, which serves both to introduce students to the basics of literary theory and to
encourage students to form relationships with their classmates.
Collective socialization tends to lead to greater homogeneity in experience and
viewpoints (Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961/2005; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
Since doctoral students are undergoing similar experiences, they may form their own
subculture and begin to feel a sense of affinity with one another. Van Maanen and
Schein (1979) suggest that those who undergo collective socialization may feel more of a
sense of obligation to their peers than to their superiors. In other words, doctoral students
may be more eager to please their classmates than their faculty members. In contrast,
new faculty almost always experience individual socialization. Rarely does a department
34
hire multiple new faculty members in the same year. Even then, few structural processes
exist in the department to collectively socialize faculty. As such, the transition to a
department for new faculty members can be lonely and difficult.
Formal versus Informal Socialization
Formal socialization suggests that organizational newcomers are segregated from
members of the organization and undergo a series of socialization activities designed
specifically for them. In contrast, informal socialization processes do not segregate the
newcomer from the organization; rather, training takes place “on the job,” over an
extended period of time. Most doctoral programs offer formal socialization to new
students in the form of an orientation at the beginning of the academic year. Such
orientations fulfill multiple functions. In addition to providing students with information
on mundane tasks such as course registration, these orientations also begin to transmit the
tacit assumptions of doctoral education in a particular discipline. As Van Maanen and
Schein (1979) suggest, “formal [socialization] processes concentrate…more upon attitude
than act” (p. 237). Doctoral students with research assistantships also experience
informal socialization. A research assistant in a science lab will rarely be instructed in
how to use all of the equipment and perform all the experiments needed in one day.
Rather, the new student will engage in a series of interactions with the principal
investigator and more advanced students throughout the year to build the necessary skills.
Sequential versus Random Socialization
Sequential socialization suggests that newcomers follow a discrete and prescribed
series of steps in pursuit of a particular goal. In contrast, random socialization is less
35
organized, with no set agenda, series of activities, or target in mind. Sequential
socialization can also further be delineated by the degree to which each stage builds off
of the preceding one (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Most doctoral programs follow a
sequential model of socialization. Students take a series of courses to arm them with the
knowledge and skills to complete their dissertation. Students who receive proper
guidance will select courses that build off of each other. For example, a student should
not take an advanced quantitative methods course before completing the introductory
statistics course. In the engineering department, students are required to pass three
milestones: the screening exam near the beginning of the doctoral program; the
qualifying exam and dissertation proposal; and the dissertation defense. In theory, each
step prepares students to undertake the next task.
Fixed versus Variable Socialization
This variable refers to the length of time required to complete a given process.
Organizations employing fixed socialization typically inform the individual of the length
of time necessary to complete the task and give a similar length of time to all individuals
undertaking the same task. With variable socialization, not only do newcomers not get a
specific timetable, but the length of time necessary to complete the task may also vary
across individuals. Depending on the design of the program, doctoral students may
experience either fixed or variable socialization. Some programs provided a fixed
curriculum and timeline for students to follow while others allow students to proceed at
their own pace. There are marked contrasts across disciplines as well. At Metro U.,
engineering doctoral students typically earn both their Master’s and Ph.D. in
36
approximately five to six years whereas the average Ph.D. student in English takes a
minimum of eight years to graduate. However, Metro U’s central administration has
recently implemented new policies designed to normalize the period of graduate study
across disciplines to approximately six years. By making it more difficult for more
advanced students to be awarded fellowships or assistantships, the administration hopes
to change the socialization for graduate students from variable to fixed.
Serial versus Disjunctive Socialization
This dimension of socialization is defined by the degree to which individuals are
trained by organizational members for their new positions. Serial socialization refers to
the process by which newcomers are prepared for their new roles by others in similar
positions. With disjunctive socialization, a newcomer has no role models to emulate.
Most doctoral programs tend to follow serial socialization. Doctoral students are able to
look to faculty as well as to more advanced students for guidance. However, not all
students will find appropriate role models. Many women in the sciences find themselves
alone among a sea of male graduate students. Similarly, students of color may be the sole
representatives from their racial or ethnic group. The absence of role models may make
the socialization process a disjunctive one for students from these underrepresented
groups.
Investiture versus Divestiture Socialization
The final dimension determines the degree to which newcomers’ previous
qualities and values are affirmed during the socialization process. Investiture
socialization processes build upon newcomers’ existing skills and values whereas
37
divestiture processes seek to dismantle and rewrite their values (Van Maanen, 1984; Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979). As I discussed above, the degree to which an individual’s
values conform to those of the organization influences the ease of the socialization
process (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). For most students, doctoral programs involve
divestiture socialization processes. Several faculty in the Metro U. engineering
department spoke of doctoral students’ lack of commitment to their research. Dr. Wyatt
and Dr. Chan held meetings with their students to try to pressure them into devoting more
time to the lab. Their students spoke of their commitment to engineering and work long
hours, but are unwilling to sacrifice all outside interests. In contrast, these two professors
refer fondly to the many nights and weekends they spent working in labs as graduate
students and expect their students to engage in the same behaviors. These faculty
members hope to change students’ behaviors to align them more with their values.
Whether they will be successful remains to be seen. Table 4 provides a summary of each
of the six dimensions.
Table 4: Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) Dimensions of Socialization
Dimension Description
Collective or individual Individuals are socialized together or trained in
isolation
Formal or informal Individuals undergo specific socialization activities or
are trained “on the job”
Sequential or random Individuals do or do not follow a specific set of steps
Fixed or variable Individuals do or do not have a particular length of time
to complete their tasks
Serial or disjunctive Individuals are or are not socialized by existing
members
Investiture or divestiture Socialization builds upon or dismantles individuals’
existing values

38
Key Agents of Socialization
Although the engineering faculty and doctoral students disagree about the amount
of time to devote to research, faculty play a pivotal role in students’ socialization.
Models of socialization suggest that newcomers look to those within the organizations for
clues on how to behave. Both faculty and other doctoral students play critical roles in the
socialization process. Students also look to their friends and family outside of programs
to help make sense of their experiences.
Faculty
Faculty members play a critical role in the socialization process (Baird, 1992;
Weidman & Stein, 2003). Leonard Baird (1992) argues that faculty members are the
primary agents of socialization for graduate students. “The graduate faculty is the critical
agent conducting this socialization, serving as definers of knowledge and disciplinary
values, models of the roles of academics in the discipline, and producers of practical help
and advice” (p. 1). Students learn from faculty in both direct and indirect ways. Students
learn about faculty roles and responsibilities through observing faculty in action, listening
to conversations, and engaging in brief interactions (Austin, 2002; Becker, Geer, Hughes,
& Strauss, 1961/2005; Bieber & Worley, 2006). Students also utilize both informal and
formal conversations with their advisors to construct their image of faculty life (Austin,
2002).
Though interacting with professors is important, students’ socialization is
primarily shaped by their relationship with their advisor. Students with positive
relationships with their advisors tend to have smoother trajectories through their graduate
39
programs (Golde, 2000; Golde & Dore, 2001). Chris Golde (2000) found that
problematic relationships with advisors played a significant role in students’ decisions to
leave their doctoral programs. Similarly, in their study of first year doctoral students,
Jerel Slaughter and Michael Zickar (2006) found that interactions with faculty members
were significant predictors of lower levels of role conflict. More frequent interactions
with faculty help students feel as if they belong in academe. Over the course of this
study, two students in the English department at Metro U. withdrew from the doctoral
program. Though both cited a variety of reasons behind their decisions to leave, neither
man had extensive contact with his advisor. Not all students are able to spend as much
time with their advisors as they would like. In their survey of over 4000 advanced
doctoral students at 27 institutions, Chris Golde and Timothy Dore (2001) found that one
third of respondents were unsatisfied with the amount and quality of time they spent with
their advisors. This reduced interaction may translate into failed socialization as many
graduate students leave their programs unprepared for the responsibilities of the
professoriate.
Graduate Student Peers
Doctoral students often look to advanced students in their programs for
information about how to succeed. Austin (2002) determined that students valued both
the information gained through interactions with peers as well as the opportunity to build
social networks. Although Baird (1992) argues that faculty are the primary agents of
socialization, John Weidman and Elizabeth Stein (2003) found that students tend to
interact with their peers more than with their faculty. In a survey of 50 doctoral students
40
in two departments, they found that 83.6% of students sometimes engaged in social
conversation with faculty, but 90.9% of students engaged in social conversation with
their peers. Students look to their peers for more than just social chatter. Eighty-five
percent of students often discussed topics in the field or other topics of intellectual
interest with their peers compared with 69.1% who discussed similar topics with faculty.
Family and Friends
Socialization does not occur solely through interaction with faculty and peers at
the university. Many students continue to rely on relationships with family and friends as
they make sense of their new experiences. Students might have conflicting loyalties and
feel torn between the norms of their new program and those of their communities of
origin (Van Maanen, 1976). Doctoral programs cannot reasonably expect students to
extricate themselves from their previous networks. Many students rely on their families
and friends to help them make sense of their experiences in graduate school (Austin,
2002). While these groups may not play the same role as faculty and graduate student
peers in passing on information and skills, they function as an additional and important
support network.
Factors Affecting Socialization
A variety of factors might shape socialization. Students’ gender, race, and
socioeconomic status can all shape their trajectory through the academy (Antony, 2002;
Taylor & Antony, 2000; Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). James Antony (2002) suggests that
students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may feel an obligation to apply their
education in practical ways, by providing service to their community. Students who
41
espouse values that conflict with the norms of academe may find the path of socialization
to be a perilous one.
Students’ socialization experiences are also affected by their class rank and year
in the program. Academically strong students whose interests parallel those of their
advisors are bound to have different experiences than students who struggle academically
(Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). Although students might profit from close guidance
at the beginning of their program to ease the transition, several authors (Baird, 1992;
Mendoza, 2007) have found that advanced students have closer relationships with their
advisors than beginning students. As I suggested in the previous chapter, discipline can
also shape students’ socialization (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Weidman, Twale, & Stein,
2001). Each discipline is characterized by its own culture that students are expected to
learn. Students in engineering are socialized to engage in research while those in English
receive more training as instructors in the classroom. Such socialization influences
students’ experiences in their doctoral programs as well as their expectations for their
future careers as faculty. In this dissertation, I suggest that gender and disciplinary
differences shape students’ experiences in graduate school. Not only do students’
experiences differ by gender and discipline, but the norms that drive each discipline are
gendered themselves, emphasizing particular skills and values over others. Such a fact
leads to problems with both the theory and process of socialization.
Criticisms of Socialization
There are three primary problems with socialization processes. First, socialization
aims to replicate cultural norms in the population of organizational newcomers. Since the
42
transition to the organization is often complicated for those from diverse backgrounds,
many organizations seek to admit those who resemble the existing population (Kuh &
Whitt, 1988; Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). In doctoral
programs, many faculty admit students whose educational and life trajectories resemble
their own. Such a practice discriminates against underrepresented students including
women in the sciences and students of color in many disciplines. The assumption is that
students from these groups do not have what it takes to successfully navigate graduate
school or the academy. However, as Tierney and Rhoads (1994) suggest, students from
these groups are not always willing to internalize the values of their predecessors.
According to traditional models of socialization, this stance equals a failure of
socialization. However, Antony (2002) calls for a distinction between socialization and
professionalization. While the socialization literature argues that students must
internalize norms of the discipline to succeed, professionalization suggests that students
can acquire the knowledge necessary for disciplinary success without having to
compromise their own values. Future studies of socialization of students of color might
investigate students’ trajectories through the professoriate and the degree to which they
felt that they had to compromise their values.
Second, socialization processes fail to prepare doctoral students for the reality that
awaits them. Scholars disagree to the extent to which socialization is failing. Jeffery
Bieber and Linda Worley (2006) suggest that doctoral students fail to accept the primacy
of research as academic currency. Students instead speak of the importance of teaching
and mentoring for their professional lives. In contrast, Austin (2002) and Golde and Dore
43
(2001) found the opposite. Students in their studies were solely prepared for research at
the exclusion of teaching. While they received guidance in developing discipline specific
research skills, the majority received no similar guidance in curriculum development or
teaching in the classroom. As Golde and Dore suggest, such preparation fails to consider
the range of institutional types in which graduates might seek employment. Graduate
school socialization only prepares students to assume one type of role: that of a professor
at a research institution.
Finally, doctoral programs are failing to properly socialize their students due, in
part, to a lack of formal socialization mechanisms (Austin, 2002; Tierney & Rhoads,
1994). Many programs expect that students will glean the necessary information to be
successful through informal conversations with faculty and their peers. While some
faculty consciously prepare students for their future responsibilities, the process is
idiosyncratic. Although some institutions offer programs to help prepare students to
teach, participation is generally voluntary. Unless institutions implement a series of
activities that all students must complete, socialization will remain haphazard at best.
Theories of socialization are both identity- and content-neutral. To explain the
adjustment of a new employee to an organization or a new student to a doctoral program,
scholars have developed generic theories that ignore differences among individuals and
by context. Theories suggest that socialization is the same for all people, regardless of
gender, race, or class. Certainly elements of the models suggest that an individual will
have a difficult transition if his or her values conflict with those of the organization
44
(Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Van Maanen, 1976). However, little research has examined
the degree to which gender influences socialization.
Further, few studies have examined doctoral student socialization by discipline.
While there is tacit acknowledgement that the tasks and skills required of a student in
engineering differ from those in English, little research has examined how discipline
shapes socialization. In this study, I address and bridge these two omissions in the
literature by considering how socialization and discipline shape gender and, in particular,
masculinities. To do so, I draw upon theories of gender as performance.
On Becoming Men: The Creation of Gender
Individuals are socialized to fulfill a variety of roles. Graduate students are
socialized to become faculty members. On a more fundamental level, both girls and boys
are socialized to assume their positions as women and men in society. In this section, I
discuss two frameworks that have been used to explain the way in which men and women
acquire gender identities: sex role theory and performance theory. Although both
theories were developed in the mid-twentieth century, performance theory proves to be
ultimately more useful in explaining the way masculinity is instilled in male graduate
students. I begin by providing a brief overview of sex role theory and outline its
strengths and weaknesses. Given the significant flaws of sex role theory, I focus
primarily on the potential contributions of performance theory. I begin by discussing its
early proponents as well as more recent scholars who focus specifically on gender. I then
outline three primary features of performance theory and consider the ways in which it
45
might help explain the experiences of male graduate students and the way that multiple
gender identities get enacted in the classroom.
Sex Role Theory
Generally credited as its chief architect, Talcott Parsons (1955) developed sex role
theory to explain the differing roles that men and women assume in society. Rather than
explaining differences between genders as biologically based, Parsons argued that such
differences were socially constructed. Sex role theory rests on four premises: 1) a
distinction exists between individuals and their social positions; 2) a set of actions are
assigned to each position; 3) norms define what actions are appropriate for a given role;
and 4) norms are enforced by others through a system of rewards and punishment
(Connell, 1987). Parsons argued that boys and girls were socialized from birth to assume
the roles associated with their genders. Children were rewarded for adopting appropriate
behaviors and sanctioned for displaying non-gender appropriate behavior. Such
socialization was important to maintain the structural integrity of the family. That is,
families only functioned properly due to a distinction in the roles of men and women.
Sex role theorists posit that men and women derive their roles from their positions
in families and the workforce. Parsons (1955) argued that men assumed an instrumental
role while women assumed an expressive role. Men occupied the role of instrumental
leaders of the family due to their positions in the workforce. They fulfilled their
responsibilities as men by earning income to support their families. As the primary
providers of income, men were therefore given responsibility for their family. While
men worked outside the home, women were responsible for maintaining affairs inside the
46
home. Specifically, they were charged with childrearing and caring for their children and
husbands. Women were expected to care for the emotional needs of the family while
men cared for the physical needs.
Despite this gendered division of labor, sex role theorists did not assume that such
divisions were biologically based, but instead stemmed from the social roles that were
assigned to each gender. This recognition that roles were socially constructed is one of
the primary strengths of sex role theory. Throughout much of history, biology was called
upon to explain differences between the two genders. Sex role theorists recognized that
other structures were at play. Men were not born to be breadwinners nor were women
born to be caretakers. Both groups were socialized into these positions and developed
different personality traits to assume their scripted roles (Connell, 1987; Williams, 1989).
As a result of socialization, both men and women learned and internalized the behaviors
they were expected to perform.
Although sex role theory can be lauded for drawing attention to the way in which
social structures shape gender identity, it has significant flaws. First, the theory is static
(Carrigan, Connell, & Lee, 1985; Connell, 1987). Rather than focusing on the ways in
which gender gets constructed, it sets forth two sets of established gender roles to which
individuals are expected to conform. As Christine Williams (1989) argues, “the theory
focuses on behavioral conformity to static sex roles rather than on the processes whereby
individuals actively construct definitions of masculinity and femininity” (p. 12). Such a
theory therefore fails to account for individuals who fall outside the appropriate norms.
47
Consequently, it cannot adequately explain the experiences of male graduate students in
predominantly female disciplines since it has no way to explain their “deviant” identities.
In a similar vein, sex role theory also creates the impression that conventional sex
roles represent the reality of most people’s lives (Connell, 1987; Carrigan, Connell, &
Lee, 1985). However, few men and women live up to the stereotypical norms associated
with their genders. By establishing one definition of the ideal man and woman, sex role
theory suggests that those who deviate from the norm are either defective or were not
properly socialized (Connell, 1987). Sex role theory fails to allow for the existence of
multiple definitions of masculinity and femininity and also does not allow individuals any
agency in creating their own identities. Rather, all are expected to assume prescribed
norms associated with their genders. As I will discuss in Chapter 4, the men in
engineering differ considerably from their counterparts in English—in personality, in
values, and even in appearance. Sex role theory suggests that such differences within a
gender are impossible.
Finally, sex role theory focuses on the differences between the sexes and not the
relations between them (Carrigan, Connell, & Lee, 1985; Connell, 1987; Connell, 1995).
Sex role theory accepts that relationships between women and men are complementary.
It fails to consider tensions that might exist between men and women and certainly does
not account for power struggles between the two groups (Stacey & Thorne, 1985).
Although sex role theory recognizes that gender roles are socially created, it does nothing
to challenge these roles. It accepts sex categories as natural and fails to consider how
individuals occupying various positions will be impacted by the norms they are expected
48
to adopt. For example, men in English constantly wrestle with notions of traditional
masculinity, questioning its utility and the behaviors it requires men to adopt. Sex role
theory does not allow for individuals to question their social roles. Given these
significant weaknesses, sex role theory has been abandoned by many who study gender.
While the theory is problematic for men and women in a variety of gender roles, it is
particularly troublesome for those who pursue careers outside of prescribed gender
norms. It simply has no mechanism to explain the experiences of men who become
nurses or women who work in construction. As a result, such a theory will not shed light
on the experiences of male graduate students in non-traditional fields. Fortunately,
theories about the performance of gender can fill that gap.
Doing Gender: Gender as Performance
While sex role theorists utilize static roles to explain gender identity, proponents
of gender performance argue that gender is a process accomplished in interaction with
others. I draw upon the work of Candace West and Don Zimmerman (1987) to structure
my discussion in this section. West and Zimmerman join a lengthy history of scholars
within performance studies. Spanning many decades and disciplines, performance
studies has evolved from its start in the elocutionary movement of the nineteenth century
to focus today on performance as both method and theory (Madison & Hamera, 2006).
West and Zimmerman’s work draws upon that of Erving Goffman (1959) and other
symbolic interactionists who developed a theory of performance as social behavior.
Rather than focusing on actions, other theorists focus on words. For example, J. L.
Austin (1975) argues that speech acts are performative; that is, sentences are not just
49
parts of speech, but are actions in and of themselves. Austin’s work, in turn, informed
Judith Butler’s (1990) theory of performativity, which draws upon poststructuralism and
explores the intersection of identity, power, discourse, and subjectivity. Although Butler
and other poststructuralists have made many contributions to the field of performance
studies, the work of early symbolic interactionists focuses more on behavior as
performance and accordingly provides a more appropriate theoretical framework for my
discussion.
Symbolic interactionists liken all interactions to performances in which
individuals engage based on the expectations of others. Coined by Herbert Blumer
(1969), symbolic interactionism rests on three premises: 1) individuals react to objects
based on the meanings they have for them; 2) meaning is generated out of interactions
with others; and 3) meaning can be modified through interaction. These points deserve
expansion. The first point acknowledges that each individual brings his or her own lens
to an interaction. Whereas sex role theory would expect that all men would react to one
object the same way, symbolic interactionism acknowledges human agency, or the fact
that actors have their own interpretation of events. Second, and perhaps most critical to
understanding symbolic interactionism, people shape their behavior according to what
they believe others expect of them (Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1959). For example, male
graduate students may adopt certain behaviors around their male peers in an effort to
prove their masculinity. Finally, though individuals may have their own perspectives,
such a perspective can be modified through interaction. In other words, meaning depends
50
on context. These features are echoed in West and Zimmerman’s work twenty years
later.
Along with R. W. Connell (1987), West and Zimmerman argue that gender is a
process, not a role that one inhabits. “A person’s gender is not simply an aspect of what
one is, but, more fundamentally, it is something that one does, and does recurrently, in
interaction with others” (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 140). Such a definition stands in
stark contrast to that of sex role theory, which framed gender as a characteristic of
individuals. West and Zimmerman’s definition of gender draws upon three points. First,
they posit that gender is dependent on context; different masculinities and femininities
are enacted in different situations. Second, gender is collectively created. Gender is not
a characteristic inherent in an individual; rather, people collaborate to produce gender.
Finally, both men and women adopt particular gender displays that others expect of them.
Although gender is collectively created, men and women know the roles that their gender
dictates that they inhabit.
Though gender is created through interaction, few people are aware of their role
in its creation. Men and women are socialized throughout their lives to unconsciously
produce gender-appropriate behaviors. As Patricia Martin (2003) suggests, “many
gendering practices are done unreflexively; they happen fast, are ‘in action,’ and occur on
many levels” (p. 344). Gender is produced through a series of micro-interactions that
occur on a daily basis. Gender is created when a woman lets a man hold a door open for
her or when a man speaks over a woman in the classroom. I now discuss the three salient
features of the performance of gender.
51
Gender Created by Context and Structures
Theories of gender performance suggest that gender does not lie in the individual.
As Tim Carrigan, Bob Connell, and John Lee (1985) argue, institutional structures,
including the state, corporations, and families, play a critical role in shaping the way in
which gender is enacted. As a result, gender cannot be understood outside of the context
in which it is produced. In their discussion of social identities such as gender, race, and
class, Candace West and Sarah Fenstermaker (1995) suggest that “conceiving of these
[identities] as ongoing accomplishments means that we cannot determine their relevance
to social action apart from the context in which they are accomplished” (p. 30). For male
graduate students, such a context varies by discipline. Students in predominantly male
disciplines may perform a certain type of masculinity for their peers while those in
predominantly female disciplines may emphasize other aspects of their masculine
identities. For example, men in predominantly male disciplines may try to establish their
dominance through displays of aggression or competitiveness. The faculty in engineering
were particularly noted for the ways in which they tried to demonstrate their competence
for their colleagues. In contrast, men in female-dominated disciplines may assume more
protective behaviors, acting like a concerned father or brother to their female peers.
Understanding the environment may help explain the types of interactions that take place.
Gender is produced on both an individual and an institutional level (Weaver-
Hightower, 2003). In his study of male cheerleaders in two national cheer associations,
Eric Anderson (2007) found that men in one group practiced one type of masculinity
while those in the other valued a different type of masculinity. Men in one group
52
engaged in highly ritualized masculine behaviors, making every effort to distinguish
themselves from women and gay men. In contrast, men in the other group evidenced no
fear of homosexuality and collectively constructed a new definition of masculinity to
include a wider range of men. Anderson traced these differences to the values of each
organization. Simply put, institutional and organizational norms play a significant role in
shaping the behaviors of members. Students’ choice of major may also correlate with
their definitions of masculinity. In a study of 100 male university students enrolled in
either traditional or nontraditional majors, LaRae Jome and David Tokar (1998) found
that men enrolled in more traditional majors were more likely to endorse traditional
masculine values, homophobic attitudes, and anti-femininity norms, including those that
concerned affectionate behavior between men. However, the authors do not explore
whether students self-selected into each major or if the discipline played a significant role
in shaping students’ attitudes. Regardless, multiple studies suggest that different contexts
produce different masculinities.
In an influential study on masculinities and schooling in England, Máirtín Mac an
Ghaill (1994) found that different masculinities were enacted in response to the
curriculum. At the time of the study, schools were experiencing increasing pressure to
arm graduates with practical skills. Accordingly, the school offered a stratified
curriculum; some courses emphasized academic knowledge while others were more
vocational. Students who pursued the academic pathway developed a middle-class
masculinity that favored individualism, competition, and ambition. Those who were
funneled into vocational courses manifested a masculinity that valued physical displays
53
of power and confrontations with teachers. Mac an Ghaill suggests that these
masculinities developed in response to the changing curriculum at the school level and
the larger trends of deindustrialization at the societal level. Just as high school students
developed differing masculinities based on their responses to the curriculum, Metro U.
graduate students did as well. Different departments emphasize and reward different
skills and values, leading students in various disciplines to display different types of
masculinities.
Gender as a Collective Creation
Created through interaction, gender is not a property of individuals, but rather of
groups of people (Connell, 1987). As my earlier discussion of symbolic interactionism
suggests, individuals engage together to produce a collective performance, regardless of
whether they subscribe to the behavior they produce. Different microcultures will
inevitably produce different definitions of masculinity. For example, Peggy Reeves
Sanday (1990) describes the hazing rituals through which fraternity members collectively
produced new identities for their pledges. Mac an Ghaill (1994) also analyzes the role of
peer groups in constructing identities for members. As I discussed above, not all students
in his study responded similarly to the changes in the curriculum. Their responses and
accompanying masculinities depended in large part on their peer group. Each peer group
exhibited different values, including different attitudes toward girls and orientations
toward academic achievement.
Male peer-group networks constituted the institutional infrastructure, within
which a range of social and sexual identities were negotiated and ritualistically
projected. They were a key feature of the student microculture, providing a
material and symbolic safe space within which to develop social and discursive
54
practices that served to validate and amplify their masculine reputations. (Mac an
Ghaill, 1994, p. 52)

Within each peer group, students developed their own norms of masculinity. For some,
masculinity was equated with academic success while for others masculinity was crafted
in opposition to such success. Just like their high school counterparts, graduate students
also collectively create gender in the classroom. Whereas the high school students tended
to develop their definitions of masculinity by actively avoiding associating with girls,
male graduate students in some disciplines find themselves as one of a few men among
many women. Students’ responses differ considerably. Some English Ph.D. students
respond by forming networks with primarily female students while others isolate
themselves in all-male networks. As I will discuss in Chapter 4, the networks that
students form tend to reflect their identities, both as scholars and as men.
Definitions of ideal manhood differ across cultures and contexts. However, all
societies prize one configuration of masculinity over all others. Though it differs across
contexts, hegemonic masculinity represents the ideal to which all men are expected to
aspire and further functions to privilege men at the expense of women (Carrigan,
Connell, & Lee, 1985; Connell, 1987; Connell, 1995). In the United States, for example,
dominant norms of hegemonic masculinity call for men to earn money, excel in the
workplace, and provide for their wives. Men who fail to meet these normative behaviors
are sanctioned, or accrue fewer benefits than their peers.
Some men gain more than others from patriarchy. In particular, those who
embody the characteristics valued by hegemonic masculinity tend to reap the greatest
55
rewards. In contrast, those who belong to marginalized masculinities (e.g. gay men, men
of color) might have their status as men challenged by their peers (Connell, 1995).
Different definitions of hegemonic masculinity are produced in different contexts
(Anderson, 2007; Connell, 1995). Men in the military may prize one ideal of manhood
while men in business may value another. Although there may be differences across
subcultures, there is a dominant definition of masculinity generally favored by society.
Gender Accountability
Though peer groups give members a space in which to develop and enact their
masculinities, they also serve a regulatory function. Individuals hold one another
accountable for their gender behavior (Stryker, 1968; West & Fenstermaker, 1995; West
& Zimmerman, 1987). Most men and women know the types of behaviors that they are
expected to display. People shape their behavior so as to not be accused of violating
gender norms and be alienated by their peers. Sheldon Stryker (1968) suggests that many
relationships depend on an individual inhabiting a particular identity.
To the degree that one’s relationships to specific others depend on one’s being a
particular kind of person, one is committed to being that kind of person. In this
sense, commitment is measured by the ‘costs’ of giving up meaningful relations
to others should alternative courses of action be pursued. (p. 560)

Accountability may force individuals to choose between espousing gender norms that
they do not necessarily agree with and being accepted by their peers.
Boys and men do not always have a choice as to which types of masculinity to
display. Several scholars (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1998; Mac an Ghaill, 1994) have examined
the roles that teachers play in shaping boys’ gender displays by rewarding certain types of
56
behaviors while punishing others. Mac an Ghaill (1994) found that some teachers
responded to “macho” boys with similar strains of toughness and bravado, using
aggression to manage these students. Other teachers chide boys for acting like girls,
thereby producing and reifying particular ideals of masculinity in the classroom.
Teachers and other institutional agents can play significant roles in holding students
accountable for performing sanctioned gender displays.
Notions of accountability have a particularly harsh penalty on men who work in
non-traditional careers. Multiple scholars (Cross & Bagilhole, 2002; Simpson, 2005;
Williams, 1989; Williams, 1992) have explored the stigma that men face due to their
work in female-dominated professions. Men in non-traditional careers run the risk of
having their heterosexuality challenged, both by co-workers in the office and
acquaintances outside the office (Cross & Bagilhole, 2002; Williams, 1989). In her study
of men in four non-traditional professions (nurses, primary teachers, flight attendants, and
librarians), Ruth Simpson (2005) found that men devised a variety of strategies to help
minimize the potential of being negatively stereotyped due to their career choice,
including withholding information about and emphasizing the masculine elements of
their jobs. Male graduate students may face similar challenges from their friends and
family. Since they have chosen careers typically associated with women, some may feel
pressured to counteract stereotypes by being hypermasculine. Others may generate their
own definitions of masculinity in the field. As I suggested in the previous chapter,
theories of gender performance and masculinity can help explain the gendered nature of
socialization across disciplines. Given that socialization is a bi-directional process—that
57
is, students both influence and are influenced by the norms of the program—I use
theories of gender performance to understand how male students navigate and shape the
department.
Bridging the Divide: Gendered Socialization
Previous studies of socialization have failed to consider the ways in which
socialization differs across discipline and by gender. Rather than compare the
experiences of men and women, I seek to understand how the socialization process itself
might be gendered. Given that socialization seeks to impart the skills and values
necessary for success, I examine the degree to which such values might be gendered.
As I have described throughout this chapter, theories of socialization and gender
performance complement each other. Both occur in response to structures and
interactions. As my earlier review suggested, socialization occurs through interactions
with faculty and peers and is shaped by the features of a discipline. For example,
engineering students are trained primarily to be researchers while English students spend
much of their time teaching undergraduates. Although both groups of students are
earning their doctorates, they acquire different skills along the way. Similarly, theories of
gender performance suggest that gender is created through structures and interactions.
Gender differs by context and, therefore, by discipline. Men in engineering adopt
different gender identities and behaviors than their peers in English. However, gender is
not created in isolation. Men and women in each discipline collaborate to create gender
and to hold one another accountable for producing appropriate behaviors.
58
Given that both socialization and gender performance occur in response to the
same mechanisms, I use theories of gender performance to understand how socialization
might be gendered. Following Table 5, which summarizes the ways in which the two
theories overlap, I discuss the tasks of the various stages. Although theories of
socialization typically divide socialization into three stages, I consider students’
experiences in two stages: before and after organizational entry.
Table 5: Building a Theory of Gendered Socialization
Gender Dependent on
Context/Structures
Gender as a
Collective Creation
Gender
Accountability
Anticipatory
Socialization
-pre-college interests
shape propensity to
pursue degree
-gender breakdown of
undergraduate
disciplines
-societal expectations
of masculinity and
femininity
-masculinity or
femininity of degree
program
Entry and
Commitment
to
Organization
-gender breakdown of
discipline
-curriculum (subjects
taught)
-RA vs. TA (gendered
division of labor)
-stipend and time-to-
degree
-department
governance
-collective
socialization
-actors who play key
roles: advisor, faculty,
peers
-different values are
encouraged in each
discipline
-professors and
students hold each
other accountable for
producing gender
appropriate behavior

Gendered Anticipatory Socialization
As my earlier discussion suggested, students learn the norms of a discipline long
before they begin their doctoral programs. A variety of factors shape anticipatory
socialization. As the table suggests, gender is created during anticipatory socialization,
simply through the numbers of students in a discipline. The sciences are male-dominated
while the humanities are female-dominated. Students receive early messages about what
59
type of student should pursue a particular degree. However, students’ interests will shape
their propensity to pursue a degree in a particular field. A girl who is not encouraged to
develop a curiosity in science will be less likely to pursue a degree in engineering than a
boy who loves to build model rockets.
During anticipatory socialization, students interact with their peers and professors
to produce gender appropriate behavior. In part, students learn what disciplines are
appropriate for study through messages they receive from the media, their teachers, and
their families. Boys are encouraged to pursue more active, hands-on courses of study
while girls are funneled into the humanities and the arts. Certainly some students choose
to pursue non-traditional majors. However, they may be sanctioned by their peers or
those outside the university.
Gendered Socialization: Entry and Commitment to Organization
Anticipatory socialization plays a critical role in determining which students will
pursue advanced study in particular fields. While there are few women in undergraduate
engineering programs, there are fewer still in doctoral programs. Once in their doctoral
programs, students continue to be socialized into the gendered norms of the discipline.
As Table 5 suggests, socialization depends heavily upon a variety of gendered features of
a discipline. As with anticipatory socialization, these stages are dependent upon the
gender breakdown of a discipline. Those who are in the minority (whether by gender,
race, or other characteristics) will have a different experience than those in the majority.
Doctoral programs socialize students into the norms shared by the majority.
60
As I will elaborate throughout the dissertation, a variety of other structures are
gendered, including the curriculum of a discipline, the types of funding opportunities for
students, and department governance. In Chapter 1, I suggested that men and women
typically perform different types of work in the academy; women often perform a
disproportionate share of teaching and service while men concentrate more on research.
Although such divisions of labor remain true, I suggest that the divisions of labor are
further cut across disciplinary lines. Those in male-dominated disciplines are trained
primarily to be researchers while those in female-dominated disciplines are trained
primarily to teach. Such gendered values thereby shape students’ socialization.
While the structures of a discipline are gendered, so are the interactions of the
people within them. As theories of gender performance suggest, gender is collectively
created; individuals interact to produce gender and to determine gender-appropriate
behavior. Such interactions occur through the socialization process to determine what
types of behaviors are appropriate for students (and future faculty) within a discipline.
Through interactions with faculty and peers, students learn about the norms that are
valued within a discipline and hold their peers accountable for abiding by the same
norms.
Students’ gender identities are shaped through socialization to the discipline. As I
elaborate in Chapter 4, gender might be understood as operating on three levels:
structure, culture, and reflective identity. In addition to the structures of the discipline
outlined above, gendered structures include the gender breakdown of a discipline and the
tasks associated with graduate student life. Just as structures influence interactions, so
61
too do they influence culture. With culture, I refer to the norms and values that
characterize the discipline and shape both professional and gender roles and relations.
Finally, structure and culture have implications for students’ reflective identity, which
considers the ways in which male students’ make sense of their gender identities and their
choice of discipline. These analytical structures help illuminate the gendering of both
discipline and socialization.
In this dissertation, I seek to understand how the process of socialization is
gendered. How do individuals learn the norms of a discipline? To what extent are those
norms gendered? Given that theories of socialization and gender performance both point
to the role that the individual plays in shaping collective behavior, I seek to understand
how male students simultaneously shape and are shaped by their department. To do so, I
draw upon a variety of qualitative methods, including observation, interviews, and focus
groups. It is to the question of method that I now turn.
62
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY: ON GENDER AND RESEARCH
I walked into Dr. Webster’s engineering class to talk to him about the possibility
of observing for the next several weeks. Entering the classroom, I was immediately very
conscious of being a woman and felt twenty pairs of male eyes watching me. Only later
when I began to observe the class did I realize that there was only one female student
who regularly attended. After I explained to Dr. Webster that I was interested in seeing
how engineering classes operate and how students relate to one another, he agreed to let
me observe. I told him that I would return the following week. As I walked out, I felt the
stares of the students follow me to the door. I made a mental note not to wear a skirt
again.
The following Tuesday, I returned to the classroom, this time wearing capris and
a t-shirt. I took a seat in the back and, as had become my custom in each class I
observed, I began drawing a sketch of the classroom. Within one minute, a male student
walked across the room, pointed to my notes, and laughed. I thought that he might be
curious about what I was doing in the room, since the professor did not introduce me to
the students. As I later found out, many of the other students simply assumed I was a
peer. This particular student, however, seemed put off by my presence throughout my
observations. When I returned to the classroom a week later, he moved from his regular
seat to sit in the back row near me. Rather than focusing on the lecture, he turned his
focus to me. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw that he had turned his body 90 degrees in
63
his chair and was staring directly at me. I ignored him and after about ten minutes, he
lost interest. The professor did nothing to stop this behavior.
Throughout data collection and analysis, my gender played a salient role with
both male and female participants. Though few interactions made me as uncomfortable
as those with this particular student, many interviews were shaped by traditional gender
dynamics: some men held the door for me while others seemed surprised when I did the
same for them. Another even offered to buy me coffee during our first interview. In this
chapter, I discuss my decision to study male graduate students. I begin by providing an
overview of my research design and describe the process of identifying and recruiting
participants. I describe the four methodologies used to collect data: interviews,
observation, focus groups, and document analysis. I discuss issues of trustworthiness and
detail procedures used for data analysis. The chapter concludes with a consideration of
the ways in which my identity as a woman and feminist shaped the research process.
Research Design
Doctoral student socialization has been studied using both quantitative and
qualitative methods. Quantitative studies of socialization (e.g. Golde & Dore, 2001;
Weidman & Stein, 2003) ask participants to rate the degree to which their programs are
preparing them for the faculty role. While such studies are useful for painting broad
strokes of doctoral students’ experiences, they do not provide the details of how such
socialization occurs. Other scholars (Austin, 2002; Mendoza, 2007) have conducted
qualitative interviews, seeking to understand the meaning that doctoral students make of
the socialization process. Given my research questions, I employed qualitative methods
64
as quantitative methods would fail to provide an adequate portrait of graduate student
culture and socialization.
Before further describing the purpose of qualitative research and my choice of an
ethnographic case study, I review the research questions previously introduced in Chapter
1. This dissertation focuses on four questions:
1. How does a discipline shape socialization?
2. How are discipline and masculinities related?
3. How are disciplines, socialization, and masculinities inter-related?
4. What role do structures and interactions play in the socialization process?
Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln’s (2000) description of the task of
qualitative researchers guides my inquiry:
Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the
intimate relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the
situational constraints that shape inquiry. Such researchers emphasize the value-
laden nature of inquiry. They seek answers to questions that stress how social
experience is created and given meaning. (p. 8)

Three points of their description particularly lend themselves to this study. First, they
suggest that qualitative inquiry seeks to explain the creation and meaning of social
experience. What meanings do participants attach to their experiences and how do
experiences contribute to the creation of identity? This study is primarily concerned with
illuminating how men’s experiences in their doctoral programs shape masculinity.
Second, qualitative research is premised on the fact that there are limitations to the scope
of inquiry. Rather than seeking broad trends that might be generalized to a larger
population, qualitative inquiry seeks to understand the experiences of the population of
65
study. Finally, unlike quantitative researchers who use survey instruments to collect data,
the qualitative researcher is the research instrument. Therefore, the data collected will
inevitably be shaped by the researcher’s own perceptions. I utilize qualitative research
due to its recognition that values permeate research. At the end of this chapter, I discuss
the feminist lens that I bring to my research and the role that feminism and gender played
during the research process.
On Method
To understand the culture of various disciplines and the way in which participants
make meaning of their daily interactions, I take an ethnographic approach to this study.
Ethnographers strive to understand how culture both informs and is shaped by people’s
language, behavior, and customs (Creswell, 1998; Spradley, 1979). Rather than simply
seeking to describe a group’s behaviors, ethnographers look to understand the meanings
that group participants take for granted. In this study, I explore how graduate students
are socialized into assuming the norms associated with their discipline and the extent to
which such norms are gendered.
As ethnography is concerned with discovering and explaining the culture of a
group of people, it is an appropriate tradition for this study. As John Creswell suggests,
an ethnographic researcher studies “a culture-sharing group using anthropological
concepts [such as] myths, stories, rituals, [and] social structure” (p. 66). In particular, I
focus on the rituals that define interaction in the classroom and the patterns of
socialization in each discipline.
66
Ethnography generally involves prolonged observation over an extended period of
time to allow the researcher to gain a fuller understanding of the culture of study
(Creswell, 1998). Data collection can take place through either participant observation or
one-on-one interviews. I utilized both methods, along with focus groups and document
analysis, over a six month period in the field from August 2007 through February 2008. I
began by conducting observations of classrooms to identify various patterns, ways of
relating, and cultural themes that define various disciplines and relations between
students (Creswell, 1998). As the semester progressed, data collection shifted from
observation to a series of one-on-one interviews. However, as Clifford Geertz (1973)
suggests, ethnography is not simply a litany of data collection methods. Rather, he
argues that ethnography is best understood as “thick description,” or description that
strives to explicate both context and meaning. The task of the ethnographer, therefore, is
to analyze and explain the culture of study to outsiders. In the following chapter, I
provide extensive descriptions of context and rely considerably upon the language used
by participants to paint a picture of the lives of doctoral students in AME and English.
Site Selection
Data collection occurred at Metropolitan University, or Metro U., a large private
research university with 33,000 students, divided evenly between undergraduate and
graduate students. Metro U. has one of the highest populations of international students
in the United States; 5600 students (or 17% of the total student body) come from outside
the country. Such a fact had ramifications for my selection of disciplines. I studied male
graduate students in English, a female-dominated discipline, and Aerospace and
67
Mechanical Engineering (AME), a male-dominated discipline. I define a discipline as
dominated by a particular gender by the percentage of male and female students enrolled.
Scientific disciplines have a reputation as being men’s disciplines, and hostile to women
whereas English departments tend to be associated with women and feminine traits. The
ultimate career trajectory differs for students in each department. English Ph.D. students
are primarily socialized to enter academe while many in AME enter industry, despite the
wishes of their advisors.
Table 6 summarizes the numbers of students in each discipline. Both disciplines
are also gendered in terms of the composition of the faculty. Of the forty faculty
members in English, twenty are men and twenty are women. While women compose the
majority of assistant and associate professors, men compose the bulk of full professors.
In contrast, in Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (a combined department), there
are a total of 27 faculty members, two of whom are women.
English and AME have roughly comparable populations of doctoral students.
There are 85 students enrolled in English and 87 students enrolled in AME. Both
departments also contain two different courses of study. In AME, students can major in
either Aerospace or Mechanical Engineering. English Ph.D. students can pursue a degree
on one of two tracks: the critical track or the creative writing track. Students on the
critical track write traditional dissertations and are prepared to enter academe. In
contrast, students on the creative track are primarily creative writers. To fulfill the
requirements of the Ph.D., these students have to produce pieces of original fiction along
with a shorter critical review of literature.
68
Aside from the size of the department and the ability to pursue two majors, there
are few commonalities between AME and English. The majority of students in AME are
men; 77 out of 87, or 89% of students, in AME are men. In contrast, men compose 32%
of doctoral students in English. The breakdown by citizenship differs considerably as
well. Ninety two percent of English doctoral students are U.S. citizens. Of the few non-
citizens, several are permanent residents and the majority of the others come from
Canada. In contrast, AME is overwhelmingly composed of international students. Only
41% of students in this department are U.S. citizens. Mechanical Engineering seems to
draw more international students than Aerospace Engineering. Thirty three percent of
Mechanical Engineering students are U.S. citizens while 59% of Aerospace Engineering
students are U.S. citizens. As one student explained, the majority of international
students come to the U.S. to major in a subject that they can apply in their home
countries. Few countries outside the U.S. have active aerospace research programs and
thus are not a popular draw for international student study. Despite its high percentage of
international students, AME had the highest percentage of domestic students of any of the
sciences at Metro U. Of the domestic students in AME, nearly all are White. The same
is true of students in English. Following is a brief table, which provides the
demographics of students in each discipline:
69
Table 6: Demographics of Students in Each Discipline

Participant Selection
Despite the high numbers of international students in AME, I restricted my
sample to domestic students in both disciplines. If gender differs by context, as theories
of gender performance suggest, definitions of ideal masculinity will be different for
American men than for Indian or Chinese men. Ultimately this restriction served to limit
the number of participants, as I will discuss shortly. The majority of participants were
male students, though I interviewed both female students as well as faculty and staff
members in each department to understand their perceptions of the department and the
male students. Participation was also restricted to students in at least their second year of
their programs. Given that one of the aims of this study is to explore the degree to which
disciplinary culture shapes socialization, students in their first year of study would be
inadequate informants as little socialization would have occurred. In English, I focused
on students on the critical track. Given that creative writing students had different
requirements and were ultimately being prepared for different types of careers, I
narrowed the scope of study to those pursuing a traditional English Ph.D. in preparation
for an academic career.
Men Women Both
Discipline U.S.
Citizen
Intl/
Perm
Res
Total
(%
Men)
U.S.
Citizen
Intl/
Perm
Res
Total
(%
Women)
% U.S.
Citizen
Total
English 25 2 27
(32%)
53 5 58
(68%)
92% 85
AME 31 46 77
(89%)
5 5 10
(11%)
41% 87
70
After identifying the two disciplines for study, I began the long process of gaining
access by contacting the graduate programs advisor in each department and requesting a
meeting with each. Both responded and within two weeks, in late August and early
September, I met briefly with each woman to gather basic information about each
doctoral program and to ask for their help in identifying potential participants. The
program advisor in AME generated a list of the names and e-mail addresses of domestic
graduate students who might be willing to speak with me and told me to mention that she
had done so in my e-mail contacts with them. Still in need of participants two months
later, I again contacted the staff member who generated more names for me, yielding a
few additional participants. I contacted all AME graduate students through one-on-one e-
mails. When initial e-mails did not yield responses, I sent follow-up e-mails and
contacted a few students via Facebook, an online social networking site. Finally, some
participants suggested classmates who might be willing to be interviewed and encouraged
their peers to contact me. As one engineer wrote in his response to my invitation to
participate in the study, “I would be happy to help out with your study. Data =
graduation.” Overall, students in AME were responsive to my requests for help.
Students in English proved to be a bit more of a challenge to recruit. Unlike the
engineers who rely upon generating data to complete their own dissertations, English
Ph.D. students write dissertations that are based upon analysis of texts. As an English
Ph.D. student said to me following one interview, “It must be quite difficult to have to
rely on people to conduct your research.” English Ph.D. students simply did not feel the
71
same sense of camaraderie with me, a fellow graduate student, as their AME
counterparts.
Much like the AME program advisor, the English program advisor was quite
helpful in identifying graduate students in English. She suggested that I send an e-mail to
the graduate student listserv, seeking participants. My initial e-mail to the list yielded
only one response. In part, this may be due to the fact that participation in the graduate
student organization is voluntary and as such, not all graduate students opt in. As
response rates tend to be higher when students are e-mailed individually, I sent individual
e-mails to 20 men in the English department. When initial e-mails received no response,
I sent follow ups. Unlike in AME, this method of contact yielded a less than optimal
response rate. Two students within the English department, colleagues from a campus-
wide organization and a previous class, served as informal recruiters and encouraged
their male peers to participate. Eric, illustrative of several English department men, told
me at the beginning of the interview, “I’m only doing this because Linda asked me to.”
Ultimately, 15 men and 5 women from English agreed to participate in this study.
Recruiting participants was an ongoing process that lasted two months. While
trying to secure participants, I spent the first month of data collection primarily engaged
in observation of classrooms. Using Metro U’s online schedule of classes to identify all
graduate level of classes in both AME and English, I contacted professors to ask for
permission to observe up to five class sessions over the course of the semester. Many
AME faculty did not respond to my requests, though of the three who did, two gave me
permission to observe. I observed two different types of classes; one was a small seminar
72
being taught for the first time by an assistant professor while the other was a regularly-
offered distance education class taught by a full professor. After explaining my project to
some faculty members in English, some were also hesitant to let me observe. One
declined out of concern for disrupting a sense of community in the classroom while
another invited me to observe, but changed her mind after my first observation session,
saying she felt self-conscious due to my presence. As in AME, I ultimately completed a
series of observations in two classrooms. Both were seminar-style and, in both, the
professors asked the students’ permission before inviting me into the class. Each
professor also introduced me to students at the beginning of my first observation of each
class. I received no such introduction in AME and was simply an anonymous (female)
student in the back of each classroom.
Research Method
This study draws upon four methods—participant observation, interviews, focus
groups, and document analysis—to understand the ways in which various disciplines
shape and are shaped by male doctoral students’ identities.
Observation
I began data collection by engaging in observation of classrooms in English and
AME. Observation calls for researchers to enter the field for a prolonged period of time
to observe and occasionally interact with those that they study (Bogdan & Taylor, 1975).
Observation is particularly favored by symbolic interactionists who want to interact with
participants in order to understand the cultural norms that guide behavior (Adler & Adler,
1998; Bogdan & Taylor, 1975). As such, observation was a particularly appropriate tool
73
for studying socialization and the accompanying production of masculinities, allowing
me to observe the ways in which different behaviors are enacted and reproduced by
students in each department.
Observation research typically occurs in a natural context (Adler & Adler, 1998).
Unlike interviews or surveys that ask questions about the past, observations allow the
ethnographer to witness events as they unfold. Researchers do not need to worry that
participants might give them incorrect information and instead rely on their own faculties
of observation. Once accustomed to the researcher’s presence, participants are more
likely to behave naturally whereas in interviews and other artificial settings, they do not
always do so. Unlike surveys and many interviews that use pre-determined protocols,
observation allows the researcher some flexibility in changing the focus of study (Adler
& Adler, 1998). As ethnographers spend more time in the field, they begin to hone in on
the issues of concern to participants. If such issues were not the initial focus of study,
ethnographers can shift their attention to incorporate these issues. I used some of the data
gathered through observations to modify my interview protocol. I also used interviews as
an opportunity to clarify issues that remained unclear following particular observations.
As the anecdote that begins this chapter suggests, observations can be profoundly
shaped by participants’ responses to the researcher. Michael Angrosino and Kimberly
Mays de Peréz (2000) suggest that researchers do not simply step into defined positions.
Rather, they negotiate with participants to determine the type of role they might assume
in the field. One particular strategy employed by others (see Becker, Geer, Hughes, &
Strauss, 1961/2005; Bettie, 2003; Thorne, 1993) is for researchers to align themselves
74
with the objects of study. When observing classes, I wore what came to be my uniform
of capris and a T-shirt. I also entered and exited the room with students, talking to them
whenever possible. At other types of events, such as department-sponsored colloquia, I
was careful to speak primarily with other students. Although I interviewed faculty
members in each department, the primary focus of this study is on the student experience.
I wanted students to feel that I was one of them and someone who could be trusted.
Although I was able to establish myself as a fellow student, I was not always successful
in minimizing the impact of my gender.
Despite aligning myself with participants, I constantly straddled positions as
insider and outsider. The task of the ethnographer is to adopt the perspectives of
participants while simultaneously trying to remain detached in order to facilitate analysis
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Bogdan & Taylor, 1975). Slavin (2007) argues that those who
utilize observation cannot maintain objectivity or avoid bias. However, Angrosino and
Mays de Peréz (2000) question “whether observational objectivity is either desirable or
feasible as a goal” (p. 674). Although some participants kept me at a distance, my gender
and feminist critical consciousness facilitated analysis in ways that might not have readily
occurred for male researchers studying the same population.
In total, I completed 45 hours of observation between September and December
2007. The majority of observations occurred in classrooms. I observed three classes in
English (for a total of 20 hours of class time) and two classes in AME (for a total of 12
hours of class time). I visited each English class anywhere from one to four times and
each AME class a total of five times. Department-sponsored colloquia, student-
75
sponsored tea time, and students working in their labs offered additional opportunities for
observation in AME. I observed English students interacting informally in the
department as well as at a café on campus where many study and hold office hours for
students.
Observations allowed me to study how different students relate with one another
and how different professors interact with their students. In the classroom, I focused on
the different pedagogies that professors used and the frequency at which students spoke,
noting whether men spoke more than women and which students engaged with the
professor. I focused on these aspects in the classroom because I hypothesized that the
way a class is structured (the pedagogies used, the relationship between professor and
students, etc.) shapes the nature of the interactions between men and women; that is,
classroom context shapes behavior and, subsequently, socialization.
At other observations, such as the department-sponsored colloquia and the
student-initiated tea time in AME, I focused primarily on male students’ patterns of
interaction with each other, with female students, and with faculty of both genders. I
noted who attended the various events, who spoke to whom, and who organized each.
Observations of formal events focused on the messages—both explicit and implicit—that
are conveyed to students about the norms of the discipline. Observations of informal
interactions of AME students in the lab or English students in the outdoor café allowed
me to study the relationships that male students have with each other, female students,
and their professors and to note the extent to which topics of conversation were gendered.
76
Following each observation, I wrote a one page summary of the day’s events,
which included the location and time observed, the people present, what happened, and
emerging themes. I completed my summaries immediately after leaving the field to
maximize the amount of information I was able to recall. Observing in a classroom
allowed me to take more complete notes than observing in other settings; I simply
blended in as another student taking notes. In those instances where taking extensive
notes was inappropriate, I jotted down a few key ideas to prod my memory for writing
summaries.
Interviews
While observations allowed me to gain an understanding of the culture and
context of graduate student life in AME and English, interviews with faculty and students
composed the bulk of my data. Interviews provide researchers with the control that they
lack through observation by allowing them to ask questions about the areas of greatest
interest to their study. Interviews can range from structured to unstructured (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2003; Fontana & Frey, 2000). Structured interviews arise out of the tradition of
positivist research. In such interviews, the interviewer asks each respondent a pre-
established set of questions with limited response categories. At its most extreme, a
structured interview is simply the verbal embodiment of a quantitative survey.
In contrast, an unstructured interview is not guided by a protocol and might be
used by researchers conducting observations. Questions often arose during my
observations of AME students working in their lab. Although I preferred to act as a
passive observer, I occasionally asked students to describe what they were working on or
77
explain an interaction with a peer. Rather than formal interviews, such interactions might
be considered casual conversations, arising out of the situation at hand. As with
observations, unstructured interviews provide the researcher with a greater opportunity
than structured interviews to understand how participants construct meaning of the
situation (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).
Structured and unstructured interviews represent two extremes. Although I
employed unstructured interviews during observations, the majority of my interviews
were semi-structured in nature. Semi-structured interviews use a set of questions to guide
the conversation, but also allow the participant to take a role in shaping the interview’s
direction; the interaction is a conversation with a purpose. Even the most structured of
interviews are not guaranteed to produce similar results across participants. As Andrea
Fontana and James Frey (2000) suggest, “interviews are interactional encounters
and…the nature of the social dynamic of the interview can shape the nature of the
knowledge generated” (p. 647). Each participant will respond to the interviewer
differently. Some may feel more comfortable and thus more willing to share information;
others may feel intimidated and give brief responses. As with observation, interviews
can be profoundly influenced by the relationship between the interviewer and
participants.
Although observation allows the researcher to study participants in their natural
settings, some participants are not always completely at ease with their classmates or
professors nearby. Participants might be more willing to share information with the
interviewer in a one-on-one setting. As my discussion of performance theories in
78
Chapter 2 suggested, individuals often engage in performance for their peers.
Participants may adopt behaviors in front of their peers that do not represent their true
sentiments. Private conversation may allow participants to be more candid than they
could be otherwise. However, individuals might choose to perform for the interviewer
as well. In addition to posturing for the interviewer, respondents might also feel
pressured to give a socially desirable response (Fontana & Frey, 2000). For example,
Christine Williams and Joel Heikes (1993) conducted two separate studies of male
nurses. In comparing their results, they found that participants emphasized the social
construction of gender roles to the female researcher while they pointed to biological
explanations to the male researcher. Participants may tell researchers what they think
they want to hear. Male participants seemed to self-censor when I asked them what
topics they discussed with their male peers. I had to directly ask many of the men
whether they talked about sex or made dirty jokes. When asked, some men would
elaborate, but others would simply respond that they did and be unwilling to say more. It
was during such encounters that I thought male researchers might obtain different
responses.
I conducted a total of 79 semi-structured interviews over a four month period,
from September 2007 to January 2008. I interviewed 20 students in English (15 men and
5 women) and 14 students in AME (12 men and 2 women). Due to the limitations
discussed earlier—both in terms of the low numbers of women and high numbers of
international students enrolled in AME, I was unable to interview equal numbers of
English and AME students. Although the focus of this study is on the socialization of
79
male students, I interviewed women to gain their perspective on gender dynamics within
the disciplines.
All students were interviewed twice: once in October or November and again
between November and January. Interviews probed students’ perceptions of their
programs and their thoughts about masculinity. The first interview, which included
questions about students’ experiences in the department, typically lasted between 45 and
90 minutes. The second interview, which concerned definitions of student success along
with thoughts on masculinity, was more variable in length. Some interviews were as
short as 25 minutes while others lasted 90 minutes. Participants were interviewed twice
for multiple reasons. First, the protocol was quite lengthy and conducting one long
interview would not have provided rich responses, due to participant and interviewer
fatigue. Second, the follow-up interview allowed me to clarify questions that had arisen
from or since the first interview. Since masculinity is a sensitive topic for some men, I
wanted to meet with participants twice to begin to build rapport. In between the two
interviews, I interacted with many participants in a variety of observational settings. By
the second interview, some participants may have felt more comfortable with me than
they would have during our first meeting.
All interviews took place on campus in a location of the participant’s choosing.
Locations ranged from my office to the participant’s office to one of four cafes on
campus. At the end of the second interview, all participants were given an opportunity to
choose their own pseudonym. For a copy of the protocol, please see Appendices A and
B.
80
I also interviewed five faculty members in each department along with a staff
member in English. Interviews with these individuals focused on the socialization
process and perceived strengths and weaknesses in each department. Interviews typically
lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. The majority took place in the faculty or staff
member’s office, though one took place outside. For a copy of the protocol, please see
Appendix C. Both staff and student participants were required to sign a consent form
approved by the Institutional Review Board. Copies are available in Appendices E and F.
All interviews, but three, were digitally recorded and transcribed. One faculty
member and one student chose not to be recorded. For both, I took extensive notes
during the interviews and typed up complete field notes immediately following each
interview. Although I used transcripts during data analysis, I followed a similar process
to that of writing up field notes after observations, writing a one-page summary after each
interview that detailed the major themes that the participant discussed. Such a process
allowed me to make connections across participant responses and facilitated data
analysis.
Focus Groups
Focus groups allowed me to create the conditions to probe areas of greatest
interest—specifically, the production of masculinities. In the focus group of engineers,
the hierarchy among students was readily apparent. Some students talked over and
ignored others. Focus groups allow researchers to combine the ability to probe for
specific information with the opportunity to observe interactions between participants.
However, often focus groups are not used to this end. Many researchers employ them
81
simply as a method to gather individual information quickly (Hollander, 2004). Focus
groups can turn into little more than a mass group interview in which each individual
responds to an interviewer’s question without interacting with other participants.
Although focus groups allow researchers to gather a large amount of information in a
short period of time, Jocelyn Hollander (2004) and David Morgan (1988) suggest that
focus groups can be used to explore the interactions that take place among group
members. For ethnographers interested in learning more about a group’s culture, focus
groups can reproduce interactions between group members. As such, it provides an ideal
method for researchers interested in how identities are constructed and performed.
Focus groups may lead to more complete responses from participants. When
people are interviewed individually, they occasionally have trouble recalling particular
information. Discussing a topic with others may help jog a participant’s memory. In
addition, focus groups allow the researcher access to the natural vocabulary that
participants use to describe a topic (Morgan, 1988). The real strength of focus groups,
however, lies in their ability to create interactions among participants. Thus, the
researcher is given the opportunity to observe the behavior of and dynamics between
participants.
While bringing people together may stimulate discussion and lead to richer data,
group interaction also poses some challenges to data collection. Some focus groups may
have one participant who dominates the discussion (Fontana & Frey, 2000; Hollander,
2004). If a researcher is conducting a focus group with an intact cultural group,
participants may allow the group member with the greatest status to answer the majority
82
of questions. In so doing, this focus group becomes one in which one opinion dominates
and alternative experiences are obscured. Such focus groups may also produce
“groupthink,” in which individuals express opinions more extreme than they would
naturally endorse on their own, due to concerns of being accepted by their peers.
If participants have a relationship outside of the focus group, some members may
be unwilling to share sensitive information, either out of concern for privacy or fear of
reprisal (Hollander, 2004). However, Hollander (2004) suggests that rather than
conceptualizing these processes as challenges to data collection, the researcher should
view them as data.
A social constructionist perspective suggests that individuals do not have stable
underlying attitudes and opinions; rather, these ideas are constructed through the
process of interaction…In this view, conformity, groupthink, and social
desirability pressures do not obscure data. Rather, they are the data because they
are important elements of everyday interaction. (p. 611)

Focus groups can be used as a tool to learn more about the culture of group members.
Who speaks as well as what topics are spoken of and which are silenced can convey a
great deal about participants’ norms and values. Though readily willing to participate in
individual interviews and quite interested in discussing the topic of masculinity, Duke, an
English Ph.D. student, did not feel comfortable participating in a focus group. In part,
this may be due to the fact that he feels disconnected from other men in the department
and was unwilling to share his thoughts on a potentially vulnerable topic.
One focus group with men from AME took place in February 2008, after all
interviews had been conducted. My attempts to conduct a focus group with the English
students were met with the same obstacles I encountered when recruiting participants the
83
previous semester. Although I scheduled the focus group at a time when students were
not teaching, only one was willing to come. As a result, I cancelled the group. I capped
the AME focus group at eight students since more would have made conversation
difficult. The focus group lasted for 90 minutes and solicited students’ ideas about
masculinity in their disciplines. I used the focus group as an occasion to see if students’
responses produced in front of their peers differed from those given in one-on-one
interviews. For a copy of the protocol, please see Appendix D. The focus groups was
digitally recorded and later transcribed. As with interviews and observations, I created a
one-page summary immediately following the session, noting who was present, themes
discussed, and any significant differences between interview and focus group responses.
Document Analysis
Although interviews and observations served as the primary sources of data
collection, I also reviewed a variety of documents to gather additional information about
each program. The websites of both departments provided information about the
curriculum and the student trajectory of each program, including the major milestones
such as the qualifying exam and dissertation. I collected syllabi of the classes that I
observed along with others in the program. In English, for example, I gathered syllabi for
the professionalization courses that the department offers, such as the class that helps
students prepare for the job market. Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace
provided another venue through which I acquired information about students. I reviewed
documents with a focus on 1) the methods of socialization within the discipline; and 2)
84
the degree to which norms of masculinity are engrained in the policies, procedures and
online interactions of members of the department.
I used these four methods to gain an understanding of the ways in which students
are socialized in each discipline; the values, norms, and skills that are conveyed to
students; and the role that gendered norms play in the socialization process. Table 7
summarizes the methods used, the frequency in which they were employed, and the
timeline for data collection.
Table 7: Research Methods Used
Method Targeted Group Frequency Timeline
Observation Doctoral students Averaged to at least
one class or activity
per week
September-
December 2007
Interviews 34 doctoral students Two 45-90 minute
interviews
September 2007-
January 2008
Interviews 10 faculty and 1
staff member
One 30-45 minute
interview
October 2007-
January 2008
Focus groups Group of doctoral
students
One 90 minute
focus group
February 2008
Document analysis Websites, syllabi,
Facebook profiles
Ongoing August 2007-
February 2008

Data Analysis
I utilized Atlas.ti, a qualitative data analysis software, to analyze the data. Atlas
allows the researcher to organize and keep all data sources in one location. Although
Atlas provides the tools to organize the data, data analysis still remains up to the
researcher. I employed the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The
constant comparative method requires researchers to conduct data collection and data
analysis simultaneously. After collecting an initial set of data, the researcher engages in
analysis and identifies emerging themes and hypotheses. The researcher then returns to
85
the field to collect additional data that either confirm or disprove initial hypotheses. All
subsequent coding occurs in relation to previously collected data. The researcher’s
ultimate goal is to reach theoretical saturation, or the point in which new data fits into
existing categories, rather than pointing in a new direction. Upon reaching theoretical
saturation, I, as the researcher, can be fairly confident that I have collected enough
information to gain a thorough understanding of the various disciplines.
Trustworthiness
Whereas quantitative researchers are concerned with establishing validity and
reliability, qualitative researchers aim to prove trustworthiness. The different
terminology is not simply a choice of vocabulary. The methods through which
researchers establish trustworthiness are informed by the paradigms of the qualitative
tradition. I was guided by four techniques identified by Lincoln and Guba (1985) for
establishing trustworthiness: 1) spending adequate time in the field; 2) triangulation; 3)
engaging in peer debriefing; and 4) conducting member checks.
To be able to reasonably draw conclusions about a group of people, a researcher
must spend a considerable amount of time studying them. The first method to establish
trustworthiness is spending a prolonged period of time in the field. Since I studied the
same group of people over a period of six months, I developed an understanding of the
culture of each discipline (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Triangulation, or the process of using
multiple methods, sources, or investigators, offers another method for establishing
trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 2005). Using multiple methods for
triangulation offers a way to compensate for some of the weaknesses inherent in
86
particular methods. I triangulated by comparing the data collected through observations
with that collected through interviews and focus groups. The use of multiple methods is
intended to allow the researcher to converge on one perspective or explanation of a
particular phenomenon. By collecting data through observations, interviews, and focus
groups that all point to the same conclusion, I can be confident in the accuracy of my
results. I often used interviews to follow up on particular interactions I noted during
observations.
I also triangulated my data by drawing upon multiple sources to gather
information. Although the focus of this study is the male doctoral student experience, I
interviewed a range of members of each department to gain a more holistic picture of the
two disciplines. As I outlined above, in addition to interviewing male students, I also
interviewed female doctoral students along with faculty and staff in each department.
Many of the AME students shared their low opinion of a particular professor, telling
stories about the ways in which he devalues students, does not prioritize teaching, and has
hostile relationships with many faculty. Hearing such stories from multiple students
convinced me of their accuracy, but an interview with a faculty member helped confirm
the students’ claims. During this interview, we were interrupted by a phone call from this
professor, who I could hear yelling on the other end of the line. Through both multiple
methods and sources, I concluded that this professor has not succeeded in building
positive relationships with many in his department.
I also underwent a process of peer debriefing, which calls for researchers to
discuss their findings with one or more peers (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Such a process is
87
intended to bring all of the researcher’s implicit biases to the surface to allow him or her
to see the ways in which they might affect interpretation and analysis. My peer
debriefing team was composed of five other doctoral students who, over the course of
twelve months, gave me feedback on all stages of this dissertation, ranging from
feedback on my research design to challenging some of my interpretations of initial
findings.
I also engaged in member checks, by sharing my data with participants. Lincoln
and Guba (1985) suggest that this process is the most critical for establishing
trustworthiness. Member checking is intended to allow participants the opportunity to
correct errors or challenge incorrect interpretations. Given that I bring a feminist lens to
my research, member checking can present a challenge since not all participants will
readily agree with theoretically informed conclusions. While I still engaged in member
checks, I asked participants to confirm the veracity of data, not necessarily the accuracy
of my interpretations. I sent a transcript of both interviews to each participant. I asked
him or her to read through and use the opportunity to correct any misstatements or
incorrect transcriptions and also to elaborate on or clarify any topics. While some
students made minor adjustments to the transcripts, Meredith, a student in English, made
substantive changes to both transcripts, elaborating on particular points and also
modifying some of her responses to protect the identities of her peers. Although
participants might challenge my conclusions, engaging in member checking allowed me
to ensure that the facts were correct before proceeding with analysis. I now turn to a
88
discussion of the theoretical paradigm that informs my research and consider the impact
that my gender had on the data collection and analysis processes.
Gender and Theoretical Perspectives
In addition to the techniques outlined above, another way to ensure
trustworthiness is for researchers to be explicit about the theoretical orientation that
informs their research. Several scholars (Altheide & Johnson, 2000; Lincoln, 2002;
Smith & Deemer, 2000) argue that readers need to understand researchers’ paradigms
and perspectives in order to evaluate their work. Acknowledging one’s paradigm is far
more critical in qualitative research than in quantitative research since in the former, there
is a tacit understanding that one’s perspective shapes both the way research is conducted
and the resulting interpretations. As Yvonna Lincoln (2002) suggests, being explicit
about theoretical orientation is necessary to establish trustworthiness. “What constitutes
evidence, and therefore, what justifies it, is the result not only of what questions are
posed, but of the framework within which they are posed” (p. 4). An individual’s
epistemological framework profoundly shapes every step of the research process. This
research was shaped by my feminist orientation and gender.
A feminist perspective. Traditional social science research seeks to maintain strict
objectivity by deemphasizing the role of the researcher in the process of data collection.
This stance is informed by the assumption that all research should be replicable. Scholars
who subscribe to this perspective maintain that race, class, gender, and other human
characteristics confound rather than facilitate research, and advocate for strict control of
these variables. Early feminist scholars challenged this notion of strict objectivity in
89
social science research by recognizing the ways in which this mode of research
privileged—and reinforced—traditional research perspectives and marginalized
scholarship not produced within this normative paradigm.
As Shulamit Reinharz (1992) explains, early feminist research sought to
counteract this traditional notion of research by attending to the absence of women. For
some, this took the form of simply researching women, a previously understudied group.
For others, this meant reconsidering the role of the researcher. Those who adopted this
strategy argued that the identity of the researcher was critical in determining access to
research sites and shaping the interpretation of findings. Proponents argued that all
researchers approach each site from a particular standpoint. That is, an individual’s past
experience and social location (in terms of the intersection of race, class, gender,
sexuality, and other characteristics) inevitably shape a researcher’s interpretation of
findings. For some, this means that men cannot successfully conduct feminist research or
that women cannot research women of different races or social classes. Others simply
maintain that the identity of the researcher is critical in determining access to research
sites and shaping the interpretation of findings.
Standpoint epistemology, as it came to be known, rose to popularity in the 1980s
and early 1990s. However, as Nancy Naples (2003) discusses, traditional standpoint
epistemology has been challenged on numerous assumptions. Of greatest concern, it
essentializes across difference and assumes that members of each social group (e.g.,
African American men, White women) view the world from the same perspective.
Traditional standpoint models also ignore the fact that identity is not fixed, but changes
90
constantly, depending on location. Naples proposes an alternative model, in which
experience remains significant as a source of knowledge, but is not the sole variable in
determining one’s perspective or interpretation. Rather, the research context, the
researcher’s relationship to participants, and the research site are critical factors in the
interpretation of experience.
Although standpoint feminism was developed to address gaps in scholarship by
discussing the experiences of women, I used this perspective in my study of men. I
suggest that my experiences as a woman and my feminist critical consciousness allowed
me to more readily perceive patriarchal biases in the curriculum and in the way in which
students relate with one another and with their professors.
Gender Trouble
Although the feminist lens which I brought to my data may have facilitated data
analysis and theoretically-informed interpretations, I fully acknowledge that my gender
played a significant role in the field. As I detailed at the beginning of this chapter, one
male student reacted hostilely to my presence in the classroom. For the most part, male
participants were very polite and willing to talk to me. However, I was always aware of
being a woman interviewing a man. Most days, I made sure to wear clothes that were as
gender neutral as possible, particularly when interviewing or observing men in AME. I
also adopted a gender neutral language and way of speaking. Listening to the recordings
of the interviews, I can hear the way in which I dropped my voice when speaking to most
men. I also joked around more and occasionally swore, as they did, in an attempt to
establish rapport. Like my participants, I, too, engaged in gender performance; my role
91
was of the cool, uninterested woman. One day, when observing a tea time in AME, I
waved to two male students. However, I did not use the casual wave that I had used in
the past, but rather an excited wave (quickly waving my hand back and forth, as I do with
many of my own friends). Such an action had immediate consequences. One of the
students turned his back to me and would not talk to me. Perhaps he took such a wave as
a sign of interest. But, in that instant, I could feel my cool persona fading and my gender
becoming ever present.
I will not pretend that I was able to erase my gender. I know that I interacted with
male participants differently. Some participants were distinctly more interesting than
others. Some were fun to talk with. A few I found completely abhorrent. With a few,
I’ll admit, I even engaged in some light banter. As a single, heterosexual woman, my
family and friends were ecstatic when they heard I was studying male graduate students.
“Great,” more than one person said to me, “You can find a boyfriend!” Though I
explained the ethical problems with this scenario to all, none seemed convinced. Though
I did not go into this project with this intention in mind (and emerged without ever
crossing any ethical lines), I know that more than one participant took more than a
passing interest in me. And, I would be lying if I said that I didn’t find at least a few of
these men to be interesting in their own right.
As I will detail in the next chapter, many of the men think about sex and women
frequently. However, many were unwilling to talk about these issues with me. When I
pushed some participants to be more graphic, they used euphemisms or danced around
the issue. Clearly, there was some self-censorship taking place. For my part, I found it
92
difficult to push some of the men on issues of sex. I was also conscious of lines being
crossed, but tried to do so in the sake of research. With female participants, however, I
felt no such hesitation. In fact, with many of the female participants, I felt a more natural
bond and was more comfortable talking with most of them about a range of topics.
Conclusion
Although interviewing and studying male graduate students may have been more
difficult than their female counterparts, I felt it was important to do so. Men are often
ignored when conversations of gender arise, as issues of gender simply not salient for
most men. In this study, I seek to illuminate the ways in which gender is woven
throughout society, including academic disciplines. Perhaps, for that reason, it is fitting
that my gender played such a constant role in the data collection and analysis process. I
now turn to the stories of the graduate students themselves.
93
CHAPTER 4
SOCIALIZATION AND MASCULINITIES: TALES OF TWO DISCIPLINES
Much of the existing literature has used a broad lens to examine socialization.
Past studies have examined the experiences of graduate students and faculty members,
but few have examined how socialization differs by discipline. On a larger level, theories
of socialization also have failed to incorporate the literature on gender in organizations
and universities. In particular, socialization does not consider how a discipline might be
gendered, or the degree to which it might be based on inherently masculine or feminine
values. Further, few studies have examined how gender shapes and is shaped by the
socialization process.
In this chapter, I describe the AME and English Departments at Metropolitan
University and examine how both socialization and disciplines are gendered. I provide
an overview of each department and chronicle the stages of socialization. I then consider
how gender is manifested in various features of each department—in its structure, its
culture, and in the identities of students who populate it. The chapter is punctuated by
portraits of three students in each department to illustrate life in the two disciplines and
the differences between the populations of each. As my discussion suggests, each
department is characterized by different norms and values which ultimately privilege a
particular type of scholar and a particular type of man. These differences are especially
relevant for those who differ from the norm—for women in AME and men in English.
Although located on the same campus, students in each department have different
94
experiences in their graduate programs that ultimately affect their socialization as
scholars and as men. I begin with the engineers.
The Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department
Logan: The Lifer at Metro U.
Logan sat in a windowless office working on his computer when I found him.
Although many desks cluttered the room, he was the only one in the lab. As he later told
me, this solitude is a rarity as his boss employs the highest number of undergraduate
work-study students of any in the department. Logan grabbed his sweatshirt and we
headed over to Burke Hall, one of the newer buildings in the School of Engineering, to
talk over a cup of coffee. On our way over, Logan held the doors for me and offered to
buy my coffee. I declined. We settled in to two chairs on the patio outside and he
described his experiences at Metro U.
Like many other students in the department, Logan is a “lifer” on campus; he
earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and now his Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering at Metro
U. He has worked in the same lab since his sophomore year—first as a work-study
student and now as a research assistant. Unlike other students, his boss, Tony, is not a
tenure-line faculty member on campus, but is employed as an adjunct research professor
and works full-time for the military. Logan also works closely with another research
professor in the department and constantly refers to both by their first names. While
many other students call their advisors “Dr. Webster” or “Professor Fields,” Tony has
made it a point to eliminate distinctions in his lab. Logan describes this philosophy:
95
Both of them ardently disbelieve in the idea of class distinction between the
student and the professor. Ardently. They hate it. They don’t believe that there
is any difference. That the letters after your name mean jack and shit, as my boss
would say. That’s one of his favorite sayings: “It means two things. Jack and
shit.” …I think it’s the way to go because it really encourages you to be much
more confident in your own work if they are willing to treat you like a
Ph.D…Even when you’re a Master’s student, they don’t care. You’re a
researcher, that’s what’s important.

Tony puts so much faith in Logan that during a three year leave of absence, he left Logan
in charge of the day-to-day details of running the lab. While still a Master’s student,
Logan mentored and supervised the undergraduate work-study students and advocated for
the needs of the lab to the department chair. It was also during this time that Logan
discovered that not all in the department shared his boss’s belief in abandoning hierarchy.
Logan had many run-ins with faculty in the department. All e-mails from the department
chair now explicitly state that Logan is not allowed to serve as a representative of the lab
at department meetings.
Although he may not feel a connection to the department as a whole, Logan looks
to his lab for a sense of community. During fall semester, he went on bi-weekly hikes
with his boss. The lab also has a poker night once a month that both students and faculty
attend. Though he socializes with those in his lab, he also has an active social life outside
of science. He goes sailing every other weekend and is involved in the Catholic Church.
In some respects, Logan’s experiences are at odds with those of other students in his
program. He has an active social life with students in his lab and a close relationship
with his advisor. As I discuss in this chapter, most students do not have similar
experiences. For most students in AME, the graduate program is an isolating experience.
96
Like Logan, many of the students develop relationships with their labmates, but few of
them develop social lives outside the lab.
As I suggested in Chapter 2, theories of socialization and gender performance
complement each other. Both theories privilege the role of institutional structures and
interpersonal interactions. In the first half of the chapter, I discuss how the structures of
AME and the interactions between professors and students shape both students’
socialization and the performance of gender. Throughout their socialization, the
department impresses upon both students and faculty the importance of hierarchy.
Graduate students have little power in the department and are expected to perform the
majority of work in the lab. On the surface, the department appears to provide similar
experiences to all students. Both men and women work as research assistants; both
participate in classroom discussions. However, a deeper examination of the culture
suggests that men and women have different experiences in the department.
Overview
Until a decade ago, the Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering departments were
two separate and small units, composed of roughly ten faculty members each. In an
effort to compete nationally and increase in the rankings, a former dean of the
Engineering School combined the two departments. Although the merger marginally
increased rankings, as Dr. Webster explained, the union is more in theory than in
practice. “We have two different programs and we’re in two different buildings… It was
really just a merger on paper. There was never any attempt or ability to put us all in one
department. So in practice, we’re very, very separate units. We have separate
97
admissions to our Master’s and Ph.D. programs. We have separate degrees.” This
separation in programs translates into a lack of collaboration between faculty members,
which ultimately shapes students’ experiences in the department.
Curriculum and Milestones
To earn a Ph.D. in AME, students are required to complete 45 units of
coursework and 15 units of directed research. Students typically take six to nine units, or
two to three courses, per semester and finish the program in approximately four to four
and a half years. Other than two math courses, there are few required courses for the
degree. All other courses are selected in consultation with the student’s faculty advisor.
The majority of the courses in the School of Engineering are taught through the Distance
Learning Program (DLP). The School of Engineering enrolls over 4000 DLP students
who will never sit foot on Metro U’s campus. These students are employed full-time in
corporations around the country and watch classes and submit coursework online. The
majority of courses in the department are geared towards these students’ needs. In Fall
2007, the department offered 10 DLP courses and four non-DLP courses. On average,
DLP courses are larger, some enrolling as many as 100 students, in the combined in-class
and online programs. In contrast, non-DLP courses are smaller seminars, enrolling
approximately ten students each. Due to the limited number of course offerings, on-
campus students also take DLP courses. For every ten students enrolled in the on-
campus sections, there are ten students watching at home. This heavy presence of DLP
students influences the pedagogies that are used.
98
To earn the Ph.D., students must successfully complete three milestones: the
screening exam, the qualifying exam, and the thesis defense. The screening exam is a
four-hour, closed book exam given at the end of each semester. Students solve four
problems: one in Applied Math, two in their major, and the fourth in their minor.
Students find out whether they pass or fail, but never know by what margin as final
scores are never released.
After passing the screening exam, students continue to take coursework and begin
to develop a research project. Approximately one year before graduating, students take
the qualifying exam. As Professor Webster described, “at that point, they have to have a
sort of a preliminary draft of a thesis that shows what they’ve done, what the problem is
that they’re working on, and what the future plans are in order to finish the Ph.D.”
Students defend their qualifying exam in front of a committee of five faculty members
before moving on to work on their thesis. When students have successfully completed
their research and written their thesis, they again have an oral defense, this time with a
committee of three faculty members. The procedures for progressing through the
program are uniform for all students. In contrast, students’ research preparation might
take very different forms.
Funding: Research Assistant versus Teaching Assistant
As both students and faculty explained, preparation for the Ph.D. does not come
in the classroom, but from conducting research in a lab. However, not all Ph.D. students
are given the opportunity to conduct research upon admission. Such a difference can be
attributed to the different ways that students are admitted to the program. Some are
99
admitted directly from the Master’s program; still others come after earning their
Master’s elsewhere. Seth earned his Bachelor’s at Metro U. and was offered a four year
fellowship to continue his graduate studies. As part of his fellowship package, he
received a $25,000 nine-month stipend his first year to concentrate on his coursework. In
the subsequent years, he has served as a teaching assistant during the academic year and
been funded as a research assistant during the summers. Although Seth is considered one
of the successes of the program, his unconventional experience of working as a teaching
assistant has led him to value teaching much more than other students in the program.
Most students who are admitted directly to the Ph.D. program earn their funding by
working as research assistants. As Table 6 summarizes, of the fourteen students
interviewed, three work as TAs, nine work as RAs, and two are on corporate fellowships.
Table 8: AME Participants by Year in Program, Gender, and Source of Funding
Name Year Gender Primary Source of Funding
Michael 2
nd
M RA
Jenny 2
nd
F RA
Logan 3
rd
M RA
Mark 3
rd
M RA
Phil 3
rd
M RA
Herman 3
rd
M TA
Victor 4
th
M Corporate Fellowship
Jeff 4
th
M RA
Seth 4
th
M TA
Dan 4
th
M RA
Jack 4
th
M RA
Tim 5
th
M TA
Kevin 5
th
M Corporate Fellowship
Vanessa 5
th
F RA

In addition to serving as teaching and research assistants, some students pay for
their graduate education by way of their place of employment. Over half of the Master’s
100
students and some Ph.D. students work full-time in the aerospace industry. These
students are enrolled in the Distance Learning Program. They take their courses online
and rarely set foot on campus. Kevin and Victor earned their Master’s at other
institutions and moved to the area to work in the aerospace industry. Each began
working for a company that pays their graduate tuition. Victor took advantage of his
company’s corporate fellowship program, which mandated that he work three days a
week while giving him four years to pursue his doctorate. Though these students often
have more financial support than their graduate student peers, they are less integrated into
the department and into the culture of academic life.
Students who enter the Ph.D. program through the Master’s program are not
always assigned to an advisor and some are not guaranteed funding. Herman explained
this split.
Herman: There are the students who came in with an offer letter and a professor
to work with and for the most part, gravy, not really having to worry about things.
The students who come into the department without funding to begin with or
without a professor to work with have a very hard time finding people to work
with immediately. And almost all TAs are in that boat.

Margaret: Is this both Master’s and Ph.D. or are you talking about Ph.D.?

Herman: Well most people who come into the department are Master’s level
students because the Ph.D. students who come in, who’ve already got their
Master’s, research generally. And so they already get grabbed. And my situation
for sure, when I came in with the low GPA, I didn’t get grabbed. So I got
accepted, so that plays a big part. But the jump from the TA to the fully funded
independent researcher, frankly I haven’t actually seen it happen yet, which is my
biggest complaint about the department.

Although the Ph.D. is intended to prepare researchers, not all students are given the
chance to develop research skills. Funding opportunities do not depend upon gender.
101
Both female participants are research assistants while three of the male participants hold
teaching assistantships. The bigger issue lies in the fact that the department does not
ensure that all students have funding or training to conduct research. Rather, students are
often expected to find these opportunities on their own. This disparity in treatment and
emphasis on competition pervades other aspects of department life, shaping interactions
between professors and students.
Socialization: From B.S. to Ph.D.
The structures of a discipline create the context in which socialization takes place.
A student who has four years of guaranteed funding as a research assistant will have
different experiences than the student who searches from semester to semester for a
TAship. As I will elaborate in Chapter 5, such structures—like the elevation of research
over teaching—are gendered. That is, particular structures of a discipline privilege
traditionally masculine values over feminine values, creating an environment that favors
particular values. However, socialization and gender depend on more than structures.
Both also occur through interaction. In this section, I discuss the socialization of AME
students. Models of socialization suggest that students progress through three stages: 1)
anticipatory socialization, in which students learn about life as a faculty member before
becoming doctoral students; 2) entry into the organization, in which students are
socialized through both formal (courses) and informal (interactions) means by their
faculty and peers into the norms of faculty life; and 3) commitment to the organization, in
which students continue to progress through the program. Since the focus of this project
is on the role of the doctoral program, the bulk of my attention is devoted to students’
102
experiences as Ph.D. students. I consider the role that faculty and graduate student peers
play in transmitting both the skills and values required of academic life.
Anticipatory Socialization
Although the literature describes the ways that students learn about the norms of
doctoral student life as undergraduates, socialization to AME began much earlier for
participants. Many students discussed the role that their interest in mechanical objects
played in pushing them towards a degree in Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering.
Tim explained how he chose Aerospace Engineering as a major: “I used to work on cars,
fix up old classic cars during high school. So it’s kind of from that probably.” “Do you
still work on cars at all?,” I ask. “Um, I wish,” he replied. “No, I work on bikes now.
They’re smaller. I don’t have a lot of space.” He continued, “I have a road bike and a
cruiser and a mountain bike that are all pretty pimped out, you could say.”
Tim became interested in the discipline through working on cars. Other students
built model rockets. Seth described the majority of his peers in the department: “A lot of
their hobbies are related to building model airplanes or model rockets or stuff like that.
So, I mean a lot of their interests tend to go around engineering…Many of their
interests—both academic and extracurricular—kind of rotate around engineering.” As I
elaborate in Chapter 5, I am not suggesting that students need to have spent their
childhoods playing with model airplanes or working on cars to succeed in engineering.
Rather, these are the types of students who are attracted to engineering in part because the
discipline rewards them for their interests.
103
Though an interest in building model airplanes may have led students to major in
engineering as undergraduates, their experiences inside and outside the classroom
encouraged students to continue their education. Unlike many AME programs across the
nation—and, indeed, unlike the English Ph.D. program at Metro U.—the majority of
participants completed their undergraduate work at Metro U. Of the 14 participants, nine
(seven men and two women) were lifers; they earned their Bachelor’s degrees at Metro
U. While this has negative consequences for a program trying to increase its prestige and
national reputation, this internal recruitment meant that students understood what was
expected of them. For Vanessa, learning about the expectations of engineering began in a
course during her junior year of college when she got her first hands-on experience in a
lab. “They definitely set a high standard for…how diligent you should be in recording
your data and taking care of your space and writing your lab report.” For many of the
students, taking lab courses and conducting research for the first time whet their
appetites, leading them to pursue doctorates.
Staying on one campus for all postsecondary work brought a number of
advantages. First, it allowed students to develop an understanding of professors’ teaching
styles. Dan described how he learned what each professor valued on tests and modified
his study habits accordingly. “In terms of grades, I’d been here long enough and I had
most of the same professors. So you kind of know what’s required and what’s not and
how they grade and this kind of stuff. Cuz when you get a new professor, it’s never ever
laid out, but you pick it up.” These students developed closer relationships with faculty
members, which often gave them an advantage in terms of conducting research. As
104
Logan’s story illustrates, he began working with his advisor during his sophomore year.
Similarly, Jack began conducting research with his advisor while an undergraduate,
continuing through both his Master’s and Ph.D. programs. In contrast, students who
entered Metro U. as Master’s students do not have the same connections with faculty
members, which slows their academic progress and their acculturation to the norms of
doctoral student life.
Entry to the Organization
Upon entering the doctoral program, students are socialized through formal and
informal interactions with a variety of actors. They learn about the norms of the program
through their courses, but also through interactions with their advisors, other faculty
members, and their peers. However, as the following vignette suggests, most classes in
AME allow for few interactions between professor and students.
105
A Typical Class
Five minutes before the start of class and five students sat quietly in the
classroom. By the time class began, a dozen more students had joined them, filling about
half of the seats at the five rows of long dark wooden tables. All but one of the students
were men; most appeared to be international students. Half of the students enrolled in
this class are DLP students; they do not come to class but watch the lectures online. The
classroom is equipped with technology—including a Smart Board, or electronic dry erase
board, a computer and projector, and a video camera, which transmit information to
students in the classroom and those watching at home. The front of the classroom is
elevated; there are two stairs leading up to a dais, where the professor stands. Four
microphones hang from the ceiling, pointed toward the audience.
Professor Webster, a White man with grey curly hair, entered the classroom and
walked to the dais to prepare. He attached a microphone to his shirt. A voice came over
the loud speakers announcing the beginning of class. “This is AME 220. Tuesday
September 27
th
, 2007.” Some nondescript and easily forgettable music played for a
minute. The professor paced back and forth until the music stopped and class began.
Dr. Webster briefly reviewed his previous lecture before launching into a new
topic. Throughout his hour long lecture, he occasionally stopped to ask if there were any
questions. Such questions proved to be rhetorical devices as the professor would answer
the questions himself. Only four times during the hour and fifteen minutes did students
speak; when they did, it was to clarify a homework assignment or an equation that the
professor wrote on the board. At the end of class, the professor encouraged students to
106
ask questions and reminded them to turn in their homework. While a few students went
to talk to the professor at the front of the room, most of the students filed out, leaving a
couple of groups of students who stayed to chat with each other.
In classes across the department, lecture is the preferred method of instruction. In
DLP courses, the instructor speaks most of the time, leaving few opportunities for student
participation. In part, these professors have to keep in mind the needs of learners
watching at home. In non-DLP courses, both students and professor tend to ask more
questions; students ask questions of the professor and the professor poses questions to the
class. For example, whereas students in Dr. Webster’s class spoke no more than five
times per course, students in Dr. Wyatt’s non-DLP course spoke considerably more. In
the five classes I observed, students spoke anywhere from 18 to 72 times in an hour and a
half session. At times, they interrupted the professor to ask questions; other times they
responded to questions he posed. In one class session, Dr. Wyatt became derailed by a
particularly long equation he wrote on the board. Rather than waiting for the professor to
figure it out, the students helped identify and solve various parts of the equation. Smaller
classes create more opportunities for interaction. However, across classes, the professor
is generally deferred to as the source of knowledge.
Students’ level of participation depended more upon country of origin than upon
gender. In each professor’s course, domestic students spoke more than international
students. Whereas the sole female student in AME 220 never asked a question in the five
sessions I observed, Vanessa, one of the two women in Dr. Wyatt’s class, dominated all
in-class discussions. In one class session, Vanessa spoke 12 times while the 10 men in
107
the class spoke a total of 36 times. However, one should not draw too many conclusions
from the classroom participation patterns of three women. This portrait of the classroom
suggests that professors employ lecture as the primary method of instruction, creating
few opportunities for student participation. Such pedagogy may discourage students who
do not learn well in such environments. While courses provide a consistent experience
across the program, students have differing experiences with their advisors.
Socialization through Interaction
Although disciplinary structures—such as curriculum and preferred
assistantships—shape students’ doctoral experiences, primary socialization occurs
through interactions with key agents in the department, including the student’s advisor,
other faculty, and graduate student peers. Students do not just learn the skills and norms
of academic life through these interactions. They also learn how such norms transmit
particular values and favor particular types of students. Table 7 contains a sample of
activities that students engage in with various actors in the department—their advisors,
other professors, and graduate student peers. Through interactions in academic and social
settings, students learn not just how to complete activities or acquire skills, but the values
that inform various activities and academic life in the discipline.
108
Table 9: A Sample of Academic and Social Activities in AME
Actor Academic Social
Advisor -define thesis problem
-review manuscript for journal
-write articles
-prepare for conference
presentations
-meeting with funding agencies
-explain complex ideas
-BBQ at advisor’s house
-out to dinner
-poker nights
-hiking
Faculty -joint lab meetings
-serve as committee members
-answer questions on coursework or
research
-casual hellos in the hallway
-casual discussion at departmental
seminars
-racquetball at the gym
Peers -brainstorm
-help with research, lab techniques
-discuss scientific interests
-senior students as role models
-new student welcome/lab tour
-lunch or coffee on campus
-banter in the lab
-poker nights
-Tea Time
-LAN/video game parties
-lab parties
-out to beer

The advisor. “I think the most important thing that I’ve learned as a graduate
student,” Jenny told me, “is having a good advisor and how important it is. Cuz if I had a
really bad, awful advisor, I’d be hating my experience here and probably wouldn’t stay
here very long.” Jenny is not alone in her beliefs. Students across both disciplines
echoed the importance of the advisor in shaping the doctoral experience. AME advisors
meet regularly with students; most advisors and students reported meeting with each
other at least once a week. Students who work as research assistants might interact with
their advisor multiple times a day on a less formal basis. As Dr. Webster described, “We
would typically meet with the student every week. We would define the thesis problem
for them. Very, very close interaction. And as you go through the stages [of the
109
program], there’s less and less. But still it’s very close.” Seth, one of Dr. Webster’s
students, described the ways his advisor helped him with his research.
At the beginning of this term, he helped me find a topic…He found ten, fifteen
papers on this specific topic and he sent them all to me in PDF. He’s like “take a
look at this topic and let me know what you think.” And then, I’d read through it,
I’d be like “Eh.” And then I’d like work on something and we decided that it
wasn’t going anywhere. So he gave me a brand new topic and said “look at all
these cool things that are going on”.

Although students are ultimately expected to carve out a new direction in their research,
their advisors play a critical role in helping them get started.
Advisors play a variety of roles in preparing students for life after the Ph.D. For
example, Kevin’s advisor had received a manuscript to review for a journal and asked
him if he would like to learn how the review process works.
He got a paper that he needed to review and the paper was actually very, very
relevant to my dissertation work. So he asked me if I wanted to review it. But he
didn’t do it in a way like dumping it on me. He asked “Would you like to try this
out?” So I said yeah, and I haven’t reviewed it yet, but I didn’t know how to do it.
So he kind of took me through the steps of, what you typically do, what he does
and then, how do you review a good paper.

While Kevin learned how to perform blind reviews of manuscripts, other students
received guidance on how to write their own good papers. Phil recounted how his
advisor, Dr. Ming Chan, met with each student who had recently submitted a manuscript
for publication. “He called me, along with everybody else who had submitted a paper,
into his office individually,” Phil explained, “He said that when students write, he
observes them very carefully and tells them what their strengths and weaknesses are.
And, basically, in a very frank fashion, laid out ‘These are the things you are good at.
110
This is good. These are the things you are not so good at. This is not so good and you
need to work on it.’”
Other students who work with Dr. Chan described how he helped them prepare
for conference presentations. Each week, the lab holds a group meeting during which
students present their research, both to receive feedback on ideas and to sharpen their
public speaking skills. Outside of weekly meetings, Dr. Chan helps students prepare for
upcoming conferences. As Phil and Jeff described, Dr. Chan has students give their
PowerPoint presentation and then goes through each PowerPoint slide with specific
feedback. Many of the students work in labs that are supported by grants from external
agencies. To continue receiving funding, faculty are required to submit updates to
agencies on their progress. Jeff described how his advisor helped him prepare for these
meetings.
We had a meeting with…the people funding the project. He really helped me
with that. It really came down to the last minute, which is kind of frustrating for
both of us. It makes him mad at me and it makes me frustrated. But, last minute,
we came up with some really good results. He really showed me all these things
that I had not been doing.

Although faculty generally expect students to develop their skills as independent
researchers, they also provide more directed guidance when necessary.
Students also look to their advisors for help with understanding complex ideas.
Although most faculty in AME encourage students to solve problems on their own, they
also are willing to explain ideas. Michael described how much he valued seeking
assistance from Dr. Chan. “There’s probably a couple times when I didn’t understand the
chemistry of a certain reaction. So he knows this stuff—this is his bread and butter. He
111
can just write it out from memory, just tons and tons of reactions.” Michael continued,
“it really helped me to understand an overall sequence of reactions. It’s probably
something I could’ve found in a book, but he explains it in a very, very good way.”
Students tend not to ask their advisors for help, unless they are in need of direction.
Although independent investigation is a hallmark of scientific research, it is through one-
on-one and small group interactions that students learn what is required of them to
succeed in academia. As I discuss shortly, it is also through these interactions that values
are transmitted.
Although the majority of interactions occur inside the lab, students and faculty
also engage in social activities. Dr. Chan typically has students over to his house once or
twice a year for a barbecue. Michael described the first party, just two weeks after he
began the Ph.D. program, “There was a going away party for one of the people who was
graduating. There’s more food than I could imagine there and alcohol from every
different country that Ming just kept bringing out to us.” Other students reported going
to dinner with their advisors once a month at popular restaurants near campus. As
discussed in the vignette at the beginning of the chapter, Logan has a particularly social
relationship with his advisor. They frequently go to dinner, play poker, and go hiking.
He also attended his advisor’s wedding. While Jack does not often meet with his advisor
outside of campus, he is one of the few students who has developed a collegial
relationship with faculty. Weekly meetings with his advisor start with discussion of
basketball and football. However, Jack is more the exception than the rule as most
students steer clear of social chatter with faculty.
112
Not all students develop a close or social relationship with faculty. Herman’s
advisor is very clear about not seeing him outside of campus. “He’s definitely not one of
those professors that invites you over for dinner or has a barbecue at his house where all
the students come in and have beers. Not that kind of professor at all.” Despite this lack
of social relationship, Herman feels that his advisor has his interests at heart. I highlight
this difference to return to Jenny’s quote at the beginning of this section: the faculty
advisor plays a critical role in shaping students’ experiences. Both male and female
students recounted the ways that their advisors helped prepare them for academic life.
There were few systematic differences in the types of preparation that men and women
received. Since women were already admitted into the doctoral programs, they had
learned the norms and behaviors needed for success; they knew what was expected of
them by their advisors and generally performed up to their advisors’ expectations.
However, these students adapted to the culture of the sciences, rather than having the
department adjust to meet their needs.
Faculty. Students consistently cited one or two other faculty members with
whom they interacted on a regular basis. These faculty were generally those who
conducted research on similar topics. In some cases, their advisors hold joint group
meetings with another professor and his or her students. Dr. Chan and Dr. Wyatt’s
students share lab space and work on similar topics. Due to this proximity and similarity
in interest, students in the two labs meet with both faculty members on a weekly basis.
Vanessa described the ways in which she looks to Dr. Chan for help. Seth reported
similar efforts on the part of his advisor and one of the two female faculty in the
113
department to create a sense of community among those working in a particular sub-
discipline. These two faculty recently began holding joint meetings where their students
present on their research and occasionally listen to lectures from visiting speakers. Such
collaborative relationships allow students to receive guidance from multiple professors to
help move their research forward.
Outside of joint group meetings, students have limited interactions with other
faculty in the department. Students report that they occasionally seek out professors with
questions about coursework or their research. Tim seeks guidance from professors who
conduct research on topics that inform his own. “I meet with Dr. Myers every so often.
He’s an analytical fluid dynamicist, really intelligent, really smart. Very mathematical.”
He continued, “So I met with him, I took an independent study class under him…where I
just kind of read some books and met with him once a week and solved one particular
problem in very painstaking detail. He was moderately impressed.” Finally, professors
also serve as committee members for qualifying exams or the thesis. As Dr. Wyatt
explained, students only interact with faculty whose interests parallel their own. “I don’t
really know Ph.D. students other than the ones working on topics relevant to my research.
So, the students, the combustion people, students who do air pollution engineering,
certain students that do fluid dynamics, I’ve interacted with them on a professional level
to a certain extent. Also, I’m on Ph.D. committees, thesis committees, and if they need
help on their research or if there’s something I can help them with, they can come to me.”
While students occasionally interact with professors in the department, such interactions
usually revolve around a course or common topic of study.
114
Though formal socialization occurs through official collaboration, students
interact with faculty in a variety of informal ways. Students often speak with professors
before and after department-sponsored colloquia. Many of the students discussed the
importance of developing personal relationships with other faculty members. Herman
appreciated simply being greeted by a faculty member in the hall.
There’s one professor here named Professor Myers. Phenomenal. He remembers
everyone’s name. And if he sees you, he’ll say “Hello Herman.” Even though
you’ve never taken a class with him, no research or nothing. So I say hi to all the
professors that I see if I know they know me by sight. Otherwise, it’s pointless
because it’s a random stranger walking by.

Like Herman, Seth also liked that faculty members know him. “They actually know my
name,” he told me excitedly. “So that’s kind of important. I’m just not a random grad
student. And it’s like ‘Hey Seth. How ya doing?’ I tell them I’m doing this and this.
So, you get the sense that they’re kind of invested in their students.” In addition to casual
interactions in the hall, some students engage with faculty in social settings, Dr. Wyatt’s
students are invited to barbecues at Dr. Chan’s house. Herman spends his lunch hours
playing racquetball with a professor in the department, along with a group of six other
staff members from across the campus. However, not all students experience such a
close connection to faculty members in the department. Rather, they limit their
interaction to those working in their immediate area and feel a lack of connection and
integration into the larger department.
Peers. Although students interact with their advisors frequently, those students
who work in labs see their peers on a daily basis. Nine of the students spoke of the
important role that their peers played in their development as scholars. Dan and Logan
115
work on separate projects for Tony, but often brainstorm with each other. Dan explained,
“Something we’ve both learned is that an outside opinion or somebody who’s very
unattached can kind of lend insight. And so when he’s having big problems with his
experiments, he’ll be like ‘Yeah, I don’t know how to do this.’ And I’ll be like “Well,
what about this?’ So, it’s just… somebody who’s always around.” In a combustion lab
across the Engineering Complex, Michael described the same about his interactions with
his labmate Phil. “Phil, I talk with—I communicate with him in a more broad sense, over
a wider range of interests. Both of us—we do laugh together every now and then or share
a joke, that kind of thing. But we also consult each other on different scientific issues, if
we’re writing a paper or something like that.” Students also reported looking to more
senior students, both for procedural advice on how to complete a particular experiment
and as role models for how to navigate the ins and outs of graduate school. Although
Logan bounced ideas off of Dan, he also looked to him for advice on how to navigate the
maze of graduate student life.
He definitely was the paradigm for what I wanted to do. He did whatever he
wanted. Speaker design, robotics, business classes. He took whatever he dang
well pleased and reinforced the adage that I hope everybody learns that whatever
you want to do, there’s a form for it somewhere at Metro U. So do what you want
and fill the form out.

As Logan demonstrated, students adopt the values and behaviors of more senior students
as they progress through their doctoral program. As I discuss in the next section, such
values are not always aligned with those of the faculty.
While students look to one another for academic support, many also form social
relationships with their peers. Students across the department reported that they
116
frequently have lunch or coffee with their labmates and occasionally socialize outside the
lab. Vanessa and Jenny have formed a close relationship. They have lunch together each
day and occasionally go shopping or to concerts on weekends. Some of the male students
have lunch or coffee with each other during the week; others prefer to eat a lunch from
home at their desks. Outside of the lab, men described going out for beers or getting
together to watch movies or play video games. For the most part, however, students do
not spend time with one another outside of campus. Some spend nights and weekends by
themselves while others spend time with their girlfriends or wives. Some students have
developed networks of friends through other means. Phil belongs to group that plays
Dungeons and Dragons and live action role-playing games. Jeff, one of the lifers,
continue to swim with and occasionally coach Metro U’s swim team. Tim coaches
intramural soccer on campus. Although students often joke that lab work allows them no
social life, the majority manage to carve out time for a select few activities that they
value.
In addition to purely social activities, some AME students have taken steps to
build community in the department. A group recently instituted a bi-weekly department-
wide Tea Time, as a chance for graduate students to meet one another and share research
ideas. In addition, Tim has spearheaded efforts for the past two years to provide a
welcome and orientation to new graduate students in the department. This past year, the
event included free pizza, a formal introduction, and a tour of a lab. Though the
department does not prioritize building community, students have taken it upon
117
themselves to do so. Despite these efforts to welcome new students to the department
and create connections with one another, many of the students do not know their peers.
In this section, I have described the ways in which students are socialized into the
norms of the AME department. While much of my discussion has focused on
instrumental activities—how students learn to write articles, for example—such
socialization simultaneously teaches skills and transmits values. I have primarily
described the experiences of all students, rather than focusing on differences between
male and female students. In part, this approach was due to my interest in painting a
picture of the discipline that, in Chapter 5, I will contrast with the socialization that
occurs in the English department. Although there are differences between students’
experiences by gender, I am more interested in exploring the disciplinary culture as a
whole, rather than individual students’ experiences. However, I also recognize that
gender pervades the structure and culture of the discipline, and inevitably leads to
differences between male and female experiences. After introducing Phil, it is to the
question of gender and disciplinary culture that I turn.
Phil: The Enginerd
Like Logan, Phil is also a lifer. He earned his B.S. from Metro U. in 2005 and
has been in the graduate program since. Phil’s day to day uniform consists of a national
science organization t-shirt and shorts or jeans. He is slightly overweight and his brown
hair tumbles past his shoulders. He paused considerably after each of my questions to
formulate his answer. Twice a week, he plays Dungeons and Dragons with friends from
outside the department. He was an active member of the Metro U. Engineering fraternity
118
until “the hostile takeover of 2004,” when students more typical of Greek life took over
the fraternity, pushing students like Phil out.
Though he may have a tough time fitting in socially, Phil excels academically.
He passed the screening exam in December of 2006, a process which he described as
harrowing, despite the efforts of his advisor, Dr. Chan, to persuade him otherwise. “My
advisor tried to convince us that it wasn’t a big deal…He has a relatively poor opinion of
Metro U., having [worked at other prestigious institutions]. He feels very much like the
exam here is much easier than it would have been [elsewhere]”. Dr. Chan and other
faculty frequently emphasize issues of hierarchy and competition. During his first year as
a graduate student, Phil conducted research for another faculty member in the department
who tried to impress upon him the importance of doing well. “The other guy said one
thing that really made academic expectations clear to me was that ‘We excel at
everything that we do.’ So basically,” Phil explained to me, “that means is if you take a
class, you’re expected to do not only your personal best, but you’re expected to do better
than everybody else.”
Phil has taken to heart the message of excelling over others. He talked about
distinguishing himself from the rest of his labmates due to research that he conducts. He
explained that his research is unrelated to that of others in the lab. I asked him whether
he bounces ideas for his research off of his peers in the lab. He replied, “I know a lot
about what everybody else is doing, but nobody knows a whole lot about what I’m doing
because what I’m doing is very abstract.” “So getting feedback from them is not so
helpful?” I asked. “A lot of times, I feel like I have to explain from square one,” Phil
119
responded. “But,” I followed up, “you would say other folks bounce ideas off you, for
example?” “Yeah,” he answered, “because I know quite a lot about a lot of things.”
Phil takes great pride in his academic abilities and intellect. He talked about his
role as manager of the computing cluster for the lab and appreciates that other students
need him in order to do their work. This attitude irritates some of his labmates. Jeff
dislikes asking for help because Phil always makes a big show of knowing more than he
does. “He’ll come brag about some off-the-wall computer thing that he just did. So he’s
a little bit frustrating like that. He’s overall helpful and willing to help, but maybe not the
easiest guy to ask for help because of the way he is so proud to be the guy in the know
about these things.” As I detail in the next section, this behavior and emphasis on
excelling over others mimics that displayed by his advisor and other faculty in the
department.
Gendering AME
Although socialization and gender are not parallel topics that get played out in
similar fashion in a discipline, just as one has discrete analytic categories with which to
study socialization, so too does gender. As noted in Chapter 2, both socialization and
gender are created in response to structures and interactions. In particular, theories of
gender performance suggest that gender is dependent on context; gender is a collective
creation; and that individuals shape their actions to produce gender-appropriate behavior
(West & Zimmerman, 1987). Thus, although engineering and English differ
dramatically, the categories one employs to study them with regard to gender are similar.
The structure of the discipline matters. By structure, I mean the gender breakdown of
120
students and faculty and the tasks associated with the life of a graduate student. Structure
informs the culture of a discipline. By culture, I mean the values and norms that
characterize the discipline and shape both professional and gender roles and relationships.
Finally, structure and culture function in a manner that helps frame what I shall call
reflective identity. With reflective identity, I turn from a departmental lens to an
individual lens and consider the ways in which students make sense of their identities as
men and their choice of discipline. Different masculinities in different disciplines are
shaped by a variety of factors, including those that I described earlier (ie research versus
teaching as a source of funding). On a simplistic level, masculinity is shaped by the
number of men in the discipline, which in turn shapes the culture of the department, and
the identities of students within it.
Structure
In part, the structure of a department depends upon its population. That is, the
gender (or racial) composition helps to shape the environment in which socialization
takes place. Students in the majority will have an easier transition in part because the
department’s norms and values are those of the majority. As outlined in Chapter 1, there
are 87 students pursuing doctorates in AME. Of these, 77 are men. The student body has
slightly more gender diversity than the faculty. Of the 28 full-time faculty, only two are
women. Both were hired within the last three years. This gender imbalance is both the
cause and the result of the discipline’s reputation as a masculine field of study. Given
that there are so few women at all levels in the discipline, women may not see a place for
themselves and opt not to pursue study in science and engineering fields. However,
121
many faculty and students think that the only way to increase the numbers of women
pursuing graduate study is by increasing the numbers of female faculty. Dr. Webster
explained, “We’ve hired—I believe—two female faculty members in the last couple
years and I think that’s going to lead to a better representation and hopefully more
women going into the field and seeing role models and things like that.”
“Do you think it’s because there’s such a lack of role models that there are few
students—Master’s and Ph.D.?,” I asked.
“Yes, I do,” he replied. “Yep. Absolutely. I think that is the main reason.”
Dr. Webster suggested that adding more women into the department at both the
graduate and faculty level will lead to changes in the discipline. However, as I suggest in
Chapter 5, expecting students to change to fit the discipline will ensure that particular
types of students are always excluded—both from engineering and from English.
Much of the earlier discussion painted a picture of the structure of the AME
department. By now, it should be clear that the majority of Ph.D. students earn their
funding by working as research assistants for a faculty advisor. Students spend their time
working in labs, surrounded by a small group of peers. The nature of lab work allows for
interactions that simply do not take place in the English department. However, these
interactions give male faculty and students opportunities to foster an environment that
promotes competition and endorses the objectification of women.
Culture
The earlier discussion of socialization suggests that graduate students must learn a
particular set of tasks as they progress through their doctoral programs. However,
122
socialization is not a value-neutral undertaking. Each task carries its own set of values
that help explain the larger culture of the discipline. In this section, I discuss AME’s
emphasis on clear-cut distinctions throughout the discipline: in the definition of what
constitutes appropriate topics for study, in the definition of professional roles and
relations, and in the definition of gender roles and relations. Students are socialized to
accept hierarchy and competition with their peers along with displays of sexist behavior.
These elements of the disciplinary culture create an environment where sexist behavior
creates an unwelcoming climate for women and others who differ from the norm.
Clarity in the Discipline
The merger of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering departments brought
together faculty who work in disparate areas. As many of the students explained, faculty
may be classified as theoretical, computational, or experimental. The types of work that
faculty perform varies depends on their specialty. For example, those who are
experimentalists conduct research in labs while those who are theoretical are
mathematicians, spending their time deriving formulas and trying to solve problems
analytically. Within each of these larger domains, faculty and students conduct research
on various topics. At Metro U., the focus is on combustion and computational fluid
dynamics.
Although the discipline is composed of disparate areas, faculty expect that
students in all areas should accomplish the same tasks before graduating. For example,
Dr. Webster suggested that all students needed to have both a broad understanding of
their content area as well as more in-depth understanding of their focus of research. “A
123
successful student would be someone who can sort of navigate those two extremes in
such a way that they can develop—the bottom line is they have to develop a thesis, which
has a technical contribution, whether it’s an experiment, computation, or theory—to a
specific problem. And they have to see where that fits into the big picture.” Other
faculty agreed that there are similar criteria for success for all students in the department.
Although there is great diversity within the department, faculty and students
collaborate across domains. Dan reported working with two faculty members, a
computationalist and an experimentalist, on his research. Similarly, Jeff told me that he
was about to start a project with Herman, who uses different approaches in his work.
Jeff: I really look forward to working with Herman on this project. He’s going to
do one aspect of it and I’m going to do another aspect of it.

Margaret: Now he’s more computational, right?

Jeff: Right. I really like that stuff too but he’s in fluid dynamics and I’m in
molecular dynamics. So we’re going to put a code together. He’ll do his part and
I’ll do my part. I think it will be fun. I really like it.

Through their faculty advisors, students are being socialized to collaborate with their
colleagues across the department. Although those in AME use a variety of methods of
inquiry, there is little disagreement as to the direction of the discipline.
Clarity in Professional Roles and Relations
As a discipline and department, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering is built
upon the notions of hierarchy and competition. Hierarchy—and the accompanying goal
of being the best—characterizes the culture of the discipline, from faculty-student
relationships to relationships between faculty members. Academia itself is founded upon
124
a system of hierarchies. The assistant professor has to produce enough research and
publish enough articles to earn tenure. In the sciences, one of the criteria for earning
tenure is the amount of external funding faculty secure. In AME, external funding plays
a pivotal role in determining a faculty member’s status. The combustion group is one of
the few in the department that brings in large amounts of money. As such, faculty and
students alike tend to be admired. As Tim explained, however, any professor could earn
admiration if he or she were to bring in grants. “In the department it’s all about, if it
makes money, then good enough. And so whether you’re theoretical or applied, it
doesn’t matter. All that matters is whether you’re getting funded.”
Hierarchy functions by having different people occupy different positions. Those
successful bringing in major grants are at the top of the faculty hierarchy while their
peers occupy the ranks below. Graduate students compose the large base at the bottom
and are expected to fulfill particular roles and responsibilities. Part of faculty’s
expectations is that students spend many hours working in the lab. As Mark described at
the beginning of Chapter 2, he arrives on campus about 8 am every day and stays until
about 7 pm. Phil, another student in the same lab, described his day to me. “I show up to
lab usually sometime between 9 and 9:30. I like to have a specific problem that I have in
mind to solve every morning, so it at least gives me something to focus on. So most of
the day is usually spent attacking that particular problem, which may or may not be
solved by the end of the day.” He added, “I usually go home sometime between 5:30 and
6:30, sometimes as late as 7:30, depending on how focused I am on whatever it is that
I’m doing.” All students in the lab reported fairly similar schedules. They generally
125
arrive early to mid-morning and work until the early evening. When deadlines loom,
students put in long nights or work on weekends.
Although students report being satisfied with their work schedules, their advisors
are not. In one of their weekly joint group meetings, Dr. Chan and Dr. Wyatt shared their
dissatisfaction with their students with their performance. Jenny described the meeting:
Actually our last group meeting on Monday…Ming was going on about how,
“You guys need to do better, be better grad students and put more hours in.” He
was specifically addressing his students cuz he knows the trials of working with
them. But it was kind of addressed to everybody.

She later told me that Dr. Wyatt had also directed similar comments at her. Dr. Wyatt,
she said, “has talked to us and sat us down and been like, ‘Oh. You guys need to put in
more hours. When I was a postdoc, I didn’t know anything in my field and in three
months, I had everything up and working. You guys need to be doing this too.’ So I
understand where he’s coming from.”
Unlike Jenny, Jeff did not appreciate this criticism. He does not like the way in
which his advisor encourages his students to develop a bigger ego. Jeff recalled the
meeting:
Every semester, we have one or two meetings where he kind of complains about
us—we’re not in lab, we’re not—being scientists isn’t a 9 to 5 job, blah blah blah.
“When I was a grad student, I’d work til 2 in the morning. Party til 8 in the
morning. I know you guys like to party and all.” He just kind of loses us at that.
“What I want to see is more ego. You guys have to have more pride.” It’s kind
of what we don’t like.

However, Dr. Chan and Dr. Wyatt are not happy with their students’ performance.
Dr. Wyatt described his frustration with students’ lack of willingness to put in the hours
126
he thinks they should. Success in science, he maintained, requires long work days. Dr.
Wyatt elaborated:
Dr. Wyatt: Across the board, in general for engineering graduate students, if you
come in on a weekend or an evening, I find that it is emptier than at other places
that I’ve been to, whether it’s CalTech or MIT or Berkeley or whatever. Where
what happens there, you have a culture, there’s a competition between students
and if someone’s working at night, then everybody tends to, I think. And it just
takes the ball to get rolling. And in my opinion, that hasn’t happened at Metro U.
in Engineering.

Margaret: Both with faculty and with students?

Dr. Wyatt: Well, (pause) I don’t think it’s the job of faculty to be doing that. So,
we’ve all paid our dues already and we’ve all done that. We did our Ph.D. and
everything and I know I pulled many all-nighters and I’ve had deadlines. I was
staying up nights thinking about a problem and it’s hard. It’s hard to solve a
problem, because you’re doing work that’s never been done and it should keep
you up at night.

I quoted from our conversation at length as it highlights several features of life in the
AME department. First, Dr. Wyatt references the notion of competition between
graduate students. Many faculty echoed this complaint: they want students to compete
with one another more. Competition, they reasoned, would lead to an increase in
productivity and an increase in the quality of work. Students, for their part, did not share
the same passion for competition.
Second, Dr. Wyatt described the distinction between the responsibilities of faculty
and graduate students. In his words, faculty have “paid [their] dues” and are no longer
required to work the same long hours. Instead, the burden now falls to students. In most
AME labs, faculty do not conduct research. Rather, they supervise and mentor graduate
students through the research process. Having once put in long hours themselves,
127
professors have earned the privilege to shepherd a new generation through the same
process. For their part, students seem to accept this distribution of roles. Still trying to
understand the role that faculty play in the labs, I said to Jenny, “It sounds like the grad
students do most of the work.” “Yeah,” she replied, “And that’s the way it should be
really. And the advisors, they kind of guide us. If we have problems and we don’t
understand why something is the way it is or new ideas for how to go about a problem,
then we’re like okay, we’ve tried this, this, and this. We don’t know what to do next. Do
you have any ideas?” Such is the culture of the AME department. While producing
research for their advisors, AME graduate students are supposed to develop the skills to
become independent researchers.
Discussions and arguments. While there are clear distinctions between faculty
and graduate students, faculty also compete among each other to try to establish
dominance in the department. While certainly most work environments are characterized
by some level of competition between employees, the faculty in AME engage in public
displays of competition. Arguing and belittling others’ work often takes center stage. “It
seems like one big contest to pound your chest and tell the other guy that their work is
incomplete, not useful,” Jeff explained, “It’s just one big undermining scheme, it seems,
in a lot of ways. It’s jealousy for sure.” Jeff was not the only student to point to conflict
and arguments in the department. Eight of the fourteen students highlighted instances of
conflict between faculty in the department. Vanessa described many instances of faculty
members, even those with close working relationships, getting into arguments. She saw
one faculty member stand just a few inches away from another professor while repeatedly
128
poking him in the chest to make a point. The other professor simply laughed and looked
down in response. Although physical confrontations occasionally take place, verbal
conflicts are much more common. As Vanessa explained, “they’re not trying to show off
their muscles, they’re trying to show off their brains. But in the same way that you can
imagine gorillas beating their chests kind of thing, but for the brains. So that totally
happens. These people that enter engineering,” she paused, “they weren’t built to be
football players. They were built to be engineers, but they still have the same desire to be
an alpha male, some of them.” These professors’ behaviors illustrate the link between
notions of hierarchy and notions of masculinity.
Faculty arguments range from intellectual discussions to heated—and
occasionally physical—debates. Although faculty argue with one another, students do
not readily adopt the same behaviors, much to the chagrin of their advisors, including Dr.
Chan. “He’s actually complained to us that we don’t argue,” Jeff said, “He’s like, ‘You
don’t have a big enough ego.’” Having a big ego, according to many students, is one of
the hallmarks of a career in the sciences. Jeff continued:
For instance, whatever he does is just great. And whatever other people do is
just… if it’s a colleague, if it’s someone in the same discipline, a lot of that work
is “crap.” If it’s someone in a competing discipline, it’s like, “Why is that
important?” I guess he’s very self-promoting, is the way I’d put it. For instance,
you know about us finishing our papers for the combustion symposium. The
deadline was late December/early January and he was reviewing papers and he’s
like, “I’m reading these papers. They’re all shit. It’s so good. So we have a good
chance. They’re all so stupid.”

His advisor tends to discount the work of others in the field, suggesting that it is of lower
quality than his own work. Jeff is turned off by this attitude and is quietly looking at
129
careers outside of academia in hopes of escaping the ego contests that he sees taking
place.
Although they may condemn faculty for their competitive behavior, students have
adopted such behaviors in their interactions with each other. Several of the men
described how they compete to be the leader, both in academic and social contexts. Jeff
mentioned that students working together on a homework project often compete to take a
leadership role. Phil described hierarchy among students working together in a lab.
“Usually there’s one student who’s in charge of a particular project. So if there’s a
disagreement, one person’s vote automatically counts more than everybody else’s. So
it’s up to the person in charge of the project to make decisions regarding what’s going to
be done. And if you want to take those disagreements into account, that’s probably a
good thing. If you don’t want to, it may be inadvisable, but that’s up to you.” Rarely do
projects have co-leaders, but rather one person is in command.
This struggle to be at the top shapes students’ social interactions as well. Tim
discussed his preference for chatting with women over men. With women, Tim felt, he
was free to discuss whatever topics either of them were interested. In contrast, with men,
“conversation is more of a contest to win.” He continued, “Trying to one up each other,
know more than the other, or turn the conversation to something they like to talk about.”
Similarly, Herman suggested that he acts differently when he is home with his wife than
with his colleagues on campus. “I’m not guarded at home and I’m very guarded here.
I’m very careful about what I say here.” Herman continued, “Not in terms of
personality—I can tell people I’m having a crappy day immediately. But, part of it too, is
130
that here, no one’s really interested in that type of stuff. They’re only interested in—
which is like work—they’re only interested in what you’re doing and the results.”
Herman described being emotionally available to his wife and close friends in ways that
are unimaginable with colleagues on campus.
Herman also suggested that men and women relate differently with one another.
I think that guys are definitely more guarded in terms of what is acceptable and
what’s not. So if you took two people who knew each other—took one set of
women and one set of men—the women within the hour would know
exponentially more, I think…than the two guys who were together. I think the
guy approach, for a long time, is sort of this distant, looking at each other from
different castles—waving hello and being pleasant, but that’s about it.

Very few of the men formed close friendships with each other. Many described
occasionally getting coffee or lunch or playing video games with their male peers, but
rarely did they form deep connections with their peers. In contrast, Vanessa and Jenny
formed a close friendship. They spend each lunch hour together and occasionally see
each other on weekends. Each Monday morning, they recount their activities from the
weekend to each other. Jenny suggested that such a pattern of interaction simply is not
possible in male-male friendships. Rather, she sees the men in her lab engage in group
banter, rather than in more serious discussions. “Like when I have a relationship with
Vanessa, how we interact…or me and other male students, it’s more intimate, I guess.
Like it’s more of a one-on-one relationship and we’ll chat it up and what not as opposed
to like a more community-based kind of friendship.” Neither Jenny nor Vanessa felt
particularly excluded from the male banter that occurred in their labs. Jenny explained
131
that they listened in and would occasionally add to the conversation, but not to the same
extent as their male labmates.
As Tim suggested earlier, men attempt to outshine other men in conversation
while the same does not happen in all women or mixed gender conversation. Although
both male and female students expressed their disdain for faculty who encourage students
to be more argumentative, the activities of the male students suggest that they engage in
their own types of arguments. Rather than trying to prove themselves in academic
matters, the students instead engage in conversational banter. After describing Herman’s
life, I return to the students’ conversations. Despite Jenny’s suggestion that women are
not excluded, both faculty and students create an environment where women are the
subjects of, rather than participants in, conversation.
Clarity in Gender Roles and Relations
In addition to hierarchy and competition, AME is founded upon an invisible
masculinity. Though faculty and students suggest that the discipline is gender-neutral,
their practices and interactions reveal the opposite to be true. Female faculty and
students are treated differently by others in the department. Although faculty claim they
do not treat female students differently than their male counterparts, the following
narratives suggest otherwise.
In 2005, the AME department hired its first female faculty member. As Vanessa
described, all of the faculty were quite charmed by her. “She’s really attractive. She’s so
cute. She’s like this hot, smart woman who’s just—she’s just gorgeous and looks at you
like, oh my God, yeah she’s intense. She’s so, so, sharp and amazing. And when she
132
first gave her seminar talk, I wasn’t there, but I heard everybody was just drooling.”
Female faculty members are treated differently in the department. Students recounted
stories of grumblings from faculty over the pressure to hire additional women. Jeff
shared his advisor’s reaction to the second female hire in the department who was given
lab space in the same room. “We were just squatting there [in empty lab space for] over
two years. And we get to work one day and there’s a new professor. She gets four lab
aisles and she is a new professor and she does some good stuff, but what the hell gives
her the right to get four lab aisles when I have two? She hasn’t done anything yet. And
then…Ming said, “’Well, it’s because she’s a woman’.” Given that space is at such a
premium, faculty objected to losing precious lab space to new hires that they felt were
undeserving. Several senior faculty retired out of protest over the recent faculty hires.
Although both male and female candidates were brought to campus, Jack suggested that
the hiring committee had decided to hire a female faculty member and simply
interviewed other candidates out of obligation. Although the university adopts a rhetoric
of increasing the numbers of women in the sciences, this mantra has not been accepted by
many of the faculty in the department.
Female students also received additional—and often unwanted—attention due to
their gender. Vanessa and Jenny shared stories about clueless male graduate students
who approached them both, giving them Valentine’s Day cards, and expressing romantic
interest in other ways. They also suggested that faculty members treat them differently
than their male peers by acting in traditionally gendered ways, such as holding doors for
133
them. Although Vanessa was willing to dismiss this behavior from faculty members, she
seemed particularly frustrated by the romantic advances from her classmates.
You tend to get more attention, unwanted attention from guys sometimes and
that’s just annoying because it’s like I’m supposed to be a colleague, not someone
that you’re trying to date. Obviously it’s going to happen sometimes, people are
just interested. But sometimes it feels disrespectful. I’m like “No! I’m your
colleague. I’m not some object. I’m not a female object for you to get excited
about it. Stop it!”

For their part, the men seem to acknowledge that they treat women in this manner.
Logan provided some particularly colorful descriptions of women inside and outside the
department. “I think my [undergraduate] graduating class…had three [girls], but two of
them could play linebacker for the Bears.” In another exchange, it became clear that the
department was not the place to meet women.
Logan: Yeah, no, engineering is not the place to go if you want to pick up on
women. Every once in awhile, you’ll see a cute girl walking down the E-Quad.
She’s lost.

Margaret: (laughing) Does everybody descend on her to help her?

Logan: They go: “Who’s that? Oh, she’s lost. That explains it.. She’s actually a
Communications, English, Russian, Educational something. She’s not an
engineer.” There’s a few and they’re nice and you kind of get to know them as
sisters as any kind of romantic relationships. Mostly because you see them in
your classes and they usually have their own boyfriend… But they are a minority,
a vast minority. And of that, I don’t want to say that they’re not always the best
looking, but there is a ratio of intelligence to… Actually we’ve sat there during
screening exams and had nothing better to do than plot out the relationship, or the
likelihood, the probability of being, like looking at a girl and finding out later that
she’s really smart. And it’s an exponential decay, the tails. And it’s about the
nerdiest thing I’ve ever done is plot that. But it’s true.

Although women in engineering may not have the reputation for being the best
looking on campus, as Vanessa and Jenny described, they still receive plenty of unwanted
134
attention from their male classmates. As Logan so colorfully describes, men in AME are
not able to use their classes to meet women. However, as their conversations reveal,
though they may not meet women, male students talk about them frequently.
Gendered language and discussions. Women frequently came up as a topic of
conversation among male students while working in the lab. Jeff shared one conversation
he, Michael, and Ravi, another student, had about Michael’s visit to a strip club. “The
subject of strippers came up,” Jeff told me, laughing. “And Michael was like, ‘Yeah, so
after I passed my qualifying exam, I was hanging out with these guys and I didn’t even
want to go, but we ended up going to a strip club and they got me a lap dance. And my
girlfriend said she was cool about it. And when I told her, she wasn’t.’ And Ravi and I
were like, ‘What the hell were you thinking?’” Jeff broke into hysterical laughter again.
Conversations between male students frequently covered topics that they admitted
they would not talk about with female students. Phil shared an interaction with his
labmates.
Phil: Occasionally you’ll get an interaction that’s decidedly not family-friendly as
we talk about some topic that’s decidedly not family-friendly.

Margaret: Like?

Phil: Guy things. Like the sort of things men talk about after they’ve made sure
women aren’t in the room….Occasionally scatological humor comes up.
Jokes…For instance, there was a suggestion that whoever got the 2000
th
job on
our computer cluster should receive a prize and that I would have to provide the
prize. And then I replied that the picture would be a picture of my nuts (laughs),
which would be the easiest thing for me to obtain.

Although male students frequently joke around with their female colleagues, they have
established that some topics are off-limits. As Phil reasoned, “I think generally speaking
135
if we’re going to talk about girls, we try to look over our shoulders and make sure there
aren’t any women immediately around. I mean, my experience in general is that girls do
not talk about boys around other boys.”
Faculty also change their behavior in front of female students. Vanessa spoke
with great fondness of a former advisor with a sarcastic sense of humor who jokes with
all of his students. Another student told her that when women aren’t around, his jokes
take a different turn, becoming more “dirty and ridiculous.” She reflected on the changes
in faculty behavior.
I guess they do feel some sort of pressure to be careful and be more PC or
whatever. So it changes the interaction a lot, even just adding a few
women…When you’re just purely talking about academia, I don’t really notice a
difference. It’s more the social interaction that’s different. Because if I have
proven myself to be capable or whatever, when we’re just talking about
academia, it’s like, “Okay, we’re just getting down to business.” But then when
you’re having some sort of conversation not related to your work, then you do
notice the gender or the socialization or whatever.

Vanessa found that she is treated differently by faculty in social interactions. Given that
much of socialization occurs through all types of interactions, Vanessa’s experiences
suggest that her socialization differs from that of her male colleagues.
Narrowing the scope from topics of conversation to words, the language faculty
used to describe the department and those within it frequently reverted to the male
pronoun. When I asked Dr. Webster to describe unsuccessful students in the department,
he said, “A student can have a very difficult time finding an advisor to lead him through a
Ph.D. thesis. Now why would that be?” He paused for effect. “I mean there’s several
reasons. One is that the student, he’ll go to different faculty member’s offices and he’ll
136
ask to see what kind of research they’re doing. And he can make a very bad impression
on everybody he talks to and no faculty member wants to pick him up as a thesis
student.” In his description of the typical student, Dr. Webster does not use “he or she,”
but simply “he.” In part, this is due to the overwhelming majority of men in the
department. However, his choice of vocabulary also excludes women—both current
students and future students who might not see a place for themselves in the department.
Students employed this terminology as well, often referring to the generic professor as
“he”.
On other occasions, both students and faculty referred to women as “girls.” In the
minutes before Dr. Wyatt’s class began one afternoon, Mark and Dr. Wyatt casually
chatted about a recent faculty candidate who came to interview; both referred to her as “a
girl.” Students used the term when talking about their peers. Logan described some of
the women who had worked in his lab: “She is one of three girls that have ever worked
there, at least in my time…One was here for a semester and then moved back to New
Orleans and is married. She was a Mechanical Engineer. Cute.” Often when men
described women, their comments extended past their intellectual capabilities.
Although faculty and students suggest otherwise, the culture of the AME
department is one that simultaneously excludes and objectifies women. From language
that uses the male pronoun to describe the average student to conversations that male
faculty and students will only have with other men, the department’s culture does not
foster an environment that is equally hospitable to both men and women. As such,
although there are not fundamental differences in the type of training that women and
137
men receive, their interactions and experiences in the department differ. For their part,
aside from acknowledging that they censor topics of conversation around women, men do
not engage in substantial reflection about the role of gender in the department.
Herman: On the Margins
Unlike Logan and Phil, Herman has not been lucky to enough to secure
continuous funding to support his enrollment on campus. Although he has worked as a
TA for the past four semesters, he suffered through two unfunded semesters while still a
Master’s student. To support himself, he worked as a substitute junior high and high
school teacher while he took classes on campus in the evenings. When he managed to
find work as a TA, his appointments were not always steady. For two semesters, he had
only a 25% appointment (as opposed to the customary 50% appointment), which carried
with it six units of tuition remission and a monthly stipend of $941. Herman had to
compete with four other students to secure a TAship. Once he secured the position, he
has been guaranteed funding for every subsequent semester, minus one term where the
department was unable to tell him if he would have employment until a week before the
start of the term.
In addition to the stresses of securing funding, Herman has also not gained the
same experience as his peers in conducting research. It was only in his sixth semester
that he was officially attached to an advisor. He and his advisor have started to develop a
research project, but have no funding for it yet, which necessitates that Herman continue
to work as a TA. However, Herman is quickly coming close to the maximum number of
semesters one is allowed to serve as a TA in the School of Engineering. In addition, he
138
worries that he will never be able to transition from TA to RA. Herman explained that a
divide exists between the students who are admitted directly to the Ph.D. program and
those who work their way through the Master’s to the Ph.D. Part of this lack of funding
is a problem of sheer numbers. There are 300 students in the Master’s program at any
given time. Many of these students are enrolled in the DLP program and are not on
campus. Others are only in the program to earn their degree and graduate. Some, like
Herman, are interested in staying for their Ph.D. However, the department provides little
support to help them find funding or become successful researchers.
Since he has no research funding, his advisor does not play the same role in his
life as Phil’s advisor plays in his. Herman has a lot of flexibility in how he structures his
days. He plays racquetball at lunch each day and divides his time between his
coursework, TA responsibilities, and research. He leaves campus about 5 or 6 to spend
time with his wife. After spending many late nights on campus last semester studying for
his screening exam, he is burned out and is trying to re-establish some balance in his
personal life.
Reflective Identity
Given that men dominate both the faculty and student bodies, the department’s
culture is one that is not always friendly to women. While Jenny and Vanessa told stories
about the impact of their gender on their experiences, male participants did not have any
similar stories to share. Given their majority status, the men simply were not forced to
think about gender in the ways that women were. Often when I asked students about
their experiences as men in the department, my question was met with blank stares. As
139
Michael commented, “For someone like me...comparing men and women is not
something I like to sit and drink coffee and discuss. I like to think of us as equal and so,
for an academic, Ph.D. student, ideally, there shouldn’t be a difference between what it is
to be a man in an academic environment and a woman in an academic environment.”
However, as my earlier discussion of culture suggested, there is a difference in the way
that Michael and his peers think about women.
Students hesitated to say that men and women had different experiences in the
department. Some acknowledged that, on a hypothetical level, men and women must
have different experiences. However, half of the students claimed the opposite to be true.
Jack told me that he did not like to think about differences between men and women, but
preferred to think about “what it means to be a person.” Gender was simply a non-issue
and one that he proudly renounced. Similarly, when I asked Mark if there were conflicts
between men and women in the department, he answered: “I wouldn’t say that anybody
has an attitude or prerogative, it could just be that they’re insecure about themselves and I
have no problem with women in our department. I don’t have a problem with it.”
Students did not have a problem with women in the department, as long as they fit into
the existing culture.
Both faculty and students alike raised objection to special treatment for anyone in
the department. Students described some professors’ bitterness over pressure the
department was experiencing to increase the number of women on the faculty. Students
did not necessarily feel that such a push was in the department’s best interest. Logan
explained, “I don’t think you should punish those departments, which is always my fear
140
with diversification in any industry, is to swing the pendulum too far. Equality can only
be something to be worked for when you work towards equality. You can never work
towards,” he paused while he searched for the right word, “reparation. Reparation is not
equality and therefore you can never expense a White guy’s place in a program for a
woman or a minority and consider that progress. That will always be bad. Not because I
don’t believe that she shouldn’t be there, but she should get there because she’s better
than the guy, not because she’s a woman. Period. No ulterior motive or anything along
those lines. Just to work for equality, you need to work for true justice, not reparations
for past wrongdoings. If you can add an extra professor who’s a woman, hell yeah! Get
her in there, but don’t hack another job to make that happen.” Like Logan, many of the
engineers welcomed women into the department, as long as they fit into the existing
culture.
All of the engineers were quick to insist that they thought men and women should
be treated as equals. To them, this meant that neither men nor women should receive
special treatment. This insistence upon equality points to students’ assertion that gender
does not matter. And, for the men in AME, it may well not. They are students in a
discipline that is dominated by men. The culture is one that privileges competition and
hierarchy along with conversation that objectifies and excludes women. Studying
engineering does not challenge men’s gender identity; they are performing work that
society has labeled as masculine. As I discuss shortly, the men in English have a
different experience.
141
Through interactions with faculty and peers, AME students of both genders are
socialized into the norms of the discipline. They learn that research is valued and
teaching is not. They learn that their professors value hierarchy and competition,
behaviors that many of the students eventually adopt as their own. As I elaborate in
Chapter 5, they also implicitly learn that the discipline is based upon masculine values.
The male students engage in bawdy conversations and objectify their female classmates
and faculty. Such values are accepted by both male and female students as characteristic
of the discipline. Although English students differ considerably from their AME peers,
their socialization is similarly shaped by gendered values.
The English Student: Reflecting on Identity
In this half of the chapter, I examine the role that the English department plays in
producing scholars and future faculty. I again begin with an overview of the department,
describing its layout, curriculum and milestones, and typical assistantships for students in
the program. I then discuss students’ socialization in the department and the way that
their interactions with faculty and their peers impart both the skills and values necessary
for success in the discipline. I examine the diverging directions of English as a
discipline; some faculty and students continue to utilize traditional literary studies while
others have adopted more radical approaches informed by cultural studies, gender theory,
and queer theory. I conclude by considering how topic of study informs and shapes
men’s identities. While the culture of AME might be defined by clarity in professional
and gender roles, there is far more ambiguity within the English department, which
extends to students’ socialization.
142
Eric: The Creative Writer
Eric and I met at the Wright Café, the outdoor campus café where many of the
English students study and meet with students. “I’m only doing this,” Eric told me,
“because my friend Linda asked me to.” Despite his initial hostility, Eric spoke at great
length about his experiences as a student in the English department. Physically, Eric
illustrates the contrast between students in AME and English. He has large brown eyes
and shoulder length brown curly hair that he periodically swept away from his face
during our conversation. Unlike the t-shirt and jeans that many of the engineers prefer,
Eric pays more attention to his appearance. He told me that he uses hair products, eats
less than most men, and wears nicer shoes. His good looks have earned him extra
attention in the department, from both faculty and students. However, it is has yet to earn
him the type of attention he seeks from one female student that he would like to date. He
is occasionally teased by his male peers due to the time he puts into maintaining his
appearance. Though he recognizes that such teasing is in good fun, he also thinks it has
the effect of feminizing him. This threat of feminization echoes throughout many of the
students’ experiences.
Like many of the newer students in the program, Eric enrolled in Metro U. one
year after earning his B.A. in English. Now in his third year, though he is pursuing his
Ph.D. in literature, Eric considers himself to be a creative writer. He sets aside a couple
of hours each morning to work on his own fiction. He proudly told me that he received a
departmental award for his fiction writing last year. Unlike many of his peers who plan
to seek a job in academia upon graduation, Eric has yet to decide what he wants to do.
143
He tells me, “I’m a bit scared that I’ll wind up getting into this tenure-track thing and
have to spend so much time trying to pump out essays and stuff to secure my position in a
university and stuff that I won’t be able to pursue the things that I actually want to
pursue, trying to write novels, that sort of thing. I have this fantasy of getting a Ph.D. and
then just doing something completely different. Then I could say, Okay, I did that, I
accomplished that.” Learning, for Eric, is a passion that he is able to indulge through his
enrollment at Metro U.
Like most of the students in the department, Eric receives his funding by working
for the Freshman Composition Program. Each semester, he teaches undergraduates who
are enrolled in an affiliated liberal arts course. Through his work as a writing instructor
and his own courses, Eric has become exposed to a variety of texts, including those that
address notions of gender and masculinity. He referenced those texts when he described
men in the department. Although he may not be a gender scholar himself, he has learned
about gender studies, which informs his thinking and identity.
Curriculum and Milestones
To earn the Ph.D. in English, students complete a total of 64 units—56 units of
coursework with 8 units reserved for the dissertation. If students have completed a
Master’s elsewhere, they are allowed to transfer up to 12 units, leaving them with 44
units of coursework. Generally, students who come in without a Master’s degree take
approximately three years to complete their coursework. As in AME, there are few
required courses. All first-year students take English 200, an introduction to literary and
cultural theory. No other additional courses are mandated. Students are encouraged to
144
take classes outside of the department, an option that students who specialize in cultural
studies tend to pursue. Students frequently take courses in departments including
American Studies, Gender Studies, History, Geography, and Cinema/TV.
In Fall 2007, the English department offered 10 courses. One was English 200,
two were professional development courses, and two were writing workshops primarily
for students in the creative writing track. Of the remaining five, three focused on
historical-based time periods and two were cultural studies courses. Occasionally, one of
these seminars includes a student-initiated seminar, in which a student develops a course
description and reading list and finds a faculty sponsor. Such seminars are not graded
and have no paper associated with them, but rather provide an opportunity for students to
come together (for course credit) to talk about issues that interest them. Recent seminars
include one on systems theory and another on phenomenology and poetry. Despite these
forays into rarely studied territory, students frequently complain that there are no courses
in their own area of study. “Every semester, there was a 19
th
century course. Every
semester.” Vincent explained, “Obviously with the Renaissance, there was always
Renaissance courses going on and stuff like that—Shakespeare and stuff like that.
Modernism, not so much.” This lack of courses in his own initial field of study led
Vincent to switch to a new field. Although the lack of mandated curriculum allows
students to take courses across areas, it also means that there are fewer offerings in the
department.
The department offers a series of three professionalization courses. In addition to
introducing students to the field of English, English 200 is also intended to help students
145
form a sense of community with one another. Before its implementation in 2000, Olivia,
the graduate program advisor, explained that students did not understand departmental
expectations. “Students felt a little bit lost. They did not feel a sense of connection to the
department, to the program. They felt they were not clear as to what is a Ph.D. in English
and how do you transition from the intellectual community of the classroom to being an
independent researcher, scholar to write your dissertation.” By and large, students
reported that English 200 fulfilled its purpose by teaching students what was expected of
them as English Ph.D. students. “That is an overly broad class,” Aaron said, “It tries to
be sort of an intro to theory class and it tries to be sort of a professionalization course as
well. So if you’re submitting a conference paper or a book review or job hunting or those
kinds of things, what do you do.” English 200 was designed to introduce students both to
the norms of English as a discipline along with major theoretical debates in the field.
Each semester the course is co-taught by two instructors who represent two
factions within the English department—a literary theorist and a cultural theorist. As
Sally, a professor who favors literary theory, explained, such an arrangement is designed
“to sort of model dialogue rather than to have one person sort of representing the
profession as a whole, as it were, because that would imply some sort of consensus that
we don’t actually have.” She continued, “Instead to show something like respectful
engagement, sometimes disagreement, amongst different faculty members.” For many of
the men who favor traditional literary studies, this course served as their introduction to
cultural studies and queer theory. As I will discuss later, although not all necessarily
pursued this line of study as their own, it introduced them to gender theory, leading many
146
to reflect on their identities as men. Table 8 contains a summary of participants,
disaggregated by year in program, gender, and focus of study. Senior students
overwhelmingly take conventional approaches to the study of literature while students in
the more junior classes use both literary and cultural studies. In addition, topic of study is
further divided by sexual and political identity. Students who identify as queer are more
likely to favor cultural studies than their non-queer counterparts. In English, sexuality
has supplanted gender as the primary division between students.
Table 10: English Participants by Year in Program, Gender, and Focus of Study
Name Year Gender Literary vs. Cultural
Studies
Ian 2
nd
M Literary Studies
Duke 2
nd
M Cultural Studies
Emily 2
nd
F Literary Studies
Peter 2
nd
M Literary Studies
Joe 2
nd
M Cultural Studies
Nathan 2
nd
M Cultural Studies
Eric 3
rd
M Literary Studies
Christopher 3
rd
M Literary Studies
Josh 3
rd
M Cultural Studies
Meredith 3
rd
F Cultural Studies
Linda 4
th
F Literary Studies
Kathy 4
th
F Cultural Studies
Vincent 4
th
M Cultural Studies
Aaron 5
th
M Literary Studies
Pam 6
th
F Literary Studies
Horace 6
th
M Literary Studies
Sam 7
th
M Literary Studies
Scott 8
th
M Literary Studies
Buck 8
th
M Literary Studies
Cole 8
th
M Literary Studies

While English 200 is required, the second two professionalization courses are not.
One course helps students draft their prospectus, or an outline of their topic of study for
147
their dissertation. The other course helps students prepare for the job market. Getting
faculty positions in English is often a multi-year endeavor. Students are told to expect to
be on the market for three years; there are simply too many graduates and not enough
jobs. This year at Metro U., fifty students are on the market. For a department that
admits twelve students a year, this represents a sizable fraction of the total student
enrollment. In the job placement seminar, students receive help preparing their
application materials, including the cover letter, CV, and writing sample. Students also
have individual appointments with the placement director, an associate professor in the
department. Since the market is so competitive and not all advisors help their students
pursue positions, the department created this seminar to help all students.
Much like the AME students, English Ph.D. students must complete three
milestones to earn their Ph.D: a screening exam, the prospectus and qualifying exam, and
the dissertation defense. Due to recent student activism and the support of key faculty
members, the faculty voted last year to change the format of the screening and qualifying
exams. Old versions of both exams asked students to read across multiple time periods
and privileged the literary canon over cultural studies and newer theoretical perspectives.
The new screening exam is not an exam at all, but rather a review of professors’
evaluations of a student’s performance in their classes. Assuming a student’s
performance is not substandard, they are allowed to pass. The department’s new
qualifying exam allows students to write on topics more aligned with their interests to
better inform their dissertation. Students complete both take-home and on-site exams and
subsequently defend them before a committee of five professors.
148
After completing the qualifying exam, students begin work on the dissertation.
The dissertation in English consists of five related chapters that students are expected to
turn into their first book. The rate at which students complete the dissertation varies.
The fastest students might complete the dissertation in eighteen months; other students
might write a chapter a semester. For many, progress depends on their funding. Upon
completion of the dissertation, students defend before a committee of three faculty
members. Given the volatility of the job market, not all students defend their dissertation
immediately upon completion, but rather extend their enrollment in the program in order
to guarantee funding for an additional year while they continue to search for jobs. The
lack of mandated curriculum and prescribed topic for the qualifying exam gives students
a great deal of latitude in shaping their course of study. While the screening exam in
AME tests students on a rigid set of topics, the structures of the exams in the English
department give students agency in shaping their scholarship. At the same time, through
English 200 and the other professionalization courses, all students are exposed to the
debates within the field and receive explicit guidance about the steps necessary for
academic and professional success.
Funding: Teaching, Fellowships, and, Occasionally, Research
If AME students are prepared to be researchers, English students leave their
programs prepared to teach. As was true in AME, there are few systematic differences in
the types of funding opportunities available to students by gender. Both men and women
receive their funding through their work as instructors and accompanying fellowships.
The department offers two packages to incoming students. Both packages guarantee five
149
years of funding, though some students are given three years of teaching and two years of
fellowship while their less fortunate peers are required to teach for four years before
using a fifth year of fellowship. The majority of students serve as writing instructors for
the Freshman Composition Program while some of the more senior students work for the
Honors Program. Neither program is affiliated with the English department. The
department has changed its distribution of funding over the past five years. Sixth and
seventh year students described inequities in funding in their entering classes—a few
students entered with several years of fellowship and the majority received only teaching
packages.
Although students have five years of guaranteed funding, few students finish their
degrees in that period of time. Consequently, students have to look for funding for their
remaining years. Many students apply for additional dissertation fellowships, both from
Metro U. and from external agencies. Others are able to secure continued employment
through the Composition Program and Honors Program. A few work as teaching
assistants for professors in the department. Some students run out of funding. After
finding one semester of work as a teaching assistant, Scott, an eighth year student, was
unable to find financial support on campus for the spring semester. Consequently, he
worked as a writing tutor at a community college an hour from Metro U. Many of the
more senior students expressed frustration over the lack of financial support and a shift in
the department’s attention to the needs of the junior students.
Working as instructors consumes a significant amount of students’ time. Students
who work for the Freshman Composition Program lead a course section affiliated with a
150
variety of disciplines, including art history, philosophy, sociology, gender studies, and
film. Students’ work as writing instructors derails many of them from making progress
on their qualifying exams and dissertations. Vincent explained the workload:
Vincent: It’s a load, especially that first year. You kind of get used to the
graduate work load. And you’re trying to learn how to teach this course.
Preparing every night for that. Grading papers all the time. It seems like you’re
always grading papers. Because you have a paper due every two weeks, two and
a half weeks.

Margaret: That’s intense. I was surprised when I found that out.

Vincent: Yeah. It is. It’s hard. But, after the first year, it gets a little easier. You
get your syllabus together and you got all your handouts on your hard drive. You
kind of know what you’ll be teaching from week to week. You’ve done it before,
so it gets a little easier. But grading papers, gosh! You just get so sick of grading
papers.

Vincent estimated that he grades 500 papers a semester. Both men and women talked
about having to prioritize between their teaching responsibilities and their own work.
The urgency of the demands of the classroom frequently trumped the students’ own
coursework or research.
Although funding through teaching serves as students’ primary form of income, a
few students also serve as research assistants for professors in the department. Unlike the
AME students, English students typically spend no more than five hours a week on RA
duties. Christopher explained his duties as an RA for Sarah. “Every faculty member
kind of uses their RA a little differently. The way that Sarah will work is she’ll want me
to find articles about said topic. She’s working on Thackeray and this thing. Go through,
troving for articles, find as many articles, sort of separate the wheat from the chaff,
maybe give a quick skim, and then give it to her to do the reading.” In the English
151
department, being an RA rarely entails co-authoring publications with advisors. Rather,
students gather research for faculty working on their own projects. As a result, students
do not come out of their programs with the experience or the drive to conduct research.
The majority of students gain satisfaction through teaching and want to look for positions
at institutions where they can continue to teach. As students discover through their work
in the Composition Program, teaching is a time-intensive undertaking that can slow their
research progress.
Socialization into an Isolated Existence
English students’ experiences are shaped by the curriculum, the focus on
teaching, and the time-to-degree. While structures play a critical role in both
socialization and gender performance theories, students learn the norms of both through
interactions with faculty and peers. In this section, I briefly consider students’
socialization before entering the doctoral program before turning to a more thorough
discussion of students’ experiences at Metro U.
Anticipatory Socialization
Nineteen of twenty participants in the English department earned their Bachelor’s
degrees in English. Sam, the twentieth student, earned his B.A. in History and talked
about the importance of prior training for enrollment in the doctoral program. “I was
unfamiliar with English literature cuz I hadn’t studied it as an undergraduate. So I was a
little slow to understand that we were being professionalized with [English 200].”
Although only one of the twenty students earned her undergraduate degree at Metro U.,
students were socialized into the norms of English as a discipline at institutions across the
152
country. Students described the ways in which their undergraduate seminars and
interactions with professors shaped their expectations of a doctoral program. “Adjusting
to graduate seminars wasn’t that much different than undergraduate stuff I did,” Vincent
commented. “It’s interesting because at [my undergrad institution], I was able to take
some seminar-like undergraduate courses, upper-division undergraduate English courses,
where it was just like ten or twelve kids and a professor. And it was very discussion-
based. You learned how to operate in that kind of environment I guess.” Other students,
like Duke, conducted research for an undergraduate professor and formed friendships
with Ph.D. students at his former institution. Through his friends, Duke gained an idea of
what being a graduate student entailed.
Although earning a B.A. in English was helpful, students commented that their
peers coming into the program with Master’s degrees had a better sense of the
expectations of the graduate degree and the steps necessary to be successful. Eight of the
twenty participants earned Master’s degrees prior to enrolling in Metro U’s Ph.D.
program. As Buck explained, “those who came in with MAs… just had a better sense of
how to professionalize really quickly…Everyone I knew who came in with an MA or an
MFA or something of that sort was doing conferences before I was doing those sorts of
things that myself and most of the people I knew who came in with just BAs didn’t start
doing until Year 3 or 4.” Although faculty in the English department stress the
importance of publishing and attending conferences, those coming straight from a B.A.
program did not internalize the message as quickly. Consequently, their peers with more
advanced degrees made more progress towards success in the field.
153
Students were socialized into more than just academic norms in their Bachelor’s
and Master’s programs. All of the men were aware of being the minority in their
graduate program, a phenomenon that began in their undergraduate institutions. Aaron
spoke of being just one of four men in an undergraduate seminar and facing backlash due
to the unpopular opinions of some of his male peers. When he decided to apply to
graduate programs, his undergraduate advisor met with him to discuss the challenges he
would face as a White male in the humanities. “When I told him I wanted to go to
graduate school, the first thing he did was sat me down and said ‘Are you aware that
because of your demographic as a White male, the difficulties you will have in getting to
graduate school and getting funding and that sort of thing?’ He wasn’t trying to
discourage me, but he was just making sure that I wasn’t going in sort of blind to some of
those problems.” Although Aaron faced few challenges in securing funding, he and his
other male peers were challenged in other ways throughout their program.
Entry into the Organization
English students have a split identity; they are simultaneously writing instructors
and graduate students. Given the structure of the department and the Composition
Program, faculty play little role in their development as instructors. However, they do
play a role in fashioning students as future scholars. Part of that development occurs in
the classroom.
A Typical Class
The Renaissance literature class met in one of the conference rooms in the
English department. The mahogany conference table with maroon and black checkered
154
swivel chairs stood in stark contrast to the uncomfortable student desks that characterize
typical classrooms on campus. The room’s cream-colored walls were mostly bare, except
for two pieces of modern art and a clock with one wall devoted to bookshelves,
overflowing with books, journals, and videos. Although a few chairs were pushed up
against the wall, all students sat around the table.
The ten students (six men and four women) were already in the room when
Claire, the professor, walked in at 2:05, five minutes late. After announcing an upcoming
seminar on Renaissance literature at a nearby library, the professor brought up technical
problems students had posting to Blackboard, the software that Metro U. uses to facilitate
online discussion. Rather than using the school’s system, one student suggested that they
use a free blogging site for their discussions. This is ultimately what the class decided to
do. Throughout the semester, the students have robust discussions with each other
online, outside of class.
With announcements finished, Claire outlined the structure of the agenda for the
day and then gave a twenty minute lecture on the life of John Donne, the author of the
day’s texts. After her lecture, Claire synthesized students’ posts from Blackboard and
launched into a class discussion on the content of their ideas. The class then spent the
next thirty minutes doing close readings of Donne poems. For the first poem, Claire
asked if any students enjoyed reading poems out loud. Both Linda, a fourth year student,
and Ivan, a first year student, raised their hands. Without waiting, Ivan began to read.
The class discussed this poem for ten minutes before moving on to another poem.
Although men and women participated equally in discussions, female students tended to
155
be more responsive to the professor, both in terms of laughing in response to some of her
jokes and also responding to questions.
At 3:30, Claire announced that the class would take a ten minute break, which
lasted closer to twenty minutes. All of the male students left the room for the first five to
ten minutes while three of the women stayed and chatted about academic texts. The
professor chatted briefly with another male student about Donne. More of the men
returned to the room ten minutes later and the students discussed an earlier departmental
meeting about procedures for the qualifying exam. The professor briefly stepped out,
though returned to let students know that coffee was left over in the Commons Room
from the earlier meeting.
After the break, the class returned to doing close readings of poems. Rather than
seeking volunteers, Claire read a poem out loud and then posed a question to the class.
Ivan answered her. Jared, another male student, then asked Claire a question. Rather
than letting Claire answer, Ivan responded directly to Jared. When Jared tried to speak,
Ivan continued to talk over him. I noted throughout my observations that Ivan spoke over
others in the classroom—including Claire. After a bit more discussion, the professor
ended the class for the day. She reminded students that the following week would mark
the beginning of student facilitation where two students would facilitate half of each class
session. As I left the room, I passed a group of four of the men talking in the hallway
about the qualifying exam meeting.
In the English department, courses are structured as dialogues between students
and the professor around texts. In the three courses I observed, each professor began
156
class with a short lecture and then devoted the remainder of the two and a half hour
session to discussion. Whereas courses in AME are dominated by the professor, students
in the English department speak more frequently. In this class session, the six male
students spoke a total of 73 times; the four female students spoke 46 times; and the
professor spoke 47 times. Although men made more comments than women, this tally
reflects their representation in the class (six men versus four women); on average, each
man spoke 12 times and each woman spoke 11 times. Of course averages mask
differences as not all students participate equally. Some students are more engaged in the
subject matter; some told me that they do not always finish the reading. However, all
courses in the department are designed to help students develop as critical thinkers and
gain confidence in developing their own interpretations of a text.
Socialization Through Interaction
Much as with their AME counterparts, the students in the English department
learn both the skills and norms necessary for success in their discipline through their
interactions with their advisors, other faculty, and their peers. Table 9 contains a sample
of the ways that each of these groups provides both academic and social/emotional
support to students as they progress through the program.
157
Table 11: A Sample of Academic and Social Activities in English
Actor Academic Social/Emotional
Advisor -meet to discuss progress, courses,
research
-give feedback on written work
-help with job search
-provide encouragement to attend
conferences, publish
-supervise independent study
-provide encouragement on:
-making progress
-belonging in program
Faculty -serve on qualifying exam,
dissertation committees
-meet in office hours for
coursework
-give feedback on written work
-supervise independent study
-department party at beginning of
year
-go out for drinks, karaoke
-go to cigar bar
-end of semester party at faculty
houses
-serve on departmental committees
-friends on Facebook
-provide encouragement
Peers -share information on departmental
procedures
-writing support groups
-meet to discuss theoretical ideas
-work on student-organized
conference
-participate in department student
group
-department peer mentoring
program
-department parties
-yoga group
-karaoke
-watch TV as group
-go out to bar for beer
-watch football games
-go out for coffee and dinner
-play sports together
-belong to book group

The faculty advisor. Students’ interactions with their advisors depend on the
faculty member and the student’s year in the program. Just as in AME, there are few
systematic differences in students’ preparation by gender. All must progress through the
same steps. Students who have not yet started preparing for their qualifying exam tend to
see their advisor once a semester to register for courses. Generally, it is each student’s
responsibility to set up meetings with his or her advisor. More senior students reported
meeting with their advisors anywhere from every other week to every six weeks to every
158
semester. Meetings might take place in faculty members’ offices over coffee at the
Wright Café. Those who rarely meet with faculty face-to-face use e-mail to stay in
touch. However, while AME creates forced opportunities for interaction between advisor
and student in the lab, English students are typically responsible for setting up their own
meetings with their advisors. For example, Emily told me that she rarely sees her
advisor, but wishes that she did so more. “I’m really hesitant to meet with someone
unless I have like a real reason to talk to them. I hate to go in and waste their time, even
if it would make me feel better just to kind of connect. I want to have a set purpose.” In
contrast, Joe reported that he frequently sees his advisor to chat about both academic and
social matters. During a recent meeting, the two exchanged cigars and chatted about
football as well as possible outlets for a manuscript that Joe had written. If Emily and
Joe’s experiences are indicative of their peers in the English department, male students in
English may be more proactive in seeking out their advisors for guidance, thereby
affecting their trajectory through their programs.
Although the level of interaction differs, as Greg, a faculty member, described,
advisors are expected to perform a range of functions, including introducing students to
the intricacies of what is required of faculty life to ultimately make them marketable.
Read their work promptly, respond to it in detail. Sounds like it’s obvious and
it’s our job, but it’s amazing how many graduate students across the country
complain that their work is not being read and that they’re not getting responses.
The real work is going through page by page and commenting and giving them
comments that are like what they’ll get from anonymous readers when they’re
submitting their work to journals and the presses. And then preparing them for all
of that, how do you place articles? They’ve got to publish before they get the
Ph.D. How do you market your dissertation as a book? When do you do it?
What presses do you go to? Preparing them for that. That’s crucial.

159
As a senior faculty member, Greg has developed a system of working with and
supporting his graduate students. Not all faculty members devote the same attention to
supporting their students. Above all, faculty were noted for providing feedback to
students on their written work. Cole and Scott, two students well into their dissertation
work, described their interactions with their advisors. “First and foremost,” Cole stated,
“the guidance often comes through reactions to the written work. Our work is about a
written piece at the end, anyway, so oftentimes that’s a big part. I also send him
questions via e-mail and ask him about certain things.” Scott has similar interactions
with his advisor. “A lot of our correspondence is by e-mail these days. It’s basically I’m
throwing out ideas for…how to get the last chapter underway and finished in a timely
manner. And he’ll say yes or no or why don’t you think about that or why don’t you talk
to so-and-so. It’s funny because he’s been very supportive in this, very much a
cheerleader. But there haven’t been that many meetings,” he said, “Most of what I get in
terms of things that shape the project are when I get things back from him, like if I submit
something and he gets it back to me and it’s his comments, written comments.”
Although students seek feedback from their advisors, not all are necessarily prompt. The
sole exception in the department is Greg. Student after student told stories of getting
feedback on final seminar papers within 24 hours. In contrast, some professors are
notorious for never returning final papers.
In addition to providing feedback, faculty advisors help students prepare for life
after the Ph.D. Eight students pointed to occasions when their advisors encouraged them
to attend conferences or helped them prepare applications for faculty positions.
160
Christopher met with Greg at the beginning of the year to talk about his plans for the
dissertation. Greg was so enthusiastic that he suggested that Christopher apply to attend
a prestigious summer research institute. Christopher recalled his conversation with Greg.
“He said, ‘This project is actually interesting. Why don’t you plan on going to this
Dartmouth project over the summer. Just sort of work on it in the spring. Submit it to
Don Peas, who’s my good buddy, and tell me about it and we’ll sort of make that happen.
So just plan on doing that.’ So it is very sort of goal-oriented, build the CV orientation.”
Female students reported similar opportunities. Kathy was encouraged to present a paper
she had written for a class at a conference. Greg draws upon his professional networks to
help students build their CVs and take advantage of opportunities outside of Metro U.
Buck reported receiving tremendous guidance from his advisor as he applied for
faculty jobs. His advisor spent a weekend reading and providing feedback on his cover
letter, CV, statement of teaching philosophy, and writing sample. “This year has been
awesome since the fall semester started. We talk every week to ten days, phone
conference, just to get me through the process and everything. I know people who have
faculty advisors here who don’t talk hardly at all when they’re on the job market. So I
lucked out in that sense. She’s just a great director.” As Buck pointed out, his
experiences are different than others in the department. Many advisors do not provide
assistance to their students who are on the market, which was the impetus for the creation
of the job market professionalization course.
Although advisors were noted for the ways in which they help students
academically, they also provided emotional support. Buck described his relationship
161
with his advisor, “She’s extremely enthusiastic, which I know people who they said their
directors would just be negative. And if there are places where Rachel needs to kick your
ass, she’ll kick your ass and do the tough love thing, but … she always finds something
positive to say.” Kathy has a similar relationship with her advisor.
Greg is very, very personable. Extremely supportive of me…he gives good
feedback on papers, but sometimes I think his support of me is a little bit blind
and he tends to push me a little bit. He’s just like “You’re doing great. You’re
ready to do this. Just do it!” And I’m sort of like “Aah! I’m not sure!”…And I
feel like that’s the way a lot of our conversations go. He’s just like “You’re on
the ball. You’ve got it. You’re fine. Go for it!”

Students described their advisors as serving as cheerleaders, but also sources of support.
Duke talked to his advisor Sophie about his concerns about the program. One of the
more junior students who studies pop culture, he wonders how he will fare on the
screening exam in terms of meeting the expectations of the department. Another student,
Pam, met with her advisor over her frustration of being denied a fellowship and shared
that she was considering dropping out of the program. “She was actually really good
because she was on the committee for the departmental fellowships and she actually went
around and sort of felt other people out to see why I didn’t get a fellowship, which was
really nice of her.” Advisors in the English department act to support students both
academically and emotionally.
As my portrait suggests, there are few systematic differences in the ways in which
advisors relate to their students by gender. The differences are more indicative of
different advising styles. In AME, faculty interact with students on a regular basis,
helping them develop the skills needed to perform research in the lab. In English, there
162
are fewer opportunities for faculty-student interaction, since students perform their
assistantship work elsewhere. The culture of the English department is one that is based
upon infrequent, one-on-one interactions, allowing for wide differences across
individuals. Although such a structure suggests that gender could play a role in students’
experiences with their advisors, few students reported this to be the case.
Faculty. AME students interact primarily with their advisor while English
students report interacting more frequently with faculty across the department. Outside
of occasional meetings over course papers, such interactions are more likely to be social
than academic in nature. However, not all faculty are readily available to students. As
Duke explained, “[we] have professors that we do want to work with that are kind of-I
don’t know-they’re very stealthy when they are on campus. It’s really hard to find them
on campus. It’s kind of rare to run into them, too.” Several students commented that
they wished faculty were more involved in student-sponsored events. Each year, the
English graduate student organization hosts a conference, which only some faculty
attend. Ian shared that not all faculty came to a conference in a nearby city. “I wish there
was a little bit more support for some of the colloquia and conferences that we do, that
we are involved in,” Ian lamented. “Last week, we had a Modernist Association
conference. It would have been nice to see more faculty at that.” He continued, “It
wasn’t just that conference. It’s other things that have gone on on campus. There’s
either hardly any faculty that show up or hardly any graduate students that show up. And
I think if we got more faculty and student participation, that would naturally increase the
opportunities to socialize and talk with one another.” As Ian pointed out, faculty set the
163
tone for the department. When faculty do not attend events, students intuit that they are
not expected to do so either.
Meredith echoed Ian’s concern about the lack of interaction with faculty. “I wish
that we had more kind of social opportunities with faculty. They are very scarce. They
are out of here. There’s not really a sense of community, say like hanging out in the
Commons room of the English department,” she paused. “Sophie’s the one exception.
She’s a junior faculty and she’ll sometimes come out with us for drinks or whatever. In
general, they are pretty scarce.”
Although students suggested that they wished they had more opportunities for
interaction, they listed a number of ways in which they saw faculty outside of the
classroom. Some students served with faculty on departmental committees. More
typically, however, students saw faculty in social capacities. Professors often host an
end-of-the-year semester party at their homes for students in their courses. Last year, the
Director of Graduate Studies hosted a pool party for all students in the department.
Similarly, at the beginning of each year, the department hosts a reception to welcome
incoming students. Some faculty extend their social interactions with students into the
virtual world. A handful of faculty in the department have pages on Facebook and have
listed themselves as students’ friends. In AME, while many students are on Facebook,
their faculty are not.
Peers. Students in the English department report turning to their peers for both
academic and social support. Each year, the department assigns a senior mentor to each
student in the incoming class to serve as a point of contact and answer questions.
164
Students rely upon each other outside of formal channels as well. Several students spoke
of looking to more senior students for guidance. Emily explained, “It was a lot of talking
to my older friends in the program, like Grace, who’d already been here a few years.
And, kind of asking her, ‘I have ten sources. Is that normal?’ And a lot of her being like
‘I don’t know’ sometimes. So that was that. It was mostly just talking to people. Like is
this your experience? Is this normal?” Although both men and women talked about
looking to their peers for guidance, women were more likely to point to specific
interactions with colleagues whereas men discussed learning about expectations through
witnessing interactions in the classroom. Peter commented, “I think that one sort of
learns that through observation, picks up expectations through observation. You get a
sense of what makes for an interesting analysis or an interesting attempt at criticism, from
listening to other people and from reading criticism and from listening to professors
mount their own criticism.” Students’ comments suggest that men were less willing to
ask for help.
Students supported each other in other ways. Several students set up writing
support groups. Cole formed a writing group with three women who work in his time
period. All four are working on their dissertations and meet once or twice a semester to
give each other feedback. He also sends drafts of his work to his friend Buck. Other
students reported that they send work to their friends for critical feedback. Graduate
students support each other in much the same way as their faculty do: they provide each
other encouragement, written feedback, and information about expectations of graduate
life.
165
Peer-to-peer interactions also occur through formal organizational means. The
department has an active graduate student organization with an executive board of six to
seven people. Each year, the executive board hosts a two-day student conference and
plans social events for graduate students throughout the year. While students rarely meet
face-to-face, the organization maintains an active “students only” listserv, where students
can share information on upcoming talks and fellowship opportunities. As many students
explained, the listserv also provides a forum for arguments between groups of students,
generally about a lack of adequate funding for more senior students. My attempts to gain
access to the listserv were rebuffed. However, discussion of arguments spilled outside of
cyberspace and seeped into students’ conversations with me.
While students support each other academically, many form close friendships and
see each other outside the classroom. Often students try to combine their academic and
social interactions by meeting at coffee houses to study. However, as Emily described,
such meetings are rarely productive. “We hang out at Wright Café a lot. Obviously we
waste a lot of time, which is bad. We do these things like bring all this work to campus.
Then we’ll sit there for like three or four hours just chatting and other people will come
and go and I’ll realize I didn’t get anything done.” While students meet at cafes with the
intent of getting work done, some also plan purely social outings. As Vincent explained,
the frequency of interaction changes as students progress through the program.
“Especially like first year, we would hang out and just go to the movies, something like
that…There was less and less of that the second year and less in the third year. And now
in the fourth year, as people kind of move to their dissertation, and I was told this too,
166
you know, you will see less and less of these people, especially as you move into your
dissertation work and you’re not required to come to campus as much. It just seems to be
the way it is.” As students finish their coursework and only come to campus to teach,
they have fewer opportunities to interact with their peers.
As one might expect, students in English and AME have vastly different
experiences in their graduate programs. English students’ work is typically done in
isolation. Students work on their writing, occasionally sending it to peers and faculty for
feedback. While English students still learn the skills needed for success in the
discipline, socialization is more haphazard and dependent upon the advisor-student
relationship. Whereas AME students receive near daily instruction in the instrumental
tasks associated with faculty life, English students’ instruction occurs less frequently.
The result is that there is far more ambiguity about the tasks required to succeed in the
discipline.
In this section, I have focused on the socialization of students of both genders to
the discipline. While certainly men and women have different experiences, I have
suggested that there are certain norms and values that characterize English, values that
are quite different from those in AME. English students are prepared to teach while
AME students are prepared to research. English students write individually while AME
students receive explicit guidance from faculty. These experiences are dependent more
upon discipline than on gender. As I shall elaborate in Chapter 5, such differences point
to the ways in which each discipline is gendered. It is the gendered nature of English—
and men’s experiences within it—that I soon discuss.
167
Duke: The New Masculinity?
Duke sat on the patio of the Tillman Café, reading his book when I found him.
Unlike the majority of the other English students who use Wright Café to meet with
students, Duke told me that he prefers the solitude Tillman affords him. Duke holds
extended office hours for his students—more than is required by the Freshman
Composition Program—because he knows that they have inflexible schedules. He tends
to prioritize his work as a writing instructor over his coursework. He said, “It can be a lot
of work, too. I spend most of my time with classes—in office hours, actually. I kind of
extend myself too much, maybe, to my students.” Like many of the other students, Duke
finds his teaching responsibilities take up much of his time.
In his second year of the program, Duke embodies the new type of student in the
department. His interests revolve around cultural studies and gender studies; he lacks
interest in English as literature. Unlike Eric, who takes great pride in his physical
appearance, Duke appears unconcerned with his looks. Whenever we met, he typically
wore ripped blue jeans and a t-shirt. Sometimes he completed the ensemble with a casual
blazer. He wore oversized plastic glasses; his long black hair flows past his shoulders
and is always a little out of place. Duke works with Sophie, the junior faculty member
who encourages her students to bridge the academic and everyday language. To that end,
Duke maintains two blogs. One blog is devoted to his commentary on all things pop
culture. In the second blog, he ties pop culture into his academic work; he uses the blog
to work through arguments for his papers for class.
168
Duke takes classes in departments across campus including Gender Studies and
American Studies. Of the classes he has taken within the English department, none have
focused on literature. Duke does not identify as a student in the department. “I don’t
really have a close relationship with the department,” he told me. “I have a close
relationship with people in the department, but I don’t necessarily feel in any way
attached to the English department or loyal to it, necessarily, which is why I try to take
classes outside of the department as often as I can, or am allowed to.” Although he does
not connect with students in the department as a whole, he has been welcomed into the
community of students who embrace queer theory and cultural studies.
Although Duke identifies as a straight male, the majority of his friends are gay or
lesbian, or otherwise identify as queer. He said that he does not know much about the
lives of the straight men in the department. All of his close friendships are with women,
which he hypothesizes is due to his focus on gender and sexuality studies. He discussed
several conflicts his friends have had with straight White males in the classroom, due to
the men’s tendency to shift the topic of discussion away from gender. However, Duke
spends the majority of his time thinking about gender. Although he is committed to
gender studies, he thinks about issues of male privilege and hopes to avoid perpetuating
privilege in the classroom and within the discipline. “One of my students wrote a paper
about feminism and I was going through it and I was giving comments about where there
might be problems. And then I realized that there might be a problem with a man trying
to teach a woman feminist theory. And I had this conversation with [a friend] and she
and I talked about this whole issue about what is it for a man to teach feminist theory,”
169
Duke continued. “But I have had anxieties about being a straight man that wants to teach
in gender studies, partly because I feel like there’s so few.” Due to his work in gender
studies and his friends in the queer community, Duke has developed a different set of
norms that inform his scholarship and gender identity.
Gendering English
English students learn more than just instrumental skills—such as how to analyze
a text or present at conferences—during their graduate programs. All of the skills that
students learn carry particular values. Analyzing a text suggests that students are to apply
their own perspectives and interpretations to someone else’s work—a far cry from the
emphasis on procedures and formulas in AME. Whereas my earlier discussion alluded to
the culture of the discipline, in this section, I narrow the focus to gender and culture. As
with my discussion of AME, I again focus on the ways in which structures, culture, and
reflective identity provide a scheme for helping to understand the way that gender
operates within the English department. Unlike AME with its strict focus on hierarchy
and clarity of distinctions in both professional and gender roles, English is characterized
by an ambiguity across the discipline. As I discuss, the combination of men’s minority
status within the discipline and a curriculum which introduces students to gender and
queer theory leads many of the men to turn their gaze inward to question their own
masculinity.
Structure
Just as AME has a reputation as being a man’s discipline, so too does English
have a reputation as being reserved for women. Although the gender imbalance is not as
170
great as with their engineering counterparts, women account for the majority of students
within the English department at Metro U. As I summarized in Chapter 1, there are a
total of 85 students pursuing doctorates in the English department; 58 (or 68%) are
women and 27 (or 32%) are men. There are two female students for every male student.
The faculty are evenly split along gender lines; 20 are men and 20 are women. These
differences in composition between the student and faculty body confirm national trends
that point to “a leaky pipeline” for women (Ferber, 2003). Though women may earn the
majority of degrees, a variety of factors lead them to forego academic positions at
research institutions in favor of other employment.
Along with men’s minority status among the student body, the curriculum also
shapes students’ experiences within the department. Earlier I discussed the way in which
the curriculum shapes socialization by encouraging students to develop particular skills.
However, it also privileges particular bodies of knowledge such as gender theory and
queer theory. Their exposure to such courses leads men to engage in self-reflection,
changing their discussions from a focus on women to a focus on introspection.
In part, the introduction of queer theory can be attributed to the changing focus of
English as a discipline. There are some in the field who continue to study English as
literature while others have shifted their focus to broadening the definition of texts. This
difference is apparent at Metro U. Jim, a professor, explained the division:
To be very simplistic, there are sort of two things that are going on in the field.
There’s the old sort of historically-based area period studies. So it’s about
English literature… And then on the other side, there’s the whole series of
theoretical and political commitments to identity politics, for instance, of various
kinds, to other kinds of politics, to theoretical perspectives, which largely end up
171
being political as well. And there tend to be frictions between those two sides,
both here and everywhere else.

Until a decade ago, faculty in Metro U’s English department primarily focused on
historically-based period studies and literature as text. The department has gradually
shifted its focus. Five years ago, the department underwent a spate of senior hires,
bringing in primarily faculty who employ cultural studies. Their influx shifted the
balance of the power in the department so that, today, about half of the faculty in the
department study traditional literature while the others use cultural studies.
This division within the faculty is reflected among the students as well. Just as
the new faculty hires tend to be predominantly in the cultural studies group, so are the
new students. In the 2007 entering class, only one student employs traditional literary
studies while the rest use cultural studies and gender studies. In contrast, more senior
students tend to take a traditional literary approach. Of the 20 students I interviewed, 7
use cultural studies approaches while 13 use traditional literary approaches. All students
in their fifth year and beyond (7 of the 20) use traditional literary approaches. Of the
seven who use cultural studies approaches, five identify as queer, which suggests a
correlation between sexuality/political identity and focus of study.
Culture
The structural elements I highlighted above—men’s presence in the discipline and
the divergent foci in the study of English—help create a culture that leads to ambiguity,
both in the purpose of the discipline as well as the role of men within it. Whereas the
structures in AME create a culture defined by hierarchy and an objectification of women,
172
the structures of English lead to a discipline without clear boundaries about what
constitutes English itself. While AME is defined by divisions between men and women,
English is segmented primarily by sexual/political identity. Students who identify as
queer segregate themselves from the heterosexual men and women. These segregations
by scholarly interest lead to segregation between social groups as well. Whereas AME is
characterized by clarity in professional and gender roles, English students must grapple
with far more ambiguity. In this section, I discuss the disagreements about the future of
English as a discipline, the blurring of boundaries between professor and student, and the
ambiguities and confusion about what passes as acceptable male behavior.
Ambiguity in the Discipline
As I have suggested, both faculty and students are split as to the future of the
discipline. These disagreements have implications for the ways in which students relate
with faculty and each other along with definitions of gender appropriate behavior. Newer
traditions in English are characterized both by the use of critical theories and by
broadening the definition of literary studies. As Nathan explained, “I have a real
investment in complicating what constitutes a text that we can read.” However, cultural
studies does not simply involve changing the definition of literature. Rather, as Joe
detailed, their approach to scholarship recognizes that identity cannot be divorced from
politics.
How can we talk about Shakespeare anymore without talking about race and the
fact that Othello’s Black? How can you talk about Machiavelli or Locke, without
talking about the fact that Locke was anti-slavery? …How can you talk about any
type of literature… “Go West, young man!” without suggesting that that is
problematic because, in order to go west, I mean that’s Manifest Destiny, it’s
expansionism. You know what I mean? It encroaches on this whole part that is
173
now the United States that was once another country…So, yeah. I guess I am one
of those people who study literature and suggest it isn’t possible to divorce the
two—identity politics or identity and politics and literature.

Those who employ cultural studies approaches typically broaden the definition of a text
to include new media while drawing upon multiple fields to inform their work.
Not all students in the department share the queer community’s passion for
cultural studies. Often, students from the two factions butt heads. Joe explained that the
queer community tends to have problems with those who do not share their politics—
both White heterosexual men and normative heterosexual women. While typically
students from each camp take different types of classes, they occasionally find
themselves in the same class and get into heated debates. Emily and Meredith, students
who represent the literary and cultural studies groups, describe conflicts in the classroom:
Emily: There were just like conflicts between especially one or two, well one kind
of more conservative students and then two really much more—it’s not exactly
liberal, because I feel like, in grad school, everybody’s pretty liberal—kind of
cultural studies people, like queer studies. And, I don’t know, for some reason,
rather than just kind of letting everyone have their own opinion and go their own
way, I think the more liberal-minded students felt the need to convince the other
person that she was wrong or just attack her. It was kind of ugly at times.

Meredith: I’ve also seen this play out in the classroom as well where White
students, particularly White male students attached to a certain kind of canonical
way of studying literature, have been very aggressive in asserting a certain
viewpoint and really challenged other students in the room who are expressing a
more expansive understanding of what it has to do with literary studies.

Students like Emily get weary of hearing the cultural studies students rehearse the same
arguments. However, the cultural studies students feel that they are being marginalized
by those who take more traditional approaches to literature, which typically are White
174
heterosexual men. There is hostility and a perception among the queer community that
the White heterosexual men represent a threat to their scholarship and to the future of
cultural studies within English departments.
Just as cultural studies students are disdainful of those who use traditional literary
approaches, the literary scholars suggested that cultural studies might be weakening the
discipline. Buck is particularly skeptical of the cultural studies’ definition of literature.
He discussed the shift he observed since enrolling eight years ago. “I think the
department’s just gone where anything under the sun can be about English. I don’t
necessarily believe that the back of a cereal box from 1930 comparing that to a T.S. Eliot
poem has as much validity as many critics would. Oh God, I sound like a snobby elite.
Well cereal box, that’s absurd. There are people who do crap like that. It’s just nuts.”
Buck told me that he prefers to read scholarly articles about Hawthorne short stories
rather than “high-brow, theoretical” texts.
Although Metro U’s department is frequently lauded for its interdisciplinarity, not
all necessarily see it as a strength. Scott fears that newer students are simply indulging
themselves by studying obscure topics. Although students may be well-versed in a
particular niche area, he fears that they will not be desirable candidates on the job market
or able to fulfill the basic functions of teaching in an English department. He cited
debate within the literary community to make his point:
There’s a recent editorial by Marjorie Perloff in the newest edition of PMLA
where she’s talking about this very issue and she knows grad students who are
well-versed in interdisciplinarity, but couldn’t tell you what an iamb looks like or
a dactyl or what a troche is or what an enjambment is…They couldn’t identify or
speak, if you will, the fundamental language of our discourse. So I think we’re so
kind of pulling away from what’s crucial and fundamental and the biggest
175
oversight then is that the people that get Ph.Ds at Metro U., if they’re going to get
jobs at all, are going to be teaching the canon at state universities, where they
don’t give a fuck about your weird interdisciplinary interests. They want you to
teach the canon. So, it seems like there should be a little bit more interest here on
what we’re really being trained to do.

As Scott suggests, students who are going to be teaching the canon should have an
understanding of the fundamentals of the discipline. However, some students are pushing
the boundaries of English as a discipline. Although some in the community may reject
cultural studies, others argue that they can use such an approach to teach literature in new
ways. These ideological divisions translate into differences among students in their
understandings of masculinities and the challenges they experience to their identities as
men in a female-dominated discipline.
Ambiguity in Professional Roles and Relations
This ambiguity in the direction of the discipline translates to an ambiguity in
distinctions between faculty and student. As I elaborate in Chapter 5, such ambiguity has
implications both for socialization and to the construction of students’ gender identities.
While AME students are excluded from departmental governance, English students
recently played a significant role in changing the department’s screening exam. As
Olivia, the graduate programs advisor, explained, the department values student opinion.
“We try to get them involved as much as possible with the graduate program to give them
the voice which they deserve, obviously. If you’re a graduate student, you want to have a
little bit of say so of what goes, in terms of making policy.” With the support of a few
key faculty, Graduate Committee representatives Aaron and Meredith mobilized students
to push for a change in the screening exam procedures. Meredith explained, “Aaron and
176
I put together a petition that we sent out on the listserv. I think we managed to get about
fifty signatures which, again, getting that many in English-just to show how the students
supported this. And I think that made a difference.” The combination of faculty and
student support ultimately pushed the changes through. However, students paid a penalty
for their activism. The year following the changes to the exam, students lost their
privileges to sit in on Graduate Committee meetings. While the department may adopt a
rhetoric that encourages student participation, conflict remains among the faculty as not
all welcome input from students. Despite this setback, students are given a voice to
shape the trajectory of the department, thereby influencing the experiences of students for
years to come.
For some professors, this ambiguity in roles also extends to social settings. While
most faculty limit their social interactions to on-campus or course-related activities,
Sophie, a junior faculty member, frequently socializes with her students. A faculty
member who works primarily in cultural studies, she teaches her students about the
importance of breaking down boundaries between academic and personal life. To that
end, she organized a trip to a karaoke bar last year. The students continue to go to
karaoke several times a month and often invite Sophie to join them. Unlike most of the
other professors in the department, Sophie wants to form more personal relationships
with graduate students. She also encourages them to maintain balance in their lives.
Kathy explained,
She really feels like that those of us who are doing queer studies, it’s important
for us to go out and hang out with each other and go to queer bars…She’s very
interested in the interaction between scholarship and people living their lives in an
everydayness, that’s necessary, both to think about and live through. You can’t
177
just live in a bubble, you know?... There’s kind of an intimacy about the
relationship she’s created, both between each of the students she’s working with-
one-on-one-but also being like you guys, you understand you fit together as a
group.

Sophie has tried to form a sense of community among her advisees and others
who identify as queer. She encourages her students—both male and female—to
challenge the conventions of scholarship. In addition to encouraging discussion at queer
bars, she pushes her students to resist academic discourse and to reach audiences through
alternative channels, such as blogging. While the queer students rally around Sophie, not
all students have the same experience. Although Sophie’s efforts bring a group of like-
minded scholars together, the majority of students in the department are excluded. As I
discuss later, these differences between students spark conflict inside and outside the
classroom.
Ambiguity in Gender Roles and Relations
Male participants suggested that they do not fit the norms of the ideal man in U.S.
society, describing themselves as “bookish”, “intelligent”, and “not fit for a 9 to 5.”
While the majority of students share similar traits, many pointed to Ian, a student in the
department whose behavior and masculinity differs dramatically from the norm in the
department. One student described Ian’s adherence to a fitness routine: “There’s one
that, I said almost seems like a caricature. He definitely kind of toes the line. He’s very
much a-he’s a bodybuilder. He definitely shows up with sleeveless shirts to seminar and
obviously spends a lot of time working out and lifting weights and that sort of thing.”
Other students commented that they felt Ian was condescending and was particularly
178
skeptical of cultural studies. Ian, for his part, recognizes that he is different from his
peers in the department.
I think I am having a different kind of experience than some people, only because
I really am-I’m pretty much representative of the kind of majority that people in
the English department are rebelling against. I’m the White guy with blue eyes
and blonde hair who has historically been the oppressor. I’m basically the very
image, the poster boy of oppression, you know? On top of it, I care about fitness
and I care about a certain masculine image and I tend to be kind of conservative
anyway.

Though many of the other men in the department are White, Ian attributes some of his
difficulties in the department to his race. However, as he also points out, his political
values along with his penchant for body-building also distinguish him from his peers.
Just as many of the men are skeptical of Ian, so is he similarly dismissive of his
peers’ behavior:
They’re just kind of feminine, you know. They’re just more feminine. I don’t
even think that’s the right term. But they’re not-they’re not sort of rough and
ready sort of tough guys or anything. Some guy who likes to listen to soft music
and, I don’t know, God only knows. They certainly don’t go to NASCAR races
or drink beer out of a can or fart in public or something. Not that those are the
things that define masculinity of course, but I think you get the idea.

Ian’s description does not differ from the ways in which the majority of other men in the
department might describe themselves. They recognize that they differ from societal
norms for masculinity, a fact which is compounded by their choice of discipline.
Although Ian suggested that most of his peers in the department do not engage in
masculine behaviors, many of the other students pointed to ways in which men tried to
embody a particular type of masculinity. A small group of students gathers on a regular
basis to watch Metro U’s football games on TV. Christopher described his experiences:
179
“That’s one thing that is surprising that I managed to find a group of guys that will get
together at someone’s house, whoever has the largest flat screen TV. Watch college
football, drink beer, whatever, in this very sort of hypermasculine sort of way. It’s like,
Huh, this is not what I sort of envisioned [about graduate school].” Christopher later
added that though he talks about sports with these friends, he is also just as likely to talk
about books.
For Kathy, however, these football parties are not as hypermasculine as
Christopher suggests. “I’ve been to these social events where we watch football. It’s a
very quiet affair.” Laughing, she continued:
You know, the conversation can easily go somewhere else that’s more
intellectual. It’s not like it was watching football with my dad. Like it’s
different. I guess maybe sometime there’s been shouting, but it just doesn’t
seem—they would never like—Okay, so once they did go outside and throw the
football around, but I was like, “That’s really weird. Do they even know how to
throw a football?” Maybe it’s just my picture of them is not really being, I don’t
know, I would never call them if my sink broke or something—to be totally
gender stereotypical.

Although the men in the department occasionally engage in stereotypically masculine
behaviors, both the men and women suggest that such behaviors are only a part of their
identities—and contradict the image of the English graduate student.
Whereas some of the straight men ostracize Ian for his hypermasculinity, many of
the queer students shun the straight men for similar displays of behavior. Kathy used to
go out to bars with Christopher and his friends, but she found that some political
divisions led her to decline invitations to do so. “That group has actually broken up a
little in the past several months, partially due to political differences,” Kathy explained.
180
“I sort of really distanced myself from them because I’m like, I don’t like the bullshit you
guys talk about when you’re out, is really offensive to me and I really don’t want to
support it.”
Instead of spending money to go out to bars, Kathy spends more time with other
queer students who use Nathan’s house as a base for their social life. Kathy explained:
Like Tuesday nights, a bunch of them do yoga together. Thursday nights, a few
of us get together to watch the movies for class. Wednesday nights, sometimes
people get together to watch America’s Next Top Model. I feel like there’s a lot
more home stuff and more attention to potential financial strains on people. It
sort of seemed—there was a certain crowd I was hanging out with for awhile—it
sort of seemed like we would go out and people would spend an awful lot of
money. And that creates a certain kind of dynamic when people go out and are
willing to spend tons of money. It’s different than like “Why don’t you come
over?” It’s a different type of invitation.

While the social life of many men in the department revolves around spending money at
bars, Kathy finds such outings unfulfilling—and financially prohibitive. Although Kathy
occasionally spends time with both the queer and the straight crowds, Duke confessed
that he knows few of the straight men in the department. “I really do spend significantly
less time with men in the program. And I always feel like, with the people that I do
know,” he continued, “masculinity isn’t the dominant trend in terms of their gender.
There’s not necessarily a sense that that needs to be-that we need to exert masculinity in
any way.” Within the English department, there are two primary divisions among the
male students. Some of the queer students actively reject gender and masculine displays
of behavior while their straight counterparts struggle to find a balance between their
academic and gender identities.
181
The culture of the English department is one the revolves around ambiguity—
ambiguity in the types of behaviors expected of male students, ambiguities as to the role
of students in the department, and even ambiguity in the future of English as a discipline.
Such ambiguity results in more freedom for students to assume a range of behaviors, but
also confusion about what is needed for success. However, as students’ ostracism of Ian
suggests, there are some limits about what constitutes acceptable male behavior. Unlike
AME, the culture of the English department is not one that privileges masculinity. Due
to their low numbers in the discipline along with their exposure to queer theory, many of
the men grapple with what it means to be a man in a feminized discipline.
Cole: Focused on Gender, but Concerned About Masculinity
In his eighth year in the program, Cole is one of the more senior students in the
department. Cole began his Ph.D. in his late twenties, after spending five years teaching
English in a private high school. He is a stark contrast to Duke, who is barely over 25.
Cole has dark brown curly hair that hits his shoulders; as we talked, he continually ran his
hands through it as he considered his responses. He spent his first six years teaching in
the Composition Program and one year as an instructor in the Honors Program. This
year, he received a fellowship and spends most of his time working on his dissertation at
home. He hopes to finish his dissertation in the next eighteen months as he intends to go
on the job market for the first time next year. He is willing to be on the job market for
multiple years, but, given the competition for academic positions, he has accepted that he
might need to look for an alternative career. Cole recently married and told me that he
worries about money. Even working as an adjunct faculty member at a community
182
college or a teaching college, as many of his peers do for several years, holds little appeal
for him as he is concerned with making enough money to contribute to the household
income. “That’s just hard,” he said. “Being an adjunct, in some ways, especially if
you’ve got a couple of different jobs, it’s like being a grad student. You know, you’re
neither here nor there. And that’s hard.” Like many of his older peers, Cole feels that his
status as a graduate student challenges his identity as a man.
When Cole first came to Metro U., he planned to work on issues of cinema and
sexuality. At the time, the department had less of a focus on such issues and he found
himself pushed to study more literary texts. He found his niche in Renaissance studies
working with a chair who he feels takes a more contemporary approach to literature.
Like many of the older students, Cole knows few of the students who are still in
coursework. His social circle is composed of students who are in his entering class, or in
the surrounding years. He belongs to a dissertation writing group with three women, but
spends the most time with Buck, a friend from his entering class. While his discussions
with the writing group are mostly academic, he and Buck talk about more personal topics
including sex and their experiences as male graduate students in a large city and its
impact on their dating and feelings of self-worth.
Reflective Identity
Whereas the men in AME do not give much thought to their gender identities, the
men in English are confronted with the issue on a more frequent basis. Although many
of the men pursue traditional literary scholarship, all were exposed to gender studies
through their coursework. Some of the male students work in queer studies, which led
183
them to question the notion of gender altogether. While masculinity was not a concern
for all students in the department, a majority expressed concern over their identities and
the challenges they face as men pursuing a traditionally feminine degree. In particular,
men grappled with the lack of money that comes from being a graduate student and
implications for their future.
The students who expressed the greatest identity conflict tended to be those who
were more advanced in the program and those who began the program at a later age.
Duke, a second year studying gender and sexuality, did not experience a challenge to his
masculinity and questioned the existence of such categories. “I personally see
masculinity and femininity as problematic,” Duke told me, “because it divides. I feel like
people can be whatever they are and maybe it fits into definitions of masculinity or
femininity that some people have, but I also feel like it’s so, I don’t know—it’s so risky
because you always fall into the trap of, for example, saying that people who are overly
emotional are feminine. I think it is really problematic.” While students in AME did not
like to think about differences between men and women, Duke also rejects distinctions
between masculinity and femininity, but in the process, problematizes gender.
Due to his theoretical orientation, unlike his older peers, Duke did not experience
the same type of challenge to his masculinity. When I asked him if the length of time it
takes to earn a degree in the program might challenge his masculinity, he responded:
I guess it would be a challenge if people were invested in it, like really deeply
invested in it. I, for one, don’t necessarily feel like it’s a challenge. I’m here—
I’m totally here because I don’t care about the money. I turned down jobs for
money, but that had to do with things that I really just didn’t want to do. And so
I’m really here because this is what I want to do. And so money is kind of a
184
secondary issue and I don’t necessarily have any kind of investment in wanting to
be a breadwinner in the first place.

In contrast to Duke, more advanced and older students pointed to a conflict between their
statuses as men and their statuses as doctoral students in English. In particular, they
highlighted societal expectations that English is a feminine discipline and the struggle
they face with not earning a sizable income for eight to ten years as a graduate student
along with the possibility of not securing a well-paying position upon graduation.
Although Duke specializes in gender studies, all students in the department were
introduced to gender and queer theory, which caused many of them to reflect on their
own identities.
The Curriculum and Masculinity
When the faculty instituted English 200 eight years ago, they did so with the
intention of introducing students to the major debates and theoretical trends in the field.
As I’ve discussed, the discipline has shifted over the past two decades to focus on more
theoretical issues and consider questions of race, gender, and sexuality. Male students—
even those who prefer to take a canonical approach to the study of English—learn about
gender studies. Although some of the women felt that men were resistant to some of the
ideas presented, the texts encouraged some to reflect on their own masculinity. Vincent
described his experience in the introductory seminar. “The 200 was interesting because it
was being taught by two lesbians. In that sense, it was my first introduction to really
gender studies in a sense because as a medievalist, you don’t do a lot of work in gender
studies.” However, Vincent did not find this class to be a particularly welcoming space.
185
A lot of their work deals with the idea of lesbianism and radicalism and stuff like
that. What gender is. What gender isn’t. So obviously, as a man, you’re going to
feel, there’s going to be a certain amount of tension, when the question or idea of
masculinity or what masculinity is. It’s interesting… Some of the stuff, yeah it’s
really interesting and it’s great. I accept it. Some of the stuff, I say, it’s complete
bullshit. But it’s interesting nonetheless.

He further described instances when he felt like the professors misconstrued some of his
statements as being chauvinistic. Though he does not necessarily find gender theory to
be relevant, Vincent acknowledged that he learned in the class. When I asked him
whether he thought men and women have different experiences in the department, he
answered, “Sure. I think males and females have different experiences in the world,
right. If you learn anything in gender studies, you learn that, right. The formation of
your subjectivity is predicated on your biological gender.” Although Vincent embodied a
particular type of masculinity—and not one that embraced gender or queer theory—his
coursework forced him to think about issues of gender, which in turn shaped his
experiences in the department.
Other students also commented on the ways in which their masculinities were
challenged. Scott, a senior student in the program, comes from a working class
background and held a series of blue collar jobs before beginning his undergraduate
career. He described two distinct sets of friends: one set from the English department
who share similar academic experiences and the other with working class roots who
embody a particular form of masculinity. Ultimately, Scott found that his experience in
the program was enlightening in terms of thinking about gender, but challenging at the
same time.
186
I think strictly in terms of gender, going to graduate school is a colossal mistake
for men, if they’re invested in their identity as men. Because by the time you’re
done with it, if you’re really invested in that identity of masculinity, it’s stripped
away. And that’s not because anyone is attacking it. If you’re thinking about
yourself, if you’re at all, as a result of engaging with different ideas, sort of
applying them to yourself and sort of critiquing your own assumptions, it’s
inevitable that by the time you finish, you will have fully disconnected from that.
So there really is no room for an investment in that kind of feeling sort of
masculine or successful, in a kind of male way.

Like Vincent, Scott also engaged with ideas that caused him to question his assumptions
and identity. Working through literary texts and critiques led him to reflect on his life.
Though the majority of men in the department may not specialize in gender studies, the
nature of the discipline forces students to confront issues of identity in ways that does not
occur in AME. However, men face more challenges to their identity than simply from
the curriculum in the program. Many also report facing stigma from society at large
about who belongs in English.
Literature as Not Masculine
Seven of the men commented on the fact that literature is not associated with
typical images of the average man. Horace described men in the department as “tending
to be more soft and introspective and less aggressive.” Cole commented that “there’s a
lot of feminizing to spending lots of time with books and writing.” Buck told me that he
faced skepticism from the father of an ex-girlfriend due to his study of English. “My last
girlfriend, her dad wasn’t too hip to the fact that I was an academic…There are jobs that
are seen as more manly. Maybe this has always been the case, right? Poets in the 1900s
were considered not masculine by most laymen, right? People who don’t use their
hands—well I use my hands—manual labor isn’t part of what I do.”
187
Peter, who experienced a conflict between being active and engaged and being an
academic, echoed this notion of manual labor. He described societal expectations of
men. “I definitely think that there is a prejudice against frivolity and idleness on the part
of men,” he said. “I think that U.S. society, for reasons good and ill, sort of looks
askance at a guy, a man, who is engaged in anything professionally that is sort of, that
could be deemed frivolous.” Peter felt that academia contains its own share of idleness.
He explained:
It feels strange sometimes to be in academia as a man. Only because, there’s
something remote and disengaged about the whole enterprise, being an academic.
And sometimes that feels, doesn’t feel right to be remote and disengaged. I’ve
talked about this with male friends and it sometimes feels, in a certain way,
contrary to certain impulses of mine, to be more engaged, to be more hands-on, to
be less detached and circumspect…So that sometimes produces a certain feeling
of awkwardness and a certain feeling of, a certain questioning on my part of
whether this is suitable for me and whether I might be happier doing something
else.

Ultimately Peter decided that he would be happier doing something else and left the
program at Metro U. When telling me about his decision to leave, he shared that he felt
very much alone in these opinions and, in some respects, like a failure to caving into
them. However, Peter is not alone. Many other men expressed the same concerns over
their decisions to pursue a career in English, though few shared those concerns with each
other.
Although many of the men felt that society looked down upon them for being in a
feminized field, Kathy was quick to point out that labeling the field as such is misleading.
She explained, “it’s sort of weird that it’s been constructed as a feminine discipline
considering the history of the discipline and the actual institutional power relations within
188
the discipline. But I think that it is seen as the English major is a girl’s major and I think
that’s something.” A quick look at the national survey data confirms Kathy’s claims.
Although women account for the majority of the students in the department and half of
all faculty, national trends suggest that such changes are relatively recent. Although in
2003, women accounted for 41% of all humanities faculty at four-year institutions, they
accounted for just 26% of faculty in 1987 (NSOPF, 2004). As Kathy suggested,
stereotypes of English as a woman’s discipline are not entirely deserved.
Within Metro U.’s department, male faculty occupy the positions of leadership—
one serves as the chair of the department, another as the director of graduate studies, and
the third as director of admissions. Despite their positions in the hierarchy, some men
still internalized messages from society about the lack of worth associated with pursuing
literature. As far as one faculty member was concerned, their position in the numerical
minority leads her male colleagues to belittle cultural studies and other new ways of
thinking about literature. She fears that these faculty members are socializing a new
generation of conservative male scholars.
These guys are defensive about why they might be in an English program and that
sets the stage for them to become these assholes later on because they’ve
defended what they do their whole lives against the charge that this is not a very
manly sort of pursuit to be reading literature and sitting around thinking about
poetry and so on. I think it’s a bit of a defense formation that they then become
the gatekeepers of the field.

This professor is dubious of the worth of traditional literary studies as she equates it with
domination and hegemonic power. However, just as she is concerned that the department
creates an unwelcoming space for those studying cultural studies, she creates an
189
unwelcoming space for those who prefer more traditional modes of scholarship. As
Vincent told me, she frequently talks about her disinterest in teaching undergraduate
“fraternity boys” and listening to their “stupid ideas”. In some respects, men in the
department are forming a defensive masculinity against the criticism they receive from
their own professors and peers.
Masculinity, Status, and Money
Although all of the students enjoyed their work in the program, they reflected
upon the ways in which being a graduate student for a long period of time had a negative
impact on their identities as men. They focused on their lack of money and the fact that
their jobs do not conform to the norm for most in society. Some of the men’s concern
over lack of income was tied up with notions of supporting a female partner. Cole
discussed the relationship between income and identity:
Having just been married, I feel like, part of me is like, well you know, I’d like to
go get a job, and have a job and make some regular income, have a place and
have some responsibilities and some whole or complete persona, identity,
responsibility versus this kind of nebulous, transient, intermediary, weird
graduate student phenomenon, to live my life and to be…Those things weigh
heavily. You spend eight years in this weird shadow state. You can’t help but
not like morph a little and just struggle with that, I guess. Because you are in this
nebulous in between. I’m not this and I’m not that. I’m a graduate student.

Cole commented that he is in a prolonged, transitory state. Though he works as an
instructor, he is still a student. He performs work that is not easily categorized and is
unlike that of most others in society. Christopher similarly reflected on the challenges of
being an older male graduate student. “There’s definitely the feeling sometimes that this
whole project of being in school into your late twenties, thirties, etcetera is sort of
190
infantilizing. I earn a stipend. I can support myself for the most part. But it’s not that
model of: I am an adult. I go to work.” He continued:
But I think if you get bogged down in the idea of this being a grad student, it
certainly is infantilizing and also emasculating in a certain way. So, one thing
that I’ve sort of thought about this consciously is the idea of the 9 to 5, when all
my neighbors go to work in the morning and I’m sitting there, in my pajamas at
10 am at my computer—I’m working. I’m working, mind you, but it’s sort of a
different feel. I can go grocery shopping on Tuesday at 1 in the afternoon, right,
because I don’t teach that day and that’s fine and then I may be, on Sunday,
grading papers all day. And it’s sort of this off-peak living that, it sometimes
make you feel like you’re not part of that adult working world, which who really
wants to be part of that?

The English Ph.D. students have a great deal of flexibility in how they structure their
days. As Christopher notes, he works in his pajamas in the morning and can go grocery
shopping on a weekday afternoon. The tradeoff is that he might spend his weekends
grading. For Christopher and others, this notion of “off-peak living” gets translated into
being emasculating, as if he is not part of the working world, instead having more in
common with stay-at-home moms.
Many of the men discussed the pressures they face as financial providers. Cole
was particularly concerned about contributing to the household income. Other students
mentioned that their girlfriends and wives were financially supporting them as they finish
the programs. Part of Peter’s decision to leave the graduate program was related to the
lack of income associated with his graduate student stipend and the corresponding lack of
guarantee of a well-paying position upon graduation. Currently single, he spoke about
wanting to get married and start a family, but felt that he could not do so on a graduate
student’s stipend.
191
As a man, and especially as a guy well into his thirties, I did have issues with
making a subsistence income, even though I knew it was only temporary. But I
think the combination of making a subsistence income for really an unspecified
period of time—some time between five or ten years or something like that—and
the prospect of facing a very tough job market really did challenge my identity. It
was something really anxiety-making for me about being a man and having
trouble supporting one’s self, much less having capacity to support others. And
especially as someone who does want to get married and have children before I’m
50…I suspect I would have had a much less conflicted time in graduate school if I
were 25 because you know, when you’re a 25-year old guy, you can still sort of
float and still experiment, not that you can’t when you’re 37. I feel the looming
quality of time.

For Peter, the structure of the program—the length of time to degree in the department
and the low stipend—led him to abandon English as a discipline and further academic
study. As he told me, he thought that he might have made a different decision had he
started the program at a younger age. However, students who began the program in their
mid-twenties, like Christopher, revealed similar anxieties about the way in which society
views men in a feminized field.
There is not an archetype for students in the English department. Although some
men expressed concern over their masculinities, others questioned the existence of gender
categories. Given how long students take to earn their degrees, one might expect that
there would be major shifts in the department. Currently, students in the department are
split in two ways: the more senior students tend to have entered the program at an older
age and take more traditional approaches to literary study whereas the junior students
began in their early twenties and prefer a cultural studies approach to texts. This
difference in theoretical lens shapes students’ experiences in the department, particularly
192
those surrounding issues of masculinity. Due to these differences, students have
disparate experiences in the program and are prepared in different ways for faculty life.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I painted a portrait of the experiences of students in the AME and
English departments. Although both sets of students are in doctoral programs, their
preparation and training varies tremendously. AME students are prepared to be
researchers while English students spend the majority of their time teaching, which
hampers their progress on their dissertations. AME students spend most of their days
working in their labs; English students spend their time meeting with students in cafes or
working off-campus. Students in each department end up with very different
relationships to their department and to the project of being an academic.
Of course, there are similarities between the two departments. All students
undergo similar stages of socialization. All learn about their major long before they
enroll in graduate school and, for many, before they enroll in their undergraduate
programs. Once in their programs, through interacting with faculty and peers, students
learn about what it means to be a successful scholar in their discipline. As students in
both departments demonstrated, socialization is not a one-way process; rather, students
can play a critical role in shaping the department and the experiences of those who come
after them.
Just as there are differences between those who choose to major in each field, so
are there differences between the gender identities of students in each department. As the
majority, men in AME rarely think about issues of gender, except insofar as to comment
193
upon the lack of available women to date. The department itself sanctions a particular
type of masculinity by encouraging students to compete with one another to be at the top
of the hierarchy. Men in English are frequently challenged to think about their
masculinities—both through the curriculum and through their experiences as men in a
feminized field.
As the experiences of students in AME and English illustrate, socialization occurs
in response to institutional structures and through interactions with faculty and peers.
Gender in each department followed a similar framework—structure, culture, and
reflective identity—but the ways in which those frameworks were enunciated differed.
AME is a discipline characterized by clarity—in the future of the discipline, in
professional roles and relations, and gender roles and relations. In contrast, English is
characterized by ambiguity across categories. The final chapter considers these contrasts
between the two departments and returns to the research questions that guide this
dissertation to consider the relationship between socialization, discipline, and
masculinities.
194
CHAPTER 5
GENDERED SOCIALIZATION
As I did with most of the engineers, Herman and I met in the café at Burke Hall.
While we waited in line to buy coffee, Herman asked me to explain my study to him.
“Well,” I started, “I’m comparing the experiences of men in English and AME.” “You
know those guys in English,” Herman interrupted, “they go in like us and come out
looking like Jesus.” I laughed, but his comment stayed with me.
Men in English and AME differ in a variety of ways, including, as Herman
pointed out, physically. While many of the men in AME keep their hair cropped close to
their head and wear t-shirts and jeans, men in English adopt different guidelines for their
dress. The differences translate beyond mere appearance. The socialization process in
each discipline privileges different skills and values, including those associated with
gender. I begin this chapter with a brief review of the literature that informed this study
before returning to the stories presented in Chapter 4. I consider the ways in which my
findings confirm the existing literature as well as inform new areas of knowledge. I then
return to the four research questions that guide this study, considering each in turn. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of limitations and implications for future research.
A Brief Return to the Literature
I have examined the experiences of male graduate students in two disciplines to
explore how the norms of a discipline might be gendered. I drew upon theories of
socialization and gender performance, and considered the ways in which each might
inform the other. Socialization is the process through which individuals learn the
195
necessary behaviors and skills to fulfill new roles (Van Maanen, 1976; Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979). Scholars generally contend that individuals progress through three
different stages (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). With
doctoral student socialization, anticipatory socialization occurs before a student begins
graduate school. Students begin to learn about doctoral student life, through interactions
with professors in their undergraduate programs as well as friends and family outside the
university. Entry to the organization begins upon first contact and during a student’s
initial years of enrollment. Through interactions with faculty and peers, students begin to
acquire the skills necessary to succeed in the academy. In this stage, students also
evaluate degree of fit, comparing their expectations of graduate school with their
experiences. In the final stage, which I have termed Commitment to the organization,
students continue to build and refine the skills needed for success. Some scholars
(Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001) argue that students must abandon previous values that
conflict with those of the organization. Such a requirement limits the type of student who
will succeed in a discipline. In sum, through interactions with faculty and peers, students
acquire the skills and associated norms and values to succeed in a discipline.
Although many scholars (Austin, 2002; Golde & Dore, 2001; Mendoza, 2007)
have examined socialization to graduate student and faculty roles, few have examined the
role gender plays in the process. I utilized a gender lens at both an institutional and an
individual level. At the institutional level, I drew upon literature that examines the
gendering of organizations. Britton (2000) suggests that organizations are typically
thought of as gendered in three ways. Organizations might be gendered to the degree to
196
which there is a distinction between masculinity and femininity, and the tasks that men
and women are expected to perform. Second, organizations might be gendered to the
degree to which they are dominated by men, as AME is, or women, as English is.
Finally, organizations might be gendered to the degree to which they utilize a discourse
that draws upon hegemonically-defined masculinities. In other words, how does the
organization’s culture privilege particular norms and gendered identities? Theories of
gender performance help answer this question.
Theories of gender performance maintain that gender is created in interaction with
others. West and Zimmerman (1987) outline three features of the performance of gender.
First, gender is dependent on context. Different masculinities and different femininities
are enacted in different situations. My portraits have illustrated the ways in which men in
AME and English draw upon different characteristics to craft their masculine identities.
Second, gender is a collective creation. Gender is not something that inheres in the
individual, but rather gender is collectively created through interaction with others.
Through these interactions, individuals typically strive to produce gender-appropriate
behavior. Such a requirement forces those who might not agree with certain behaviors to
enact them, lest they be accused of violating gender norms. In concert, these elements
help explain how gender can become engrained in disciplinary culture.
Combined, theories of socialization and gender performance help explain the
gendered nature of socialization. The theories complement each other as socialization
and performance each occur in response to structures and interactions. Socialization
takes place through interactions with faculty and peers and in response to the structures of
197
a discipline, such as the type of preparation students receive. Similarly, gender is also
dependent on structures and interactions. In Chapter 2, I proposed introducing gender
performance into socialization models to help explain how socialization to particular
disciplines might be gendered. I return to this model later in this chapter, but now revisit
the stories of the students who informed this dissertation.
A Return to AME and English
The portraits in Chapter 4 demonstrate that students in AME and English are
prepared for careers in each discipline, albeit in different ways. All progress through the
same stages of socialization while simultaneously being socialized into the gendered
culture of the discipline. Students in both disciplines discussed being drawn to pursue
undergraduate and graduate study due to pre-existing interests. In AME, Tim cited an
interest in working on cars as a teenager while nearly all of the English students cited a
passion for reading as children. Aaron and several other male English students were
warned against pursuing graduate study, as they might have difficulty securing funding as
men in a feminized discipline. None of the male engineers received similar counsel as
they were entering a field that has traditionally been dominated by men.
Once in their graduate programs, students continued to be socialized into the
norms of their respective disciplines. The faculty advisor plays a critical role in shaping
students’ progress, though the type and level of interaction with the advisor varies by
discipline. In part, this difference in level of interaction is related to students’
assistantships. English students receive their funding by working as writing instructors
for the Freshman Composition Program while most AME students work as research
198
assistants for their faculty advisor. AME faculty have a vested interest in guiding
students through their programs, taking more of a hands-on role with students. As Dr.
Webster explained, such direction includes defining the student’s thesis problem for
them. Students reported formally meeting with their advisors at least once a week,
though often interacted casually on a daily basis. Through these interactions, students
receive more direction in how to accomplish the day-to-day tasks associated with life in
the discipline. Students in English reported meeting with their advisors as often as every
other week to less than once a semester. Although the frequency of meetings increased
as students began work on their qualifying exams and dissertations, students do not have
natural opportunities to see their advisors as do their peers in AME.
The type of guidance that students in each discipline receive differs as well.
Students in English reported that their advisors serve two primary functions: providing
feedback on their writing and emotional support. Unlike faculty advisors in AME,
English professors were frequently noted for serving as sources of encouragement. AME
faculty simply expect students to get their work done, providing little attention to
students’ emotional needs. Although students in each discipline receive guidance in how
to accomplish the tasks required for faculty life, due to their work in labs, students in
AME receive more uniform training across the discipline. In contrast, English students’
socialization depends considerably on students’ level of initiative and their relationship
with their faculty advisor.
While the advisor plays a critical role, other professors play only a tangential role
in socialization. AME students reported rarely interacting with other faculty, outside of
199
the classroom or occasional conversations following department seminars. While
English students also do not seek out faculty for academic matters, they cited a number of
occasions in which they interacted with faculty in social venues, including department-
sponsored parties as well as events that individual professors organized. For example,
many professors invite students to their homes for a potluck on the last day of class.
Sophie, the junior faculty member, was particularly noted for organizing outings with her
students to karaoke bars.
Although students do not seek out professors for advice, many rely upon their
peers as they progress through their programs. However, students’ level of interaction
depends significantly upon discipline; engineering students interact with their peers on a
more frequent basis than their English counterparts. Given that most AME students
spend their days in the lab, they were able to look to their peers for guidance on a variety
of topics related to doctoral student life. Logan and Dan frequently brainstormed
together while Vanessa and Jenny collaborated on a research project. Though AME
students interact regularly, their interactions are primarily limited to other students in
their lab. Many of the students reported that they did not know other students in the
department and wished that the department would implement programs to introduce them
to their peers.
English students also look to their peers for guidance through the Ph.D. program.
While AME students interact with their peers on a regular basis, English students’
interactions are more haphazard. Just as interaction with the faculty advisor depends on
each student’s initiative, so too does engaging with peers. Some advanced students
200
reported forming writing groups to receive feedback on their dissertation. Others tried to
study together, though as Emily described in the previous chapter, such meetings are
rarely productive. By and large, the majority of English students’ interactions take place
on a purely social level. Students reported engaging in a wide range of activities,
including meeting for coffee or beers; playing sports together; going out to karaoke; and
watching TV. The types of roles that peers in each department fulfill mirror those of the
faculty advisor. Both the professor and peers in AME serve primarily to help students
develop as scholars. Through frequent interactions, students receive directed guidance in
how to acquire the skills necessary for academic success. In contrast, English students do
not interact with their professors or peers on a frequent basis, particularly in academic
contexts. While students listed a number of ways in which they interacted with peers in
social settings, such interactions did little to help them with their academic progress.
Interactions between multiple actors are critical in shaping students’ socialization
to the discipline as well as the production of privileged gender identities. To understand
the way in which gender is deployed in each discipline, I examined the structure, culture,
and reflective identity of students. With structure, I considered the gender breakdown of
each discipline. Eighty-nine percent of students in AME are men while only 32% of
English students are men. These gender disparities in each field shape disciplinary
culture.
Although culture might be studied in a variety of ways, I examined the future of
each discipline, professional roles and relations, and gender roles and relations. AME
might best be defined as having clarity in each of these areas while English struggles with
201
ambiguity across categories. There is little disagreement over the future of AME as a
discipline whereas English faculty and students constantly debate the issue. Over the past
several decades, two competing lines of inquiry have developed within English. The first
group of scholars continues to employ traditional literary scholarship while the second
group utilizes cultural studies approaches. The cultural studies scholars have widened the
definition of a text, examining not just traditional novels and plays, but also new forms of
media, such as films and the internet. This group of scholars is also more likely to utilize
gender theory and queer theory to inform their work. This divergence in method of
inquiry has led to in-fighting within the discipline, but more critically, uncertainty over
the future of the field. AME does not grapple with any such confusion. Although AME
faculty and students use one of three methods of inquiry (computation, theory, or
experimentation), many of the students reported collaborating with their peers in different
areas to strengthen their research.
There is a similar dichotomy within understandings of professional roles and
responsibilities. There are clear distinctions between faculty and student in AME.
Students conduct research for their faculty advisor. Although faculty complained that
students do not work enough and students complained that faculty had unreasonable
expectations, neither group questioned this division of labor. These distinctions
underscore the hierarchies at play within the department. Students occupy the bottom of
the hierarchy while the faculty fight amongst themselves to establish dominance over
each other. The division between English professor and student is less clear. In part, this
difference comes from students’ work as instructors for the Composition Program.
202
Rather than serving as teaching assistants and taking direction from faculty, students are
instructors with sole responsibility for their course. Delineations are also blurred within
the department. Several students serve on committees with faculty, thus having the
opportunity to shape the direction of the department. For some students, the line between
professor and student blurs even more outside the classroom as Sophie frequently
socializes with her students off-campus.
Just as faculty and students have differing relationships in each of the
departments, so too do men and women. There are clear guidelines that dictate the
expected behavior of men and women as well as the relationships between them in AME
whereas there is more ambiguity in English. Many of the men in AME reported making
dirty jokes and talking about topics with each other that they would not talk about with
their female peers. They perform particular behaviors for different groups of students.
Female students reported that they were occasionally treated differently and pursued
romantically by their male colleagues. Across campus in the English department, male
students assume an entirely different set of behaviors from their AME peers. Whereas
most male engineers adopt similar behaviors, there is a wider range of acceptable
behaviors among the English students. The majority of the heterosexual men are as
likely to watch football on TV as they are to read and discuss books. As Kathy
commented, even when her male classmates engage in stereotypically masculine
behaviors, she finds their performances unbelievable. Unlike the engineers, male
students in English do not readily embody the characteristics of traditional masculinity.
The queer students in English further segregate themselves from their heterosexual
203
classmates. Although they reject the notion of distinctions between genders, they
similarly reject any behavior which they deem overtly masculine. Rather than watching
football or going out to bars, these students often gather on a weekly basis to do yoga or
watch reality TV shows. These differences indicate that there is little agreement among
the men in the department as to acceptable types of behavior.
Many of the English students are aware that they do not embody typical notions
of masculinity; they spend considerable time thinking about the ways in which their
status as men in a feminized field serves to challenge their masculinity. Many reported
feeling conflicted about their choice to pursue a degree in English, having received
comments from those outside the academy that the discipline is best reserved for women.
Others, like Peter, remarked upon a dichotomy between hands-on work, which he
perceived as masculine, and the more cerebral work of the academic in the humanities.
AME students reported no such struggle with their choice of discipline and their gender
identities. Most of the students reported that they did not like to think about gender since
little difference exists between men and women.
Students in AME and English have different experiences in their doctoral
programs. Although all will graduate with Ph.D.s, the skills they must learn and the tasks
they must accomplish along the way vary tremendously. Each department emphasizes
different values throughout socialization. Students in AME are prepared primarily to be
researchers who are encouraged to compete with each other to reach the top of a
hierarchy. While English students are also encouraged to excel, there is less emphasis
placed upon outshining their peers. With this review of students’ experiences in mind, I
204
now consider the ways in which the literature both confirms and fails to account for my
findings.
Confirming and Building Upon the Literature
The portraits of the two departments echo much of the existing literature, yet also
highlight new areas unexplored by other scholars. The literature on socialization to new
organizational roles served as a foundation for this study, yet provided little explanation
for the ways in which gender affects and is affected by socialization.
Previous scholars (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Van Maanen, 1976; Weidman,
Twale, & Stein, 2001) have argued that new members to any organization progress
through a series of stages to become socialized to the norms and values of a new culture.
Although I did not focus on the changes within students as they progressed through their
programs, students’ experiences confirmed that different tasks were undertaken in each
stage. All students were first exposed to the norms of the discipline through their
undergraduate programs. Many of the AME students even completed their undergraduate
degrees at Metro U. and were therefore familiar with the disciplinary and departmental
cultures, thus facilitating a smooth transition to graduate life. Once on campus, students
in each department learned about the various tasks they needed to complete to earn their
degrees.
In Chapter 2, I outlined six dimensions around which organizations might
structure socialization: collective or individual; formal or informal; sequential or random;
fixed or variable; serial or disjunctive; or emphasize investiture or divestiture (Van
205
Maanen & Schein, 1979). These six dimensions listed in Table 12 illustrate the
similarities and differences of the socialization processes in AME and English.
Table 12: Dimensions of Socialization by Discipline
Dimension Description Example
Collective or
individual
Individuals are socialized
together or trained in isolation
English: Students take first
year course together
AME: Students take courses
with changing group of peers
Formal or informal Individuals undergo specific
socialization activities or are
trained “on the job”
English: All first-year students
take English 200
AME: Informal socialization in
the lab
Sequential or random Individuals do or do not
follow a specific set of steps
Both: Students must pass the
screening exam, qualifying
exam, and thesis/dissertation
defense
Fixed or variable Individuals do or do not have
a particular length of time to
complete their tasks
Both: Students have an average
time to degree, but it varies by
department
Serial or disjunctive Individuals are or are not
socialized by existing
members
Both: Students look to faculty
and senior students for support
AME: Few role models for
women
Investiture or
divestiture
Socialization builds upon or
dismantles individuals’
existing values
English: Curriculum teaches
students about gender
AME: Conflict between faculty
and students over work hours

Doctoral programs operate on similar schedules. Each spring, new students are
admitted to the program and typically begin their doctoral studies in the fall. Not all
departments provide further mechanisms to coordinate the experiences of students. AME
students have no department-sponsored collective socialization processes. Over the past
several years, the Engineering student group has sponsored yearly welcome events and
garnered faculty support for its efforts. The department administration is not directly
involved in welcome activities and takes no steps to create a sense of community among
206
students. In contrast, the English department engages in collective socialization by
sponsoring a welcome reception each fall for new students and mandating that all first-
year students take English 200. Through this course, the department has an opportunity
to shape students’ introduction to the discipline and the department. Such a course also
serves as an example of formal socialization. While AME does not offer any mechanisms
of formal socialization, students undergo informal socialization through interactions with
their advisor and other students in their labs. Students do not receive classroom training
on how to use the equipment in their labs or perform particular experiments. They look
to their peers and often conduct research on their own to learn the skills they need to
succeed.
Though the departments differ, there are similarities in the processes of
socialization. Students in AME and English undergo sequential socialization. Students
in each department must pass the screening exam, qualifying exam, and complete and
defend a thesis or dissertation to earn their doctorates. Students in AME and English also
undergo fixed socialization as they are expected to finish their degrees in a particular
period of time—five years for AME students and a range of eight to ten years for students
in English. In addition, students in both departments experience serial socialization,
looking to faculty and peers for guidance throughout their doctoral programs
Though each department seeks to impart new skills to students, they differ in the
degree to which students must relinquish their old values in order to succeed. As I
described in Chapter 4, faculty and students in AME disagree over the amount of time
students should work in their labs. Faculty contend that students must modify their work
207
ethic in order to succeed in science. Faculty and students in English face a similar
conflict over notions of gender. Through English 200 and other courses in the
department, all students learn about gender theory and how gender might be
deconstructed. For many of the men, this coursework seeks to divest them of their
previously held values about gender. Students in both disciplines are expected to acquire
the skills and adapt to the norms of each disciplinary culture. As I will elaborate later,
such a culture may create an environment hostile to those who are unwilling to adopt new
values in order to succeed.
In addition to illustrating the various processes of socialization, this study also
confirmed the important role that various actors played throughout socialization. As
Golde (2000; Golde & Dore, 2001) argues, the faculty advisor plays a critical role in
shaping students’ experiences. Students reported looking to their advisors to learn the
tasks they needed to succeed in academia. However, the literature fails to consider the
ways in which relationships between faculty and students differ by discipline. Most
studies provide a general overview of the socialization process, or do not make
comparisons between disciplines. The results of this study indicate that students in AME
and English form different types of relationships with their advisor, which affects their
integration into the field. Echoing past studies (Austin, 2002; Weidman & Stein, 2003),
the students in AME and English confirmed the important role that their peers play in
helping them learn how to succeed in the discipline. Like Weidman and Stein (2003)
who found that 85% of students engaged in intellectual conversation with their peers
versus 69% of students who engaged in similar conversations with their advisors,
208
students in each discipline reported seeing their peers more frequently than their advisors.
What the previous literature does not capture, however, is just how much time students
spend with their peers. AME students who work in labs spend eight to ten hours a day
with their classmates, working on experiments and engaging in casual banter. Although
most English students do not share an office with their peers, many reported spending
hours chatting with their classmates in Wright Café, instead of reading or working on
papers. While past studies have pointed to the roles that various actors play in the
socialization process, few have examined the depth and quality of those relationships.
Some scholars have suggested that students whose values differ from those of
their programs will have a difficult transition to doctoral student life (Antony, 2002;
Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 1994). The experiences of the male
English students highlight this trend. Many of the men struggled to come to terms with
their minority status in a feminized discipline. Some students, like Peter, left the program
because they found the identity conflict too great to handle. The vast majority of students
simply wrestled with the salience of gender as they progressed through graduate study.
While the men in AME do not think about gender to a great extent, many experienced
conflict with their advisors over a perceived lack of willingness to work long hours.
AME faculty maintained that their students needed to work more while the students
maintained that their effort was adequate. This disagreement is one that the students and
faculty continue to negotiate.
Although this study has confirmed some findings from existing literature, it also
has explored previously undeveloped areas. First, the study has addressed the ways in
209
which socialization differs by discipline. Most major surveys of socialization are
content-neutral; they simply seek to explain how students adjust to a new institution and
doctoral program. There is little consideration of the ways in which such a process might
differ by discipline. As the students’ experiences illustrate, discipline makes a difference.
Students in AME are trained to become different types of scholars than their peers in
English. They are trained to conduct research while English students predominantly
teach. This difference in preparation affects a variety of outcomes, including time-to-
degree, the frequency of interaction with others in the department, and the values
transmitted.
Previous literature has considered the ways in which organizations (Britton, 2000)
and organizational roles (Park, 1996; Tierney & Bensimon, 2000) are gendered.
However, there has been little discussion of how disciplines are gendered and, more
specifically, how socialization to a discipline is a gendered process. The portraits of the
two disciplines presented in Chapter 4 illustrate the differing norms of AME and English.
For example, AME’s culture tacitly accepts sexism and male students frequently
participate in bawdy conversations. The discipline also has established norms that
govern the types of behavior expected of professors and students. Graduate students in
the discipline are required to work long hours for their advisors. What I mean to suggest,
and will elaborate on below, is that both sets of values—overtly sexist conversations and
strict hierarchies between professor and student—contribute to a gendered disciplinary
culture. While more recent scholars have focused on the ways in which values get
210
transmitted through socialization (Mendoza, 2007), none have focused on the degree to
which such values convey particular messages about gender.
Finally, there has been little modification of existing models of socialization over
the past decade. While stage models demonstrate that students progress through varying
stages, acquiring various skills and accomplishing a range of tasks on their way to
becoming faculty, there has been little discussion of the ways in which these processes
differ by discipline or by gender. Models of socialization point to the importance of
interactions with key agents, but they do not consider the ways in which disciplinary
structures also shape the student experience. Drawing upon organizational theory and
theories of gender performance, I extend models of socialization to illustrate the gendered
nature of socialization. Theories of gender performance suggest that gender is created in
response to structures and interactions (West & Zimmerman, 1987). I argue that the
same is true for socialization.
Given these gaps, I now return to the four research questions that guided this
study:
1. How does a discipline shape socialization?
2. How are discipline and masculinities related?
3. How are disciplines, socialization, and masculinities inter-related?
4. What role do structures and interactions play in the socialization process?
I consider how each question might serve to help move models of socialization forward.
Given that students’ experiences cannot easily be compartmentalized into those that
underscore the influence of discipline and those that underscore the influence of gender, I
211
return repeatedly to many of the same tasks of doctoral student life, considering how each
factors into both socialization and gender.
Question 1: How does a discipline shape socialization?
Socialization is the process through which doctoral students learn the skills and
values necessary to succeed in academia. Socialization occurs in response to institutional
structures and through interactions with existing organizational members, including
faculty members and other students. I first consider the ways in which the structures of
each discipline vary before discussing the differences in socialization processes.
Disciplinary Structures
The structures of the discipline shape students’ experiences in each program. For
example, students in AME typically earn their degrees in about half the amount of time as
their English counterparts. The typical engineer can earn a Master’s and Ph.D. in five
years while most English students take at least eight years to earn the doctorate. Though
a variety of structures shape students’ experiences, the differing sources of funding and
different structure of the curricula primarily influence students in AME and English.
Source of Funding
Although AME and English students learn how to conduct research in the process
of completing their thesis or dissertation, students in AME receive more research
preparation through their work in their advisors’ labs. AME students spend several years
acquiring research skills through work on various projects for their advisors before
beginning to conduct research for their thesis. In contrast, English students gain little
research experience outside of their dissertation. Although several students work a few
212
hours per week as research assistants for faculty, research is not built into their day-to-
day lives as it is for AME students. English students earn funding by serving as writing
instructors for undergraduates. Their assistantships lead them to value teaching over
research and direct many to seek non-research intensive positions in liberal arts colleges
or teaching colleges upon graduation. Of course, such a career path might also be
attributed to the national ranking of the English department; students at Metro U. simply
are not as competitive as their counterparts at other private institutions around the
country. Nonetheless, few English students spoke with great passion about pursuing
careers in research. Unlike AME students who can combine their assistantship research
with their thesis research, English students have to juggle their teaching responsibilities
with their dissertation. This balancing act may also contribute to the lengthy time to
degree in the department.
Structure of Curriculum
Although AME students may have similar experiences in their labs, the
department does not take any steps to guarantee that they have similar experiences in the
classroom. Students are required to take two math courses during their graduate
program; the rest of their courses are selected in conjunction with their advisor. Students
are able to craft a program of study specific to their particular needs. Students in the
English department have similar latitude in selecting their courses. Whereas Engineering
students are generally discouraged (and for some, forbidden by their advisors) from
taking courses outside the School of Engineering, English students take classes in a
variety of different departments. In English, all first-year students take English 200,
213
which introduces them to the norms of the discipline and to the field’s major theoretical
debates. In addition to arming students with common knowledge, the course also creates
a shared experience among students in each cohort.
The differences in curricular structure point to even larger differences between the
two disciplines, namely in the boundaries of a discipline. AME is a bounded discipline.
Although some students are encouraged by their advisors to take occasional courses in
other engineering departments, the general expectation is that students can acquire all the
knowledge they need from courses and professors within AME. While AME is still
structured by disciplinary boundaries, English has become a more fluid and
interdisciplinary field of study. English students take the majority of their courses
outside of the department and draw upon multiple fields throughout their tenure in their
programs.
Socialization Processes: Interactions and Agents
Although institutional structures create the conditions in which socialization
occurs, interactions with professors and peers help students acquire the skills and values
inherent to the discipline.
Advisors. Although faculty advisors provide guidance throughout the thesis and
dissertation processes, advisors take a more directed approach in AME. In part, this
interaction comes from students’ appointments as research assistants. Students spend
their days conducting research for their advisors and consequently interact frequently
with them. While faculty may be more directive in their approach, they also provide
more guidance to the daily ins and outs of faculty life. Advisors work with their students
214
to write articles, develop materials for funding agencies, and prepare for conference
presentations. Although faculty in English may engage in similar professionalization
behaviors, they do not interact with their students as often. Frequency of interaction
translates into greater inculcation of skills and values.
Faculty. Students cultivate different types of relationships with faculty in each
department. While students in AME and English were quick to names the ways in which
faculty provided academic and social support, English students also noted that faculty
supported them emotionally. Men and women talked about their advisors and other
professors serving as sources of encouragement as they worked on their qualifying exams
and dissertations. AME students noted neither receiving nor seeking similar support
from their advisors. AME students’ interactions with faculty are primarily driven by
academic concerns.
Peers. Although all students reported looking to their peers for academic and
social support, students in AME see their peers on a more frequent basis. Once English
students have finished their coursework, there are fewer opportunities for interaction.
Occasionally students see their peers in the Composition Program offices, but such
interactions revolve around their teaching responsibilities rather than research. In
contrast, AME students interact with a small group of peers in the lab on a daily basis.
Students often cited looking to their peers as important resources when learning new
techniques and troubleshooting technical problems. Department structures in English
encourage students to form connections with all students in their incoming year. Most
social groups in the department revolve around students’ year in the program or, as I
215
discuss in the next section, their identity. AME students have no affiliation with students
in their incoming class, but rather align themselves with students who share the same
advisor.
Although students in each department undergo the same stages of socialization
and interact with the same types of agents, their experiences differ. The types of
interactions they have with faculty and peers and the expectations transmitted through
such interactions vary. The process and content of socialization differ across
departments. Students in AME work in labs and frequently interact with their advisor
and a select group of peers. They are trained primarily to conduct research and intend to
do so upon graduation. In contrast, English students are trained to teach. Though they
write a dissertation and receive guidance from their advisor, they do not interact with
departmental agents to the same degree as their AME counterparts.
Socialization occurs in response to structures and interactions. The structures of a
discipline create the conditions in which socialization occurs. Though disciplines have a
variety of structural features (e.g. time-to-degree, pedagogies used), doctoral students’
socialization is particularly shaped by the type of assistantship they hold and the
curriculum of the discipline. As I will explain in the next section, such structures also
shape students’ gender identities. Socialization also occurs in response to interactions
with key agents, including faculty and graduate student peers. Students are instructed,
formally and informally, as to the skills needed for success in the discipline.
Socialization includes more than just learning the skills required for success in a
discipline, but also learning values, including those concerning gender.
216
Question 2: How are discipline and masculinities related?
I have outlined the ways in which socialization differs by discipline and suggested
that socialization occurs in response to structures and interactions. Gender is similarly
created in response to structures and interactions. Theories of gender performance
maintain that gender is dependent on context; gender is collectively created; and
individuals shape their behavior in accordance with societal or organizational norms
(West and Zimmerman, 1987). I return to the analytical categories employed in Chapter
4 to illustrate gender within a discipline. I theorized that gender might operate in three
ways, via structure, culture, and reflective identity. I consider the ways in which the
structures of disciplines are gendered, which in turn shape the interactions of people
within them.
Structures
Organizations might be gendered in three ways: 1) based upon a distinction in the
tasks associated with masculinity and femininity; 2) based upon the numbers of men or
women; and 3) based upon the use of symbols or discourse that draw upon
hegemonically-defined masculinities or femininities (Britton, 2000). This typology
underscores the gendered structures of English and AME. First, English and AME are
gendered based upon the distinction of tasks associated with academic life in each
discipline. AME students are prepared to be researchers while English students are
prepared primarily to teach. Students in AME talk about entering careers in industry and
academe where they can continue to conduct research while nearly all of the English
students intend to use their PhDs at non-research intensive institutions. Moving from
217
research and teaching to service, English students participate far more in the department’s
governance. While past research has indicated that women engage in teaching and
service to a greater degree than their male peers (Park, 1996), the experiences of students
in these two departments suggest that the differences also extend along disciplinary
boundaries.
In addition to a distinction in research versus teaching, the curriculum in each
discipline serves to emphasize differences between masculinity and femininity. The
curriculum shapes more than just the gendering of the discipline; it also shapes the gender
identities of students within. All English students are exposed to gender theory through
English 200. Those who specialize in queer theory or cultural studies take multiple
courses that draw upon this literature. Students’ identities and masculinities are
consequently shaped through the curriculum. Even English students who pursue more
traditional literary studies are exposed to such theories, leading many to reflect upon their
masculinities. The curriculum in AME is not designed to focus on issues of gender or
masculinity. The aim of the engineering course of study is to introduce students to the
major problems facing the field. While English students may discuss identity politics,
engineers are more likely to take a class in alternative fuels. Due to differing curricula,
AME students are not pushed to reflect upon their identities as men to the same extent as
their peers across campus. I am not suggesting that schools of engineering should teach
students gender theory. I am simply pointing out that the curriculum in each discipline
privileges particular types of knowledge that will shape the identities of students within
them and create a culture that accepts some students more than others.
218
Second, the disciplines are gendered based upon the numbers of women and men
in each, at the national level and at Metro U. Engineering is dominated by men while
English is dominated by women. Nationally, 81% of students across all Engineering sub-
disciplines are men (NCES, 2005). At Metro U., 89% of students in AME are men. In
English, 60% of Ph.D. students across the country are men (NCES, 2005). Metro U. is
slightly more female-dominated, with women accounting for 68% of students. When a
discipline is male- or female-dominated, students who do not fit the typical profile (ie
women in AME or men in English) may not consider pursuing a career in that area. The
disciplines remain dominated by one gender and acquire a reputation in society at large as
being meant for only men or women.
Finally, disciplines might be gendered to the degree to which particular skills or
values that are typically associated with masculinity or femininity are cultivated in
members. For example, faculty in AME promote competition in their interactions with
each other and among graduate students. Women are typically discouraged by society
from adopting such behaviors. As a result, the AME culture is one that privileges
particular values that serve to discourage women. The structures of each discipline are
inherently gendered. Not only is each discipline dominated by students and faculty of a
particular gender, but each is defined by its own sets of norms and values that point to
different disciplinary cultures.
Culture: Ambiguity versus Clarity
As I argued in Chapter 4, AME and English are characterized by different
disciplinary cultures. AME might best be summed up by clarity: clarity in the definition
219
of the discipline; clarity in professional roles and relations; and clarity in gender roles and
relations. In contrast, English struggles with ambiguity in each of these categories.
Together, these categories help to create a disciplinary culture that leaves students certain
of or struggling to define their own identities.
Both AME and English house multiple lines of inquiry. Scholars in AME can
typically be classified as an experimentalist, a computationalist, or a theorist. Although
scholars might perform different types of research, they occasionally collaborate to solve
problems. Further, most within AME agree upon the future of the discipline. The same
cannot be said of the English department. English students are exposed to gender theory
and literary theory in English 200 to familiarize them with debates within the discipline.
Unlike their AME peers, students and faculty within English are divided over the future
of the discipline. While some scholars continue to embrace literary theory, others
maintain that research informed by cultural studies and gender theory is the future of the
discipline.
These differences point to larger differences in epistemology, or the nature of
knowledge. The sciences come out of a tradition of positivist research. Positivists
maintain that a single reality exists and that such a reality can be identified and tested
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Scholars within the humanities do not agree on one paradigm.
Some continue to embrace positivism while others espouse postmodernism. Whereas
positivists base their work off of the existence of an objective truth, postmodernists reject
all calls for one reality, arguing instead that each individual constructs his or her own
reality (Crotty, 2003). In AME, there are simple explanations of right and wrong: an
220
experiment either succeeds or it fails. The distinctions in English are less clear, placing
the onus on individuals to provide a rationale for their interpretations.
Just as the two disciplines differ in agreement over the future of the discipline, so
too do they differ in definitions of professional roles and relations. The culture of AME
revolves around competition and hierarchy, leading to great distinctions between
professor and student. Relationships between advisor and students emphasize power
structures. Many of the AME students call their professors by their last name, such as
Dr. Webster or Dr. Myers. This simple issue of naming emphasizes differences between
faculty and students. In contrast, no students in the English department refer to their
faculty by their formal titles. Faculty are simply known by their first names.
The differences in power structures extend beyond mere issues of naming. Each
discipline privileges a specific type of worker with particular gendered qualities. In
AME, the ideal worker is one who can work long hours while conducting research for his
or her advisor. Although faculty take an active role in students’ research through
frequent meetings, students are expected to work long hours to conduct experiments.
Remember Mark in Chapter 2 who described getting to campus at 7 am most mornings
and staying until at least 6 pm to work on projects in the lab. In contrast, English
students do not have to keep a set schedule. Outside of teaching class and holding office
hours, students can structure their own time. As Christopher described in Chapter 4, he
often works at home in the mornings in his pajamas, a schedule and lifestyle that
contrasts with that of the AME students. While AME students are expected to follow the
norms established by their advisors and the Engineering School, English students set their
221
own schedules. However, such latitude leaves the onus on English students to work on
their research. Such freedom is counterproductive for many students, leading to delays in
their academic progress.
AME and English also differ in the degree of clarity between gender roles and
relations. Students in AME adhere to typical gender roles while there is more ambiguity
about ideal masculinity within English. Further, the masculine identities of students
within each discipline differ. AME professors and male students alike change their
behavior in front of female students by monitoring their jokes. Recall Phil who said that
while male students might talk about women with each other, they were not likely to do
so in front of female students. They have established norms about appropriate topics
with men and women; crude humor and objectification of women do not fall in those
categories.
While most men in AME adhere to the norms described above, there is more
diversity among the identities and behaviors of students within English. While
individuals are defined by multiple social identities—gender, race, sexuality, and the
like—the primary division in the English department is between straight and queer
students. Whereas there are multiple meanings of the word queer, students in English
who adopt this terminology do not use it to refer solely to sexuality. Rather, the queer
students reject the limitations of gender, and the corresponding behaviors that masculinity
and femininity imply. As a result, the queer male students look down on their straight
peers for any displays of masculinity. While the queer students prefer to do yoga
together, the straight men are more likely to watch football on TV. However, as Kathy
222
pointed out, the moments when the men tried to adopt masculine behaviors were
problematic as they do not fit the image of traditional American masculinity.
The cultures of the two departments differ tremendously. Students in AME know
what to expect—of the future of the discipline, of professional roles, and of gender roles.
Students in English are unable to rely on such certainty and regularly struggle in an
ambiguous discipline, trying to sort out the nature of their professional and gender roles.
Such clarity and ambiguity have implications for students’ reflective identity as well.
Reflective Identity
AME students were quick to insist that there are few differences between men and
women in the department. They bristle at the notion of anyone receiving special
treatment because of their gender and argue that all privileges must be earned. While
Logan expressed support for increasing the numbers of women in the sciences, he
simultaneously feared that doing so would force more qualified out. Whereas students in
AME disavowed notions of gender as being unimportant, Duke and other students in
English challenged notions of masculinity and femininity as problematic. Students in
each department rejected gender; those in English did so for its potential to force
individuals to adhere to particular norms. Queer and straight students referenced their
courses in gender theory that seek to deconstruct masculinity. Although some of the
straight men, like Vincent, embody traditional notions of masculinity, they
simultaneously acknowledge that gender categories are socially constructed. AME
students rejected notions of gender in favor of discourse that emphasized notions of
223
equity and fairness while English students suggested that equity might only be attained
through deconstructing gender and oppressive societal norms.
In part, the English students’ engagement with notions of gender comes from their
status as men in a feminized field. Many of the men struggled to reconcile their choice to
pursue a career in English with typical notions of masculinity. For the most part, this
questioning came from interactions with those outside the academy. Buck recounted
being mocked by friends for his choice of career. Cole talked about books as being
feminizing. Peter even left the department because he could not reconcile the study of
literature with his masculinity. He felt that he needed a career in which he was active and
working with his hands versus negotiating the idleness that comes from reading and
writing. Men in AME do not face similar struggles. Many AME students build things
with their hands and spend their days running experiments, being active in ways that
English students are not. The engineers do not have to contend with pursuing a career
that many outside the academy perceive as feminine. They are among the majority in a
very masculine field. Due to the nature of their work and their status as men in a
feminized field, men in English grapple with how masculinity affects their subjectivity
and identities, developing a reflexivity that most AME men do not possess.
Structure, culture, and reflective identity interrelate to create different definitions
of gender within a discipline. In AME, there is little uncertainty as to what counts as
appropriate behavior. Most engineers agree upon the future of the discipline and on the
types of professional and gender behaviors expected of faculty and students. While such
certainty provides a set of guidelines for students to follow, it also forces them to adhere
224
to a narrow window of acceptable behaviors. As Herman pointed out, men in the
department are not expected to talk about their feelings; those who do are censured.
While English students grapple with far more uncertainty, this ambiguity allows men
more latitude in adopting a range of masculine identities. While most men in AME adopt
one set of behaviors, the men in English are not as easily defined. Although the queer
and straight students eye each other with skepticism, students in each group engage in a
variety of behaviors that are considered acceptable for men in the field. Such ambiguity
provides an opening for men that does not exist within AME. Men are allowed to adopt a
range of behaviors and still fulfill the norms of the English department.
Question 3: How are disciplines, socialization, and masculinities inter-related?
Theories of socialization and theories of gender performance complement each
other. Socialization and gender performance are created in response to structures and
interactions. Both also highlight the role of the individual in shaping outcomes;
socialization and the performance of gender are bi-directional. In Chapter 2, I presented
a table, outlining the intersection between theories of socialization and theories of gender
as performance. I now return to the table, while providing specific examples from the
experiences of students in this study.
225
Table 13: Intersections between Socialization and the Performance of Gender
Gender Dependent on
Context/Structures
Gender as a
Collective Creation
Gender
Accountability
Anticipatory
Socialization
-pre-college interests
shape propensity to
pursue degree (AME:
building model
airplanes; ENGL:
reading books)
-gender breakdown of
undergraduate
disciplines
-societal expectations
of masculinity and
femininity
-ENGL: men
repeatedly told that
literature is not
masculine
Entry and
Commitment to
Organization
-gender breakdown of
discipline
-curriculum (subjects
taught)
-RA vs. TA (gendered
division of labor)
-stipend and time-to-
degree (for English
students)
-departmental
governance
-ENGL: curriculum,
status of discipline
leads men to question
masculinity
-collective
socialization
-actors who play key
roles: advisor, faculty,
peers
-values that are
encouraged
-AME: hierarchy,
individual
competence
-ENGL: student
involvement,
emotional support
-AME: women are
objectified
-ENGL: two types of
masculinity
produced—linked
with those doing
conventional literary
studies and those
pursuing queer and
cultural studies
-AME: professors
chide students for not
being competitive
enough
-AME: male students
talk about women,
make dirty jokes
-AME: faculty-
student conflict over
students’ work hours
(a challenge to
AME’s hegemonic
masculinity)
-ENGL: men continue
to experience
challenge to
masculinity from
society
ENGL: queer students
critical of straight
men (inverting
notions of gender
accountability)

As Table 13 highlights, masculinity is created through and influences socialization. The
first cell of the table suggests that a student’s propensity to pursue a particular major is
related to pre-existing interests. For AME students, this was often a childhood interest in
model airplanes or working on cars while English students described a passion for
226
reading. Students’ anticipatory socialization is also influenced by the gender breakdown
of their undergraduate majors. Men in English were often one of very few in classes of
women. The disciplines are gendered in terms of the number of men and women enrolled
in each, along with particular interests and skills that led students to select them for study.
Anticipatory socialization is therefore influenced by the structures of a discipline, but
simultaneously, a student’s gender influences his or her socialization.
I have argued that AME is a masculine-focused discipline whereas English is not.
With regard to anticipatory socialization, we observed Tim in Chapter 4 stating he liked
working on cars when many of the English students espoused no such desires with what
many might argue are clearly masculine activities. Indeed, those in English described a
childhood love of books. Even with regard to women in AME, Vanessa and Jenny
described the ways in which their childhood interests differed from those of their female
peers. Vanessa discussed her fascination with geology as a child. Such a point is
important because I am not suggesting that one field can only be populated by women
and another by men. Rather, gender is a strategy that pervades the structure and culture
of a discipline.
Similarly, students’ socialization to gender and organizational roles is influenced
by structures and interactions within their programs. As I have argued throughout this
dissertation, the structural features of a discipline influence the types of masculinities that
are enacted. The gender breakdown of a discipline influences the identities of students
within each. Disciplines that are populated predominantly by men, for example, develop
a different culture than those that are dominated by women. Further, the types of
227
preparation (RA versus TA) shape definitions of masculinity. Since women typically
perform teaching and service more than their male peers, such work tends to be
feminized. Given that English students earn their funding by working as writing
instructors, many male students must contend with performing feminized work.
Finally, the curriculum of each discipline also shapes socialization and
masculinities. The English students are exposed to gender and queer theory during their
first year course and, for some, through other courses in the department. As Scott and
others commented, such courses forced them to reflect upon their masculinity and upon
the very definition of gender. In contrast, the AME curriculum is not designed to focus
on issues of gender. Of course, I am not trying to direct engineering departments to offer
a course in gender theory. I am simply underscoring the fact that the structures of a
discipline play a critical role in shaping disciplinary culture and the gender identities of
students within them.
In addition to structures, students’ socialization and gender are also shaped by
interactions with others in the department. AME students are repeatedly told by their
advisors that they are not competitive enough. Faculty maintain that such behaviors are
required for success in the discipline. Students within the department often modify their
behavior to fit in with their peers. The male students frequently engage in conversations
about women with one another, yet censor their behavior when their female labmates are
nearby. Vanessa was surprised to learn that male faculty tell different types of jokes
when no women are present. Although faculty and students argued that there should be
no difference in the way men and women are treated, their behaviors imply otherwise.
228
Across campus in the English department, students also learn the norms and
behaviors that are appropriate for the discipline. Due to diverging emphases in the study
of English, two distinct streams of masculinity have emerged. Although both groups of
students question traditional gender norms, one group of students continues to be
troubled by their status as men in a feminized discipline while their queer peers reject the
strictures of gender. Conflict often results between the two groups of students. In
particular, the queer students accuse the straight students of perpetuating heteronormative
behavior. Although opinions differ about appropriate identities and behaviors, student
and faculty interactions shape the identities of current and future scholars.
The rest of the table suggests a similar pattern: socialization and masculinities are
created through structures and interactions. The processes are inter-related; socialization
influences masculinities while masculinities influence socialization. As I discussed
earlier, students in English frequently cited the emotional support they received from
faculty members while AME students never commented upon needing or wanting such
support from their professors. English students form a different type of relationship with
professors—one that is more personal, and also allows students to share their fears about
their academic progress. In contrast, students in AME are expected to present themselves
as competent workers in charge of their emotions. Each discipline creates different
guidelines for acceptable male behavior. While men in English are not penalized for
expressing uncertainty, those in AME are expected to be stoic and not show vulnerability,
particularly with other men. As students learn throughout the socialization process
229
through their interactions with faculty and peers, each discipline privileges a different
type of masculinity.
Although men in AME make dirty jokes and men in English fight among
themselves about appropriate types of masculinity, I am not arguing that one department
is better than the other, or that one masculinity is better than the other. Rather, I only
point out that masculinity is different in each discipline and, more importantly,
masculinity is defined differently in each. In AME, masculinity is invisibly woven into
the culture of the discipline. Faculty and student behaviors point to typically masculine
norms (i.e. privileging hierarchy and arguments, objectifying women) that get
perpetuated through socialization. In contrast, there is more ambiguity in the culture of
English. Men are not the majority of the discipline and, as a result, grapple with defining
themselves as men in a feminized field. There is less reliance on hierarchy and more
attention to individual identity. Across departments, through structures and interactions,
students are socialized into the gendered norms of the discipline.
Question 4: What role do structures and interactions play in the socialization process?
As my theoretical and empirical discussions suggest, socialization and
masculinities are created through structures and interactions. Socialization occurs in
response to the structural features of a discipline. Students in AME receive their funding
by working as research assistants and consequently spend their time conducting research.
English students spend eight to ten years in their programs, frequently spending their later
years searching for financial support. Such structures create the conditions in which
socialization occurs. However, interactions among faculty and students also shape
230
socialization. Students who work with different faculty members are bound to have
different experiences. Although Logan and Mark work as research assistants, they work
for different professors with different approaches to mentoring graduate students. Logan
interacts with his advisor frequently and serves as an informal mentor for undergraduate
students. Mark sees his advisor on a less frequent basis and rarely interacts with other
students in his lab. Although each man will earn his Ph.D. in Aerospace or Mechanical
Engineering, they will leave Metro U. with a distinct set of experiences and skills.
Structures and interactions provide a new framework for studying socialization,
gender, and the way in which the two are interrelated. Structures create the conditions in
which interactions and much of the socialization process occurs. In AME and English,
students’ assistantships along with their curriculum and classes create the conditions in
which interactions might or might not occur. While students in AME work as research
assistants and spend their days interacting with their peers and faculty in labs, English
students work primarily as teaching assistants. Rather than interacting with faculty, they
either meet with undergraduate students or spend their time grading papers and reading
on their own. Some students meet with their peers in cafes, though little work gets
accomplished. Students’ assistantships shape the frequency and types of interaction,
which in turn shapes socialization.
The curriculum and pedagogy of each department also shapes interactions among
participants. AME and English have few required courses that students are required to
take. AME students have to take two math courses during their tenure in their programs
while English students must take English 200 during their first semester in the program.
231
English 200 provides an opportunity for students to interact with others in their entering
class. In addition to curriculum, the preferred pedagogy of each discipline also shapes
interactions. AME instructors rely upon lecture while students take notes. English
professors limit the amount of lecture and instead structure their courses around
discussion of texts. In most courses, students are responsible for facilitating at least half
of each class session. The way in which instructors structure their courses shapes the
ways in which interactions take place. In AME courses, students interact primarily with
the instructor, as little student participation occurs whereas English courses are structured
as dialogues among the professor and students.
While structures create the conditions in which socialization occurs, students
learn how to become scholars through interactions with faculty, graduate student peers,
and other institutional agents. While the curriculum, students’ assistantships, and other
disciplinary structures attempt to provide a uniform experience to all students within the
department, interactions introduces the possibility of variability in socialization. Given
that students in both disciplines interact primarily with their advisor, socialization
depends considerably on this relationship. Each faculty member works differently with
his or her student; some are more invested in serving as mentors while others perform
only the bare minimum. In the English department, the level of interaction also depends
particularly on each student’s level of initiative. There is great variation in how
frequently English students meet with their advisors and, for the most part, students are
responsible for setting up such meetings. Since individual appointments allow faculty to
guide students through their programs, less frequent interaction means that students are
232
more likely to stagnate. Different levels of interaction also follow gender divisions. As
Vanessa recounted in Chapter 4, she discovered that some of her male faculty act
differently around their male students than they do around female students. While such
changes in behavior typically involve censoring topics of conversation, these differences
mean that women and men have different experiences in the discipline.
Interactions are the primary way in which students learn the skills and the values
required for success in the discipline. Students in AME discussed the long hours they
worked in their labs each day, conducting research for their advisors. Although the
students perform the majority of the research, faculty write articles and publish the
results. Students and faculty accept these hierarchies as a natural part of the discipline.
Recall Dr. Wyatt in Chapter 4 who carefully explained that it was not professors’
responsibility to spend nights and weekends working in the lab, as they had performed
that work as graduate students. Dr. Wyatt and his peers had worked their way up the
academic hierarchy, leaving space for a new generation of students. The delineation
between faculty and students in English is less distinct. Faculty and students serve
together on committees, indicating (or at least giving the appearance) that there is less
hierarchy in the department. Through interactions with a variety of agents, students learn
the norms, skills, and values that characterize academic life in each discipline. In sum,
socialization occurs through both structures and interactions. The structures create the
conditions in which interactions occur.
233
Limitations
This dissertation painted a portrait of the experiences of doctoral students in AME
and English at Metro U. Although theories of socialization suggest that students undergo
change throughout their doctoral programs, this study took place over the course of six
months. I did not study change within particular students, but rather took a cross-
sectional approach to each department. My study might have been limited by such an
approach. In addition, the findings are particular to the students and departments at
Metro U. Although there are similarities in disciplines across institutions, the particular
culture of Metro U. and the corresponding region of the United States also shape
students’ experiences in each department. As a result, the findings cannot be generalized
to all institutions. Further studies are needed to investigate whether these differences are
evident in institutions across the country.
My findings are further limited by the low numbers of women in AME. Though I
was able to speak with nearly 50% of eligible women in the department, this translated
into a total of two female participants. Although both women provided rich detail in our
conversations, their experiences undoubtedly differ in some ways from those of the other
women in the department. The study would have been strengthened had I been able to
include additional voices.
All of the students interviewed were U.S. citizens. Holding nationality constant
was a purposeful choice, designed to control for the differences in masculinities across
cultures. However, as I detailed earlier, international students account for a significant
percentage of graduate students in AME. Their presence undoubtedly shapes the culture
234
of the department and the experiences of all students within it. This study did not
consider the role that international students and faculty play in the department or the
ways that their masculinities have altered socialization and disciplinary culture.
As I have detailed, the major divisions within the English department are between
the straight and the queer students. Although many of the queer students adopted the
moniker not in reference to their sexuality but to signal a rejection of gender, some of the
students were indeed gay and lesbian. I did not factor in the role that sexuality plays in
socialization and in students’ construction of identities. As a result, it is possible that
some of my analysis confuses gender with sexuality.
An additional limitation is a function of qualitative research and relates to my
identity as a researcher. My gender differs from that of the majority of participants. I
was driven to conduct this study to explore the ways in which my feminist identity might
inform the data collection and analysis processes. Although my feminist consciousness
may have allowed me to perceive themes that might have remained hidden for others,
there is the chance that it also hampered data collection. On more than one occasion,
male students hinted that they were censoring themselves in front of me. Although I
asked students to be as candid as possible, discussions of gender were typically difficult.
My identity as a woman may have caused men to not be forthcoming, leading to less
complete data.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The experiences of students at Metro U. suggest that discipline makes a difference
in shaping socialization and gender. The male students in English were repeatedly forced
235
to reflect upon their gender identities, due to both the curriculum in their first year core
course and by being among the numerical minority in the discipline. As I have suggested
throughout, departments of engineering should not reasonably be expected to offer
courses in gender theory. However, there are three steps all departments can take to
encourage individual reflection and to change gendered disciplinary cultures.
Role models make a difference. As the experiences of Vanessa and Jenny in AME
highlight, women in the sciences thrive when they have other women as colleagues and
role models. The women in AME spoke at length about the importance of having female
colleagues for support. Traditionally male-dominated fields might consider making a
concerted effort to admit small cohorts of women each year and provide opportunities for
students to interact with each other and female faculty. Changing disciplinary culture
begins with changing the gender breakdown of a discipline and providing institutional
structures to support women throughout their programs.
Implement workshops to start dialogues about gender. Although the engineering
curriculum does not include courses in gender studies, male-dominated departments
might consider offering a series of workshops to make gender visible to both faculty and
students. Such workshops might include providing a space for men to discuss and be
challenged on masculinity in the discipline. Other workshops might bring in well-
regarded female scholars to discuss both their research and the challenges they face as
women in the field. Some instructors might consider incorporating similar guest lectures
into their courses. As the men in English pointed out, being repeatedly challenged
throughout their courses led them to reflect on masculinity.
236
Create opportunities for interaction between faculty and students. AME students’
greatest complaint focused on the lack of interaction between faculty and students.
Although students saw their advisors frequently, they knew few other students or faculty
in the department. Students felt undervalued and relatively isolated. Departments might
consider creating opportunities for students to socialize, both with their peers and faculty.
Just as the Metro U. English department has done with their first year core course,
departments might introduce at least one course that all students in an entering class take
together. Other opportunities for interaction with faculty, in the form of department
socials, parties, and lectures, would help to decrease the isolation of the student
experience. Further, increasing opportunities for interaction also serves to challenge the
hierarchies that characterize departmental life in the sciences. Having the opportunity to
engage with professors on both an academic and social level will help to demystify
faculty life for students and create a more welcoming community for all.
Directions for Future Research
This study is one of the first to explicitly examine the intersection of socialization
and gender. I have outlined the ways in which the gendered nature of a discipline shapes
the socialization of students and the types of masculinities that are privileged and
reinforced. Although different types of students are led to pursue a degree in a specific
field, each discipline rewards particular behaviors, leading to the creation of a scholar
with particular values and skills. My research has highlighted the differences in
socialization and masculinities between disciplines. However, it also points to multiple
areas ripe for future research.
237
Investigate a Wider Array of Disciplines
I focused on the experiences of men in English and AME. Both disciplines are
currently female- and male-dominated. Just as the population of students studying
English has shifted over the past several decades, other fields, such as biology and civil
engineering, have seen similar changes in the recent past. In such fields, women now
account for the majority or a significant portion of students in the discipline. Future
studies might explore the ways in which socialization differs based upon a discipline’s
history of gender desegregation. While the experiences of students in AME indicate that
the sciences remain overwhelmingly masculine, one wonders whether an influx of
women might change the disciplinary culture and, as a result, students’ experiences.
Conduct a Longitudinal Study
This dissertation provided a cross-sectional view of students in two disciplines
over a six-month period. Although students differed based upon length of time in
program, I cannot definitively conclude that such differences resulted from socialization
processes or might instead be attributed to other causes, such as a change in the
admissions practices of the department. Future studies might investigate the experiences
of a small group of students from entry to graduation from their doctoral programs. Data
collection might include interviews and observations several times a year in an effort to
pinpoint how change occurs in particular individuals, not simply among students as a
group.
238
Compare Men and Women Across Disciplines
While I focused on the experiences of men across disciplines, future studies might
compare the experiences of men and women. In addition to examining the experiences of
men and women within the same discipline, additional research might compare the
experiences of women within the sciences and men within female-dominated disciplines.
The experiences of men in English and women in AME indicated that non-majority
students have different experiences in their doctoral programs. Future research might
compare the differences in socialization to see if commonalities exist, despite differences
in gender across disciplines.
Compare Disciplines Across Institutions
Although the English and AME departments embody their respective disciplinary
cultures, Metro U’s culture leads to uniqueness in each department. As Dr. Wyatt in
AME complained, many of Metro U’s students do not work as hard as their peers in
departments across the country. Similarly, interviews with some students in English
revealed that not all institutions have a strong focus on cultural studies and queer theory.
Future research might compare doctoral programs in the same discipline at different
institutions. Such comparative studies would allow researchers to explore the differing
roles that disciplinary and institutional culture play in socialization and the production of
gender.
Extend Models of Socialization to Include Other Social Identity Characteristics
I sought to understand the relationship between socialization, gender, and
discipline. While the majority of participants were White, the experiences of the few
239
students of color suggested that their experiences differed from those of their peers.
Queer students in English highlighted differences between themselves and their
heterosexual peers. Future studies should seek to understand how race and sexual
identity influence socialization. In addition, studies might include how social identity
characteristics overlap. How does socialization differ by race, gender, and sexual
identity? By focusing on specific populations, future research might uncover differences
in socialization and generate implications for practice that could change students’
representation and success in graduate school.
Conduct an Ethnography
I used a range of qualitative methods to investigate students’ experiences in two
disciplines. Although I utilized observation to gain an understanding of each
department’s culture, the bulk of my data comes from interviews. In part, this choice of
method was due to time constraints. Future research might utilize in-depth participant
observation to gain a more thorough understanding of the culture of each discipline. The
researcher might spend a year intensively following a small group of students in various
disciplines through all aspects of their day: from coursework to assistantship work to
social gatherings off-campus.
Participant observation not only allows the researcher to develop a nuanced
understanding of disciplinary culture, but also provides an opportunity to observe gender
performance in action. Although students performed gender in their interviews, they
performed different gender in different ways with their peers. In one AME lab, some
students played a critical role in creating a gendered environment while others tacitly
240
accepted the behaviors without necessarily espousing the same values. Engaging in
observation would allow researchers to untangle the range of masculinities that students
perform.
Conclusion
I was flipping through a journal when Joe popped into my office. It had been
months since I’d seen him. “So,” he asked, “how’d your project turn out?”
“Great, great,” I responded, “I’m still finishing it up.”
“So, what’d you find?,” he asked.
“Well, I can tell you that men in English and men in engineering are definitely
different from each other,” I answered, laughing.
“How so?,” he followed up.
“Well, on a lot of levels. I got the sense by talking with your peers in English that
you guys spend a lot of time thinking about masculinity and being men in your
department in ways that don’t happen in engineering.”
We spent a few more minutes talking before Joe left. Just like my interaction
with Herman that opened this chapter, Joe was one of many students who was curious
about my findings. However, the difference between the departments is hard to sum up
in a few sentences. It certainly is more than just men in English think about masculinity
and men in AME do not. From the day they arrive at Metro U., students in each
department are prepared to be different types of scholars. They engage in different
activities and interact differently with their professors and peers and are inculcated with
different norms and values.
241
This dissertation investigated the experiences of men pursuing doctorates in a
male-dominated and female-dominated discipline. I sought to understand how theories of
socialization and gender performance might complement and inform one another.
Through the lives of 34 students in two departments, I illustrated the ways in which
structures and interactions shape socialization and the performance of gender. Students
learn the norms and values associated with success in the discipline through their
interactions with faculty and peers. Across departments, such norms are gendered. They
privilege particular values and reward students who display appropriate behaviors.
Although stage models of socialization are helpful in that they provide an outline
of students’ various tasks as they progress through their doctoral programs, they can
account neither for the culture of disciplines nor for the identities of students who
populate them. I have suggested that students in engineering and English are prepared to
be different types of scholars and to embrace different norms. The School of Engineering
promotes competition and hierarchy while the English department stresses critical
reflection and collaboration. Although certainly particular interests will lead students to
pursue different majors, the discipline serves to reinforce culture. One wonders what
happens to students who do not embrace the hierarchies of engineering or those who
disagree with the debates within English. The different values are reflections of a
gendered socialization process—one that both underscores and replicates distinctions
between the disciplines and the students within them.
242
REFERENCES

Acker, J. (1991). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. In J.
Lorber & S. A. Farrell (eds.). The social construction of gender (pp. 162-179).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 377-391).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (2000). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research. (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Anderson, E. (2007). Orthodox and inclusive masculinity: Competing masculinities
among homosexual men in a feminized terrain. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A.
Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (7
th
ed., pp. 208-222). Boston: Pearson Education.

Angrosino, M. V., & Mays de Pérez, K. A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From method
to context. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (2
nd
ed., pp. 673-702). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Antony, J. S. (2002). Reexamining doctoral student socialization and professional
development: Moving beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation. In J.
C. Smart and W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research (Vol. XVII, 349-380). New York: Agathon Press.

Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as
socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-
122.

Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2
nd
ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Baird, L. L. (1992). The stages of the doctoral career: Socialization and its
consequences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. L. (1961/2005). Boys in white:
Student culture in medical school. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.

243
Bieber, J. P., & Worley, L. K. (2006). Conceptualizing the academic life: Graduate
students’ perspectives. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1009-1035.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (4
th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A
phenomenological approach to the social sciences. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.

Britton, D. M. (2000). The epistemology of the gendered organization. Gender and
Society, 14(3), 418-434.

Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge.

Carrigan, T., Connell, B., & Lee, J. (1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity.
Theory and Society, 14(5), 551-604.

Collinson, D. L., & Hearn, J. (2005). Men and masculinities in work, organizations, and
management. In M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn, & R. W. Connell (eds.). Handbook of
studies on men & masculinities (pp. 289-310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

COSEPUP [Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy]. (1995). Reshaping
the graduate education of scientists and engineers. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cross, S., & Bagilhole, B. (2002). Girls’ jobs for the boys? Men, masculinity and non-
traditional occupations. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(2), 204-226.

Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. London: Sage Publications.
244

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (2
nd
ed., pp. 1-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ferber, M. A. (2003). Women’s uneven progress in academia: Problems and solutions. In
L. S. Hornig (Ed.), Equal rites, unequal outcomes: Women in American research
universities (pp. 281-309). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated
text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(2
nd
ed., pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gilbert, R., & Gilbert, P. (1998). Masculinity goes to school. London: Routledge.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Glazer-Raymo, J. (1999). Shattering the myths: Women in academe. Baltimore: The
John Hopkins University Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.

Golde, C. M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral
attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199-227.

Golde, C. M. & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of today’s
doctoral students reveal about doctoral education (www.phd-survey.org).
Philadelphia: A report prepared by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Golde, C. M., & Walker, G. E. (Eds.). (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral
education: Preparing stewards of the discipline. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Goldman, C. A., & Massy, W. F. (2001). The Ph.D. factory: Training and employment of
science and engineering doctorates in the United States. Bolton, MA: Anker
Publishing Company.

Hearn, J. (2002). Alternative conceptualizations and theoretical perspectives on identities
and organizational cultures: A personal review of research on men in
organizations. In I Aaltio & A. J. Mills (eds.). Gender, identity and the culture of
organizations (pp. 39-56). London: Routledge.

245
Hollander, J. A. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 33(5), 602-637.

Hollenshead, C. (2003). Women in the academy: Confronting barriers to socialization. In
L. S. Hornig (Ed.), Equal rites, unequal outcomes: Women in American research
universities (211-226). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in American Colleges
and Universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 1. Washington, DC:
Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Jome, L. R., & Tokar, D. M. (1998). Dimensions of masculinity and major choice
traditionality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52(1), 120-134.

Lincoln, Y. S. (2002). On the nature of qualitative evidence. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study in Higher Education,
Sacramento, CA.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Mac An Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities and schooling.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Madison, D. S., & Hamera, J. (2006). Performance studies at the intersections. In D. S.
Madison & J. Hamera (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of performance studies (pp.
xi-xxv). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Maier, M. (1999). On the gendered substructure of organization: Dimensions and
dilemmas of corporate masculinity. In G. N. Powell (ed.). Handbook of Gender &
Work (pp. 69-93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Martin, P. Y. (2003). “Said and done” versus “saying and doing”: Gendered practices,
practicing gender at work. Gender and Society, 17(3), 342-366.

Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case
study. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71-96.

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
246

Naples, N. A. (2003). Feminism and method: Ethnography, discourse analysis, and
activist research. New York: Routledge.

National Center for Education Statistics (2005). 2004 National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty (NSOPF:04) Report on Faculty and Instructional Staff in Fall 2003.
(NCES 2005-172). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Educational Sciences.

Park, S. M. (1996). Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn’t women’s work
count? Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 46-84.

Parsons, T. (1955). The American family: Its relations to personality and to the social
structure. In T. Parsons & R. F. Bales Family, socialization and interaction
process (pp. 3-33). New York: The Free Press.

Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Sanday, P. R. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus.
New York: New York University Press.

Simpson, R. (2005). Men in non-traditional occupations: Career entry, career orientation
and experience of role strain. Gender, Work and Organization, 12(4), 363-380.

Slaughter, J. E., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A new look at the role of insiders in the
newcomer socialization process. Group Organization Management, 31(2), 264-
290.

Slavin, R. E. (2007). Educational research in an age of accountability. Boston: Pearson
Education.

Smith, J. K, & Deemer, D. K. (2000). The problem of criteria in the age of relativism. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (2nd ed.,
pp. 877-896). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College
Publishers.

Stacey, J., & Thorne, B. (1985). The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Social
Problems, 32(4), 301-316.

247
Stake. R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.).
Handbook of qualitative research (3
rd
ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic
interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30(4),
558-564.

Taylor, E., & Antony, J. S. (2000). Stereotype reduction and wise schooling: Towards the
successful socialization of African American doctoral students in education. The
Journal of Negro Education, 69(3), 184-198.

Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.

Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the
essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21.

Tierney, W. G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. The Journal of
Higher Education, 68(1), 1-16.

Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (2000). (En)Gender(ing) Socialization. In J. Glazer-
Raymo, B.K. Townsend, & B. Ropers-Huilman (Eds.), Women in higher
education: A feminist perspective (2
nd
ed., 309-325). Boston: Pearson Custom
Publishing.

Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Faculty socialization as cultural process: A
mirror of institutional commitment. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.
93-6. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education
and Human Development.

Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook
of work, organization, and society (pp. 67-130). Chicago: Rand McNally
Publishing Company.

Van Maanen, J. (1984). Doing new things in old ways: The chains of socialization. In J.
L. Bess (Ed.), College and university organization: Insights from the behavioral
sciences (pp. 211-247). New York: New York University Press.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.
In B. M. Staw (ed.). Research in organization behavior: An annual series of
analytic essays and critical reviews. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

248
Weaver-Hightower, M. (2003). The “boy turn” in research on gender and education.
Review of Educational Research, 73(4), 471-498.

Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic
norms. Research in Higher Education, 44(6), 641-656.

Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. J. (2001). Socialization of graduate and
professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report, Volume 28, No. 3, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender and Society, 9(1), 8-37.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125-51.

Williams, C. L. (1989). Gender differences at work: Women and men in nontraditional
occupations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the ‘female’
professions. Social Problems, 39(3), 253-267.

Williams, C. L. & Heikes, E. J. (1993). The importance of researcher’s gender in the in-
depth interview: Evidence from two case studies of male nurses. Gender and
Society, 7(2), 280-291.
249
APPENDIX A
PROTOCOL FOR INTERVIEWS WITH MALE STUDENTS

Background Questions
1. Describe your educational background. (Probe: Where did you do your
undergrad? What was your major? Do you have a Master’s? If so, in what?)
2. Why did you decide to pursue a Ph.D. in this major?
3. What year are you in school?
4. Do you have an assistantship?
5. What is your long-term career goal?
6. Describe a typical day for me.

About the Department
1. As a first year student, how did you learn about academic expectations? Who
helped you learn the ropes?
2. Tell me about your advisor. Describe your last meeting for me. Is that a pretty
typical meeting?
3. Tell me about a time that your advisor offered you guidance. Describe a time
when you did not agree with your advisor.
4. Tell me about your professors. How often do you meet with them? Describe
your last meeting for me.
5. How do faculty support you?
6. How could faculty better support you?
7. Are you working on a research project? If so, tell me about your research team.
8. Tell me about the last conflict or disagreement that came up in your research
project. Is this typical?
9. Tell me about a class project that you worked on with other students. Who is in a
typical group? How does the work get divided?
10. Is there another student in the department that you spend a lot of time with or
confide in? If yes, tell me about this relationship. If no, why do you think you
don’t have this sort of relationship?
11. Tell me about the social life of students in this department. Do students ever do
things as a group? Are there cliques? Who is in the cliques?
12. Do you think there are conflicts between men and women in this department?
13. Do you think that you fit in here? (Academically? Socially?)
14. If you could change one aspect of this department, what would it be?

Definitions of Good Student
1. Tell me about a student that has been successful in this program.
2. Now, describe a student of the other gender who has been successful in this
program.
3. Tell me about a student who has not been successful in this program.
4. Do you think there are different standards for male and female students? For
male and female professors?
250
5. (Female-dominated departments only) Do you ever feel that you are treated
differently because you are a man in this department?
6. How do you think the program might be different if you were a woman?
7. What is the best part of being a man in this department?
8. What is the worst part of being a man in this department?

Masculinity and Performance
1. How would you define masculinity?
2. Do men in this department embody this ideal? If not, how would you describe the
typical man in this department?
3. Describe someone who is a good example of the typical man in this department.
4. Would you define yourself as this typical male you just described? Why or why
not?
5. How would you describe how you act in your assistantship or in your classes
compared to how you act at home?
6. Do you relate more easily to a professor of a particular gender?
7. Have you ever changed your behavior in front of your classmates or in front of a
professor? Give me an example.
8. Does your behavior change in different campus settings because of your gender?
9. Is there anything that I haven’t asked you about that you would like to discuss?
10. Please pick a pseudonym by which you’d like to be referred to in my dissertation.

251
APPENDIX B
PROTOCOL FOR INTERVIEWS WITH FEMALE STUDENTS

Background Questions
1. Describe your educational background. (Probe: Where did you do your
undergrad? What was your major? Do you have a Master’s? If so, in what?)
2. Why did you decide to pursue a Ph.D. in this major?
3. What year are you in school?
4. Do you have an assistantship?
5. What is your long-term career goal?
6. Describe a typical day for me.

About the Department
1. As a first year student, how did you learn about academic expectations? Who
helped you learn the ropes?
2. Tell me about your advisor. Describe your last meeting for me. Is that a pretty
typical meeting?
3. Tell me about a time that your advisor offered you guidance. Describe a time
when you did not agree with your advisor.
4. Tell me about your professors. How often do you meet with them? Describe
your last meeting for me.
5. How do faculty support you?
6. How could faculty better support you?
7. Are you working on a research project? If so, tell me about your research team.
8. Tell me about the last conflict or disagreement that came up in your research
project. Is this typical?
9. Tell me about a class project that you worked on with other students. Who is in a
typical group? How does the work get divided?
10. Is there another student in the department that you spend a lot of time with or
confide in? If yes, tell me about this relationship. If no, why do you think you
don’t have this sort of relationship?
11. Tell me about the social life of students in this department. Do students ever do
things as a group? Are there cliques? Who is in the cliques?
12. Do you think there are conflicts between men and women in this department?
13. If you could change one aspect of the department, what would it be?
14. Do you think that you fit in here? (Academically? Socially?)

Definitions of Good Student
1. Tell me about a student that has been successful in this program.
2. Now, describe a student of the other gender who has been successful in this
program.
3. Tell me about a student who has not been successful in this program.
4. Do you think there are different standards for male and female students? For
male and female professors?
252
5. Do you ever feel that you are treated differently because you are a woman in this
department?
6. What is the best part of being a woman in this department?
7. What is the worst part of being a woman in this department?
Masculinity in the Department
1. Describe the men in the department for me.
2. How would you define masculinity?
3. Do men in this department embody this ideal? If not, how would you describe the
typical man in this department?
4. Describe someone who is a good example of the typical man in this department.
5. Do you ever see men engaging in masculine behaviors in the department? Please
describe them for me.
6. Is there anything else that I haven’t asked you that you’d like to discuss?
7. Please pick a pseudonym by which you’d like to be referred to in my dissertation.

253
APPENDIX C
PROTOCOL FOR INTERVIEW WITH FACULTY AND STAFF

1. Tell me about the courses that Ph.D. students are required to take in this
department.
2. What knowledge would you expect all students in this department to have?
3. What skills do students acquire through their Ph.D. program?
4. What type of job do graduates of this program typically take?
5. What are the characteristics of a successful student in this program?
6. What type of student does not succeed in this program?
7. Discuss the relationships among students in the department.
8. (For faculty) Tell me about the courses that you teach. How do you structure a
typical class?
9. What level of interaction do you have with Ph.D. students?
10. Do you find that you have different relationships with different students?
11. What are the strengths of this program compared to programs at other
institutions?
12. What are the weaknesses of this program?
13. Is there anything else you think I should know to understand the socialization
experiences of students in the department?
254
APPENDIX D
PROTOCOL FOR FOCUS GROUP

To go over before beginning:
• Same rules apply as to our one-on-one interviews. Everything that you say in the
room will be kept in this room.
• This time is meant to be a conversation. Although I’ll start off, I don’t want to
talk too much. I hope that you guys will have a conversation with each other.
• If you have a different experience or opinion from the one that’s being expressed,
please speak up! I want to hear from all of you.

Questions
1. Why did you choose to study AME?
2. How are students in the department the same as faculty?
3. How are students in the department different from faculty?
4. Do you think that the faculty and the department foster competitive behavior?
5. What is the biggest complaint you have about the department?
6. What are your thoughts about the DEN program and the DEN students?
7. Why do you think there are so few women in AME?
8. What do you think the average person thinks are the characteristics of the
stereotypical man in U.S. society?
9. How would you describe the typical man in this department?
10. You all know that I’m studying two different departments. How do you think the
average person would describe men in the English department?
11. Is there anything that I haven’t asked you about that you think it’s important for
me to know?

255
APPENDIX E
INFORMED CONSENT FOR STUDENTS

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 701
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4037

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

***********************************************************************

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Community and Identity: Socialization to Gender and Organizational
Roles

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Margaret Sallee and
William G. Tierney, Ph.D., from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California because you are a Ph.D. student in one of the departments selected
for study. Results from this study will contribute to the first investigator’s dissertation.
You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are a Ph.D. student
in this department. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate. Up to 25 students
will be selected from your department to participate. Your participation is voluntary.
You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much time as
you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with your family or
friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be
given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand the socialization experiences of male graduate
students. Specifically, the study will focus on understanding how students are socialized
to the norms of a discipline and how men are socialized into and enact various forms of
masculinity. This study focuses on analyzing how the features of a discipline, such as the
curriculum and students’ interactions with their peers and professors, shape students’
socialization and the masculinities that are enacted.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following things:

1. Complete two interviews with Margaret Sallee about your experiences in your
doctoral program. Interviews will last between 45 and 90 minutes and will be
256
audio recorded. If you do not wish to be recorded, you may still opt to participate
in the study.
2. Some of you may be invited to participate in additional ways, specifically by
completing additional follow-up interviews with Margaret and by allowing her to
observe you in various settings on campus, including at your assistantship and in
meetings with your advisor. No audio recordings will be made of observations,
though follow-up interviews will be recorded. Again, you may opt out of being
recorded and still participate in the study. Follow-up interviews will occur in
early Spring semester and will last approximately 60 minutes. Observations will
occur approximately one morning or afternoon a week throughout Fall semester.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
You may experience mild anxiety or discomfort during interviews or focus groups. If
you become uncomfortable, you are free to stop the interview at any time. If a particular
question makes you uncomfortable, you do not have to answer it.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not benefit from this study. Society may benefit from the findings, which may
be used by others to alter doctoral programs.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law.

Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file
cabinet/password protected computer. Each participant will be identified with a
pseudonym. Data will be stored indefinitely.

All interviews and focus groups will be audio recorded with digital technology.
Recordings will be uploaded to the principal investigator’s computer and available for her
use only. Recordings will also be transcribed.

If you opt not to be recorded, you may still participate in the study.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.

257
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team
to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can
not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Margaret Sallee (213-740-3453, sallee@usc.edu, 701 WPH) or William G. Tierney,
Faculty Sponsor (213-740-7218, 701 WPH).

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT

I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been
given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction,
and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form. I
understand that I can still participate in this study, even if I do not wish to be recorded.

□ I agree to be audio-taped

□ I do not want to be audio-taped

Name of Subject

Signature of Subject Date

258
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as
subject’s)
259
APPENDIX F
INFORMED CONSENT FOR FACULTY AND STAFF

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 701
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4037

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

************************************************************************

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Community and Identity: Socialization to Gender and Organizational
Roles

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Margaret Sallee and
William G. Tierney, Ph.D., from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California because you are a faculty or staff member in one of the departments
selected for study. Results from this study will contribute to the first investigator’s
dissertation. You must be at least18 years of age to participate. Up to 10 faculty and staff
members will be selected from your department to participate. Your participation is
voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you
do not understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much
time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with your
family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You
will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand the socialization experiences of male graduate
students. Specifically, the study will focus on understanding how students are socialized
to the norms of a discipline and how men are socialized into and enact various forms of
masculinity. This study focuses on analyzing how the features of a discipline, such as the
curriculum and students’ interactions with their peers and professors, shape students’
socialization and the masculinities that are enacted.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following:

3. Complete an interview with Margaret Sallee about the doctoral program in your
department. Interviews will last between 30 and 45 minutes and will be audio
260
recorded. If you do not wish to be recorded, you may still opt to participate in the
study.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
You may experience mild anxiety or discomfort during the interview. If you become
uncomfortable, you are free to stop the interview at any time. If a particular question
makes you uncomfortable, you do not have to answer it.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not benefit from this study. Society may benefit from the findings, which may
be used by others to alter doctoral programs.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law.

Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file
cabinet/password protected computer. Each participant will be identified with a
pseudonym. Data will be stored indefinitely.

All interviews and focus groups will be audio recorded with digital technology.
Recordings will be uploaded to the principal investigator’s computer and available for her
use only. Recordings will also be transcribed.

If you opt not to be recorded, you may still participate in the study.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.
261

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team
to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can
not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Margaret Sallee (213-740-3453, sallee@usc.edu, 701 WPH) or William G. Tierney,
Faculty Sponsor (213-740-7218, 701 WPH).

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT

I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been
given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction,
and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form. I
understand that I can still participate in this study, even if I do not wish to be recorded.

□ I agree to be audio-taped

□ I do not want to be audio-taped

Name of Subject

Signature of Subject Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.

Name of Investigator
262

Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as
subject’s)
263
APPENDIX G
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

Dear Graduate Students:

My name is Margaret Sallee and I am a graduate student in the Center for Higher
Education Policy Analysis at USC. This year, I am working on my dissertation, which
focuses on understanding the socialization experiences of male graduate students. I’m
interested in learning about how graduate students are prepared for their future careers
and what messages they receive along the way.

I am writing to ask for your help in my study. I am particularly interested in knowing
about the experiences of students in XXX department. As such, you may see me hanging
around your department a lot, sitting in on classes and going to other department events.
However, I would also like to talk to students. Over the course of the fall term, I will be
seeking participants—both male and female—to interview about their experiences in this
program. The majority of students will be interviewed twice—once at the beginning of
the semester and once at the end. Interviews will last between 45 and 90 minutes. I will
also be looking for students willing to participate in a focus group, which will also last
between 60 and 90 minutes.

As a fellow graduate student, I know how busy your schedules are. However, I hope that
some of you will be able to take the time to share your experiences with me. If this
sounds like something you’d like to be involved with, please contact me via e-mail at
sallee@usc.edu. You can also reach me in my office at 213-740-3453.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to working with you over the next few
months.

Sincerely,

Margaret Sallee
Research Assistant
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Although stage models of socialization explain how students acquire the skills to succeed in an academic discipline, they are content- and identity-neutral. Since stage models address how socialization occurs for all students, they cannot account for the idiosyncrasies of disciplines or how social identity influences an individual’s integration to a new department. This dissertation introduces gender into models of graduate student socialization. Using interviews, observations, and document analysis, this study focuses on the experiences of male doctoral students in English (a predominantly female discipline) and Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (or AME, a predominantly male discipline). The dissertation considers how socialization both shapes and is shaped by gender as well as how socialization differs by discipline.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How religious engagement shapes the college experience of African American Christian males at a predominantly White institution: a phenomenlogical approach

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement

PDF

Undocumented college students: pursuing academic goals against the odds

PDF

Creating community online: the effects of online social networking communities on college students' experiences

PDF

Pearl harbored: race, gender and public memories of Pearl Harbor and 9/11/2001

PDF

The at-risk student perspective of education in an alternative education program

PDF

School disciplined reimagined: centering Black students in discipline policies

PDF

Collaborative social networks in student affairs: an exploration of the outcomes and strategies associated with cross‐institutional collaboration

PDF

Grinding all my life: the role of a community college men of color program in supporting masculine identity exploration

PDF

Relational leadership: underrepresented student perspectives on diversity courses

PDF

Student engagement experiences of African American males at a California community college

PDF

Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree

PDF

Familial and cultural variables as predictors of retention of Latino engineering students

PDF

Cultural centers and students: are the diversity needs of students being met?

PDF

The writing studio as co-requisite remediation: a relational ethnography of academic discourse and social capital

PDF

Navigating the struggle: neoliberal meritocracy, Latinx charter school graduates, and the college transition

PDF

Huddle-up: a phenomenological approach to understanding the impact of intercollegiate athletic participation on the academic socialization of male revenue-generating student-athletes

PDF

Investigating how general education middle school teachers support the social inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions

PDF

The influence of social networking sites on high school students' social and academic development

Asset Metadata

Creator Sallee, Margaret W. (author)

Core Title Socialization and masculinities: tales of two disciplines

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Degree Conferral Date 2008-12

Publication Date 09/16/2008

Defense Date 07/15/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag graduate students,masculinities,OAI-PMH Harvest,socialization

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tierney, William G. (committee chair), Cole, Darnell (committee member), Messner, Michael A. (committee member), Morrison, Jean (committee member)

Creator Email mwsallee@gmail.com,sallee@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1604

Unique identifier UC1160335

Identifier etd-Sallee-2337 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-95237 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1604 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Sallee-2337.pdf

Dmrecord 95237

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Sallee, Margaret W.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu