Satisfaction, research productivity, and socialization in doctoral students: Do teaching assistantship, research assistantship and the advisory relationship play a role?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Funding to doctoral students in the form of research and teaching assistantships help students become independent scholars and complete their programs. Insufficient funding, unforeseen financial obligations, and debt can discourage students from completing their programs in a timely fashion. However, supervisors may play an influential role in supporting doctoral student socialization and growth towards research autonomy. Girves and Wemmerus's (1988) doctoral student degree progress theoretical model claimed that financial assistance and students' perceptions of faculty support are key predictors of doctoral students' progress. They also proposed that students' satisfaction with their department, sense of isolation, and engagement in their programs may explain (or mediate) these associations. The aim of this study was to investigate how supervisor support and financial assistance influence doctoral students' satisfaction with their programs as well as their academic and social engagement. Using data from the Canadian Graduate and Professional Student Survey (n = 18,822 doctoral students), we evaluated a model of doctoral student productivity (i.e., publications and conference presentations) with teaching and research assistantships as key predictors and student satisfaction as mediators. We also examined how supervisor support and financial assistance relate to students' academic and social life. The results showed that teaching assistantships are negatively associated with general satisfaction and program satisfaction but positively associated with social involvement. Moreover, research assistantships were significantly and positively associated with social involvement and progress. Supervisor support was positively associated with doctoral students' general satisfaction, program satisfaction, and social involvement. The findings support Girves and Wemmerus's theory and highlight the importance of faculty support for doctoral student success. (258/300).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".