
































Microsoft Word - 277-Final.docx


   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 1, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Colby J. Silvert, Doctoral Candidate, University of Florida, 310 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, 32611, colby.silvert@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2055-7597 
2. Rafael Quijada Landaverde, Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University, 600 John Kimbrough Blvd, TAMU 2116, College 

Station, TX 77843, rafael.q@ag.tamu.edu,   https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6489-0477 
3. John Diaz, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 408 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, 32611, john.diaz@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2787-8759 
4. Mary T. Rodriguez, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University, 200E Agricultural Administration Building, 2120 Fyffe 

Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, rodriguez.746@osu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8716-2787 
5. Dharmendra Kalauni, Graduate Student, University of Florida, 410 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, 32611, kalauni.d@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8443-0101  

 17 

 

Exploring Graduate Students’ Socialization to International 
Agriculture: A Mixed Methods Needs Assessment 

C. J. Silvert1, R. Q. Landaverde2, J. Diaz.3, M. T. Rodriguez4, D. Kalauni5 
 

 
Article History 
Received: November 10, 2022 
Accepted: January 10, 2023 
Published: January 20, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
academic association; global food 
system; graduate education; 
internationalization; stakeholder 
engagement   

Abstract 
Internationalization of higher education’s agricultural disciplines is 
essential to account for agrifood system trends toward globalization and 
multiculturalism. Professional and academic associations can play a 
formative role preparing graduate students for their agricultural careers. 
Guided by socialization theory, this needs assessment explores graduate 
students’ perceived needs, expectations, and ideas to optimize 
engagement with associations focused on international agriculture. A 
convergent mixed methods design integrated and contrasted 
quantitative and qualitative data from an online survey—filled by 26 
student participants—and qualitative data from a virtual fishbone focus 
group with seven participants. Students’ perceptions appear responsive 
to trends toward globalized food systems and demonstrate their desire 
for socialization to gain internationally focused capacities and 
connections to opportunities in a variety of global agricultural areas. 
Findings indicate associations geared toward internationally oriented 
scholarship and academics should expand to better encompass 
international development practice. Doing so would provide greater 
insight into practitioners’ priorities and facilitate alternative career 
pathways for graduate students interested in practice. Additionally, 
findings point to needs for student mentoring and communication efforts 
focused on equitable and inclusive engagement with first generation 
students and students in developing countries who may be financially 
inhibited from traveling for in-person socialization activities. 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   18 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Graduate education prepares specialized professionals by fostering intellectual growth through 
applied and enriching experiences. Graduate schools intentionally recruit individuals of 
different nationalities and non-traditional backgrounds, diversifying student body needs and 
expectations (Coulter et al., 2004; Holtzman et al., 2021). In the literature, graduate students 
have been described as educational consumers with specific and evolving academic needs 
(Coulter et al., 2004; Sullivan & Stevenson, 2009). Correspondingly, in higher education’s 
agricultural disciplines (e.g., crop sciences, communications, development, etc.), 
internationalization of curricula and capacity development is particularly important to account 
for agrifood system trends toward globalization and multiculturalism (Johnson et al., 1995; 
Navarro & Edwards, 2008). Professional and academic associations are formative for graduate 
students’ global career preparation, providing important socialization via member-tailored 
activities, services, and networking (Akkerman & Torenvlied, 2013; Coulter et al., 2004). 
 
Currently, professional and academic associations struggle to connect with younger 
professional generations and face various challenges in meeting student members’ 
expectations (Sidecar, 2021). The challenges faced by associations with international foci are 
uniquely complex, accounting for issues like globalization (Taylor & Yang, 2015), resource 
availability and distribution (Zhang, 2016), and addressing students’ contrasting interests from 
international graduate and training programs (Bunoti, 2011; Duerrenberger & Warning, 2018). 
Professional and academic associations play an important yet challenging role in developing 
graduate students’ international agricultural skills, interests, and career paths. Therefore, we 
identified a research need to explore students’ perceived needs, expectations, and ideas to 
optimize engagement with associations focused on international agriculture. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
Socialization—the theoretical lens guiding this study—is the process describing how people 
engage with a group, organization, or community and the corresponding influences on those 
people and the collective (Austin & McDaniels, 2006; Corcoran & Clark, 1984; Staton & Darling, 
1989). The original theory of socialization has been adapted and investigated in diverse ways 
including how university students socialize to their campus, how employees socialize to an 
institutional culture, and how graduate students socialize to their professions (Austin & 
McDaniels, 2006). Contemporary theorists have countered early notions of socialization as a 
linear one-way process that implied people are assimilated to an organization. The postmodern 
perspective, instead, proposes socialization as a cultural, bidirectional process contributing to 
co-constructed changes in both individuals and collectives (Antony, 2002; Tierney, 1997). 
Postmodern socialization has also shifted away from advocating for a singular phenomenon 
applicable to all members of an organization, toward accounting for different members’ unique 
identities and experiences as well as linked exclusion and marginalization dynamics (Austin & 
McDaniels, 2006; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). 
 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   19 
 

Due to a lack of closely aligned literature, our focus on graduate students’ socialization to 
international agriculture seems novel but fitting, as four central principles of the theory connect 
to the key areas of our needs assessment study. First, socialization occurs via formal or informal 
mechanisms (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Related to this study, students in the organization 
may engage with international topics by informally networking with other members or by 
formally participating in professional development or scholarship activities. 
 
Second, socialization should not homogenize or assimilate any group members and especially 
newcomers (Tierney & Rhoads, 1993). Instead, individuals and groups should be supported 
“...to retain their identities and come together in communities of difference” (Tierney & 
Bensimon, 1996, p. 19). In an internationally focused organization, students’ and other 
members’ diverse perspectives and experiences are key sources of knowledge and insight to 
benefit all members. Related to this second point, students’ socialization needs and barriers 
may be rooted in marginalization, norms, and power dynamics. Research suggests, for instance, 
women and people of color more often feel less welcomed and face more barriers in academia 
(Austin & McDaniels, 2006; Clark & Corcoran, 1986; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). 
 
Third, according to Staton and Darling (1989), socialization is mediated by communication, 
including responding to formal and informal messages with the organization as well as learning 
by observation. In this study, graduate students’ perceived communication with and from the 
organization and interpersonal communication among its members could impact the quality of 
their socialization. 
 
Fourth and lastly, knowledge acquisition, involvement, and investment were proposed as three 
core elements underlying the bidirectional process of socialization (Austin & McDaniels, 2006; 
Weidman et al., 2001). Exploring these elements requires assessing the organization’s offerings 
(e.g., development and learning activities) as well as student members’ own time and effort 
investments toward the organization. 
 
We applied socialization theory within a mixed methods needs assessment—a technique used 
to assess gaps and needs between people’s present engagement with an organization and their 
desired engagement with the organization (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). Focusing on graduate 
students’ perceptions, we propose that students’ participation in the organization reflects a 
process of socialization to international agriculture. 
 
  



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   20 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to gather graduate students’ perceived needs related to their 
socialization to international agriculture via involvement in a professional and academic 
association focused on international agricultural extension and education. The research 
objectives were to: 
1. Describe the participants and their involvement in the internationally focused professional 

and academic association.  
2. Identify priority issue areas where students feel their international engagement and 

experience could be improved through involvement in the association.  
3. Examine the future direction in which students perceive the association should concentrate 

its student-oriented activities and offerings. 
 

Methods 
 
Our research process was structured by the Witkin and Altschuld (1995) three-phased needs 
assessment approach, which involves pre-assessment/exploration (phase one), 
assessment/data collection (phase two), and post-assessment/utilization (phase three). In the 
pre-assessment, we reviewed background literature and documents and engaged stakeholders. 
In the assessment phase, we collected and analyzed data. Post-assessment activities involving 
stakeholders to apply findings were still in progress at the time of writing this article. 
 
Sampling and Data Sources 
The target population for this needs assessment was graduate students with active Association 
for International Agricultural and Extension Education (AIAEE) memberships. We aimed to 
achieve a representative student member sample using purposive and snowball sampling 
methods (Plowright, 2011). Several channels were used to recruit including the AIAEE email 
listserv, social media, the 2022 AIAEE annual conference, and the researchers’ connections with 
eligible students. A census sample was deemed logistically impractical, as participation in the 
study was fully voluntary. Per the relatively small size of the organization, we aimed to achieve 
a sample of 25 to 30 survey participants and enough focus group members for data saturation 
(Ary et al., 2019). 
 
Data Collection and Analysis 
A convergent mixed methods design was used to simultaneous collect then integrate and 
contrast data from an online survey with both closed- and open-ended questions, as well as 
qualitative data from a focus group (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). 
 
The survey instrument design centered on two indices assessing students’ satisfaction with 
their engagement in networking, collaboration, and student diversity, capacity building and 
learning, funding and value, the annual conference, and scholarship. The five-point Likert 
satisfaction scale had the following response anchors: Extremely dissatisfied (1), Somewhat 
dissatisfied (2), Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3), Somewhat satisfied (4), and Extremely 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   21 
 

satisfied (5) (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). Closed-ended questions also gauged students’ 
involvement with the association (number of years as member and self-reported rating on a 
five-point scale from barely involved to extremely involved). Lastly, respondents were asked if 
they had published in the association’s refereed journal or presented a paper/poster at a 
conference. 
 
Qualitative data were collected via open-ended survey questions designed to gather ideas on 
the future direction of the association’s engagement with and support for students. An 
additional source of qualitative data was a virtual focus group, using the fishbone causal 
analysis technique (see Figure 2) (Harder, 2020; Ishikawa, 1983). Using the Zoom annotate 
function, seven student participants filled the fishbone diagram—structured with the “fish 
head” being the overall goal to optimize students’ engagement in and reward from the 
organization, and the “fish ribs” being areas or gaps to address to achieve this goal (see Figure 
2). The participants were first asked to independently add items within each rib category (or 
request new rib categories). We then reviewed the group’s contributions and positioning of the 
inputs together with the group to seek clarifications, relocations, and remove duplicates. Then, 
participants voted for the three items/contributions they felt were most important and should 
be prioritized by the organization. 
 
We analyzed the quantitative data using central tendency measures, which identified 
participants’ top five expressed needs. Internal consistency/reliability of the indices was 
calculated and deemed acceptable using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (.79) (Ary et al., 2019). 
The qualitative data from the survey were analyzed using thematic analysis to inductively 
organize and code findings based on commonalities and contrasts (Creswell, 2014). We 
enhanced trustworthiness using member checking and audit trails (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). 
 

Findings 
 
Objective 1: Describe the participants and their involvement in the internationally focused 
professional and academic association. 
The majority of the 26 respondents were from the United States while the sample was 
representative of six countries total (see Figure 1). Following the United States, more 
respondents were from Nigeria and Afghanistan as compared to other nationalities. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   22 
 

Figure 1 
 
Respondent Nationalities (n = 26) 
 

 
 
Four more female students participated in the survey than male students (see Table 1). Most 
respondents were studying at the doctoral level (69.2%) compared to students pursuing a 
master’s degree (30.8%). 
 
Table 1 
 
Respondent Backgrounds and Demographics (n = 26) 
Characteristic f % 
Sex 

  

Male 11 42.3 
Female 15 57.7 

Current position 
  

Master's student 8 30.8 
Doctoral student 18 69.2 

Member of other professional associations 
  

Yes 16 61.5 
No 10 38.5 

 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   23 
 

The data in Table 2 illustrate that the respondents were relatively new to involvement with the 
association. However, it is important to recognize that a member’s engagement as a graduate 
student would likely be limited to two years as a master’s student and four to six years as a 
doctoral student. Most students self-rated their level of involvement as somewhat involved 
with the least number of students indicating they were barely involved. We also examined 
whether students had produced scholarship successfully via association channels. More 
respondents had presented a poster, oral presentation, or professional development than had 
published in the association journal. 
 
Table 2 
 
Involvement and Achievements with Organization (n = 26) 
Factor of involvement f % 
Years involved with organization 

  

Less than one year 12 46.2 
One to 3 years 10 38.5 
3+ years 4 15.4 

Perceived level of involvement 
  

I am barely involved 1 3.8 
I am not very involved 7 26.9 
I am somewhat involved 11 42.3 
I am very involved 7 26.9 

Led presentation or professional development 
  

Yes 21 80.8 
No 5 19.2 

Publication in peer-reviewed journal of organization 
  

Yes 7 26.9 
No 19 73.1 

 
Objective 2: Identify priority issue areas where students feel their international engagement 
and experience could be improved through involvement in the association. 
We determined the top five needs expressed by the student members based on the data in 
Table 3. Because a lower mean represents a lower level of satisfaction, the following five items 
from the two tables were deemed, in order, to be the top five needs based on their means: (1) 
Networking with nonprofit and private sector practitioners and leaders, (2) Communication 
with students via social media, (3) Funding and scholarships for students to attend the annual 
conference, (4) Opportunities for students to publish scholarship in the Journal of International 
Agricultural and Extension Education, and (5) Funding and scholarships for students to attend 
the annual conference. Students were most satisfied with learning about relevant international 
research, relevant professional development/skill building, and participation in the annual 
conference. 
 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   24 
 

Table 3 
 
Satisfaction with Activity Areas – Lowest to Highest (n = 26) 
Activity area M SD 
Networking with nonprofit and private sector practitioners and leaders 2.65 1.06 
Communication with students via social media 2.92 0.85 
Networking that leads to professional opportunities (e.g., job interviews) 3.27 1.12 
Opportunities for students to publish scholarship in the association journal 3.31 1.09 
Funding and scholarships for students to attend the annual conference 3.38 1.36 
Communication with students via email 3.46 1.17 
Collaboration on research or extension projects 3.50 0.95 
Value for the costs of student membership 3.54 1.42 
Value for the costs of the annual conference 3.62 1.30 
Diversity of student membership (i.e., students from different countries 

and backgrounds) 
3.81 1.13 

Networking with other university students and faculty 4.00 1.13 
Participation in the annual conference 4.04 1.08 
Relevant professional development/ skill building 4.12 0.71 
Learning about relevant international research 4.31 0.79 
Note. Cronbach’s alpha measure of reliability for the 14-item index = .79. Satisfaction was 
measured using the five-point Likert-type scale containing the following response anchors: 
Extremely dissatisfied (1), Somewhat dissatisfied (2), Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3), 
Somewhat satisfied (4), and Extremely satisfied (5). Thus, a lower mean indicates less 
satisfaction. 

 

Objective 3: Examine the future direction in which students perceive the association should 
concentrate its student-oriented activities and offerings. 
Our thematic analysis of students’ perceptions of future activities and offerings by the 
professional and academic association resulted in four major themes: (1) Mentoring and 
professional development; (2) Information and communication; (3) Participation and cost; and 
(4) Diversifying the organization. 
 
Mentoring and Professional Development 
Several students mentioned how the organization should more intentionally facilitate 
mentoring opportunities, especially those focused on scientific research and publication. 
Participants perceived that students need more support in this area and would benefit from 
interacting with faculty members outside of their home institution. Participant C commented “I 
would like to see almost a cultural exchange where students can pair up with faculty from other 
institutions and get one-on-one time talking to them.” Along with formal mentorship, 
participants perceived a need to expand the topics and frequency of professional development 
activities. Internationalized career paths and job search/application frequently emerged as 
professional development topics where the organization should improve its offerings. 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   25 
 

Participant G mentioned “I am desperately looking for employment. So, it would have been nice 
to have a list of soon-to-be graduates and their interests available to professionals.” 
 
Information and Communication 
Students pointed to deficiencies in the organization's communication channels and efforts to 
communicate consistent, reliable information to all members. For example, Participant D 
questioned the quality of the organization's website, not only in informing current members 
but, more importantly, in attracting future ones. Participant C shared “I am a new student 
member, I did not get any email with regards joining the AIAEE and it was assumed I would go 
through the website or just be curious enough. I believe a welcome email and resources should 
be initiated for new members.” In addition, Participant G mentioned using social networks to 
encourage scientific community members to actively engage in educational and relevant 
conversations. 
 
Participation and Cost 
Participants D and F encouraged the organization to allow graduate students to become 
members of each of the organization's committees, which are currently only accessible to 
faculty and professional members, aside from the graduate student board representative. 
Participant M echoed this sentiment: “We are encouraged to attend committee meetings, but 
when we go there I don't feel like our voices are being heard. The professors all know each 
other and talk about things that we have no knowledge of, so it is hard to break in and add 
input to the meetings.” 
 
Participants seemed to urge the organization leaders to promote student engagement and 
leadership by opening spaces where students can contribute to the organization’s 
advancement. Participant A said, “The classification 'student' seems to come with a reduced 
representation and voice in the organization. To limit these non-traditional students from 
serving as committee chairs or pursuing other leadership roles is discouraging and limits 
individual contributions to the organization.” Regarding engagement in current activities, 
participants mentioned one of the main reasons for low student participation—especially 
among non-U.S. students—is the costs associated with membership and engagement. 
Participant E mentioned that the cost for membership and conference fees in other 
organizations are considerably cheaper. 
 
Diversifying the Organization 
Although the organization has an international scope, the participants perceive greater 
participation of U.S. students and professionals than individuals from other countries. 
Participant H mentioned “As an international organization, it is disappointing to see mostly 
American members or students from American universities.” Participants indicated cost and 
lack of international stakeholders’ engagement limit the inclusion of geographically diverse 
audiences. Some suggestions that emerged were to implement a differentiated cost system 
(i.e., membership and conference fees) based on needs and support from the student 
scholarship program. Participant F commented, “The costs of the annual conference are a 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   26 
 

major barrier to participation, a barrier that can hinder first generation students, students from 
lower income families, and students from developing country institutions the most.” 
 
An additional important issue was participants’ perception of low engagement from members 
working in international sectors other than academia (e.g., nonprofit development). Participant 
E stated that they had few interactions with people who were not graduate students or faculty 
members. Participant H supported this idea by saying “a greater mix of academic membership 
with NGO, civil society, and private sector membership would offer a better-rounded lens into 
the broad world of international agriculture and extension education.” 
 
Participatory Fishbone Focus Group Findings 
In addition to the themes that emerged from open-ended survey questions, the seven 
participants in the mixed methods fishbone diagram activity proposed key areas where they felt 
student engagement could be optimized. The following “contributors” (in descending order of 
votes) emerged as the seven most important for the association to address to optimize 
engagement with student members (see Figure 2): 
1. Networking around interest topics for research collaboration 
2. Reaching out to more international universities 
3. Invitations to join groups (grant writing, research collab) 
4. Multiple levels for scholarships 
5. Connection/networking with faculty/future employers 
6. Conference scholarships 
7. Mentoring on reviewing journal articles 
 
Figure 2 
 
Fishbone Diagram with the Top Seven Areas to Optimize Association Engagement with Students 

 
 

 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   27 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Professionals at the forefront of agriculture must increasingly address issues interconnected 
with global food systems. Correspondingly, an uptick has occurred in academic and career 
preparation focused on international development and agriculture (Bedenlier et al., 2018; 
Winfrey, 2017). This study’s mixed methods findings demonstrate ways graduate students’ 
socialization can be optimized to build their international capacities and connect them to 
opportunities and networks in a variety of global agricultural areas. 
 
Findings suggest graduate students perceived a significant gap in networking with practitioners 
from the private and nonprofit sectors. While associations may emphasize international 
focused scholarship and academics, leaders should consider expanding to better encompass 
international development practice and attract these stakeholders. This integration aligns with 
major networks and engagements at the nexus of international agricultural research and 
development practice, including the CGIAR consortium, funded with over 900 million U.S. 
dollars and employing more than 9,000 staff globally in research and development (CGIAR, 
n.d.). Development and extension practitioners as association members could provide greater 
insight into their issues and priorities, as well as facilitate alternative career pathways for 
graduate students interested in practice. 
 
Participants expressed needs for socialization via improved mentoring and networking, 
especially focused on linking to career opportunities, which could occur through different 
activities, both formally and informally (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Moreover, good 
mentoring may extend beyond a purely professional capacity, and 70% of hires are made based 
on previous personal or professional connections (Center for Career Development, 2020). 
Establishing mentoring systems to match students with senior mentors—such as academics or 
experts in nonprofit or development practice—based on corresponding interests and identified 
gaps may address this expressed need. Promoting potential reciprocal benefits of participating 
in the mentoring (e.g., development organizations connecting with upcoming professionals to 
hire) is recommended for a functioning system. For more inclusive and equitable international 
mentoring, remote and/or hybrid techniques—in addition to in-person—should be considered 
for sensitivity to students’ constraints preventing their in-person engagement in activities. Our 
data, corroborating past research, show first generation students, students from lower income 
families, and students from institutions in developing countries are most financially inhibited 
from in-person socialization at international events like conferences via the current offerings. 
 
Diversity of membership and inclusivity did not emerge as top priorities based on quantitative 
analysis but did emerge from qualitative analysis. Paying attention to these qualitative findings 
is important as the survey sample was skewed toward U.S. students and therefore may not be a 
clear representation of the perceived diversity and inclusivity of the organization. Meaningful 
online communications could help promote inclusive socialization, especially with new 
members who may feel isolated, or be in locations disengaged without resources to attend a 
conference. Sending tailored welcome messages and social media community-building to 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   28 
 

recognize new members’ unique contributions and needs could reduce issues of 
disenfranchisement or homogenization of newcomers (Tierney & Rhoads, 1993). Perceived 
marginalization was also linked to participants’ identity as “students,” limiting their association 
roles (e.g., not being allowed on committees). A starting point to address this need could be 
discussing policies geared toward treating graduate students as valued members bringing 
important experiences to associations. 
 
This study provides foundational exploration into graduate students’ needs and priorities to 
optimize their socialization to areas in international agriculture. The critical next step, following 
this type of needs assessment, is to facilitate engagement between the key stakeholders (the 
students) and leaders of the target organization to set priorities based on the findings and 
available resources (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). 
 

Acknowledgements and Declarations 
 
Student members of Association of International Agricultural and Extension Education, along 
with its executive officers, graciously supported this study by providing spaces for recruitment 
at the annual conference and via the listserv. Four of the five authors were members of the 
association at the time of data collection. 
 
C. Silvert - data collection, formal analysis, investigation, writing-original draft, writing-review 
and editing; R. Q.  Landaverde - data collection, formal analysis, investigation, writing-original 
draft, writing-review and editing; J. Diaz - writing-original draft, writing-review and editing;  
M. T. Rodriguez - writing-review and editing; D. Kalauni - writing-original draft, writing-review 
and editing 
 

References 
 
Akkerman, A., & Torenvlied, R. (2013). Public management and network specificity: Effects of 

colleges’ ties with professional organizations on graduates’ labour market success and 
satisfaction. Public Management Review, 15(4), 522–540. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.677213 

 
 Antony, J. S. (2002). Reexamining doctoral student socialization and professional development: 

Moving beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher 
education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 349–380). Springer. 

 
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2019). Introduction to research in education 

(10th ed.). Cengage Learning. 
 
Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Preparing the professoriate of the future: Graduate 

student socialization for faculty roles. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of 
theory and research (pp. 397–456). Springer. 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   29 
 

 
Bedenlier, S., Kondakci, Y., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2017). Two decades of research into the 

internationalization of higher education: Major themes in the Journal of Studies in 
Internationalization (1997-2016). Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 
108–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317710093 

 
Bunoti, S. (2011). The quality of higher education in developing countries needs professional 

support [Conference paper]. 22nd International Conference on Higher Education. 
Kampala, Uganda. http://www.intconfhighered.org/FINAL%20Sarah%20Bunoti.pdf 

 
Center for Career Development. (2020). Guide to effective & authentic networking. Princeton 

University. 
https://careerdevelopment.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1041/files/media/network
ing_guide-oct._2020.pdf  

 
CGIAR. (n.d.). Funders. https://www.cgiar.org/funders/   
 
Clark, S. M., & Corcoran, M. (1986). Perspectives on the professional socialization of women 

faculty: A case of accumulative disadvantage? The Journal of Higher Education, 57(1), 
20–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1986.11778747  

 
Corcoran, M., & Clark, S. M. (1984). Professional socialization and contemporary career 

attitudes of three faculty generations. Research in Higher Education, 20, 131–153. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991464 

 
Coulter, F. W., Goin, R. P., & Gerard, J. M. (2004). Assessing graduate students’ needs: The role 

of graduate student organizations. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(1), 15–26. 
https://www.proquest.com/docview/216182731/fulltextPDF/DD9245F534064325PQ/1
?accountid=10920 

 
Creswell J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods 

approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. 
 
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research 

(3rd ed.). SAGE. 
 
Duerrenberger, N., & Warning, S. (2018). Corruption and education in developing countries: The 

role of public vs. private funding of higher education. International Journal of 
Educational Development, 62, 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.05.002 

 
Harder, A. (2020). Conducting the needs assessment #11: Causal analysis techniques. University 

of Florida Cooperative Extension Electronic Data Information Source. 
https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/WC352  

 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   30 
 

Holtzman, S., Minott, T., Devasia, N., Kirova, D., & Klieger, D. (2021). Exploring diversity in 
graduate and professional school applications. ETS Research Report Series, 2021(1), 1–
19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12330  

 
Ishikawa, K. (1983). Guide to quality control. Asian Productivity Organization. 
 
Johnson, B., von Bargen, K., & Schinstock, J. (1995). Shifting the curriculum paradigm in a land 

grant college. In J. P. Lunde, M. Baker, F. H. Buelow, & L. S. Hayes (Eds.), Reshaping 
curricula: Revitalization programs at three land grant universities (pp. 54-62). Anker. 

 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE. 
 
Navarro, M., & Edwards, M. C. (2008). Priorities for undergraduate education and the inclusion 

of internationalized curriculum in colleges of agriculture: Interpreting the" comparison 
dilemma". Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(4), 72–82. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.04072 

 
Plowright, D. (2011). Using mixed methods: Frameworks for an integrated methodology. SAGE. 

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526485090  
 
Sidecar. (2021, April 26). Declining membership in professional organizations and what you can 

do about it. Sidecar. https://sidecarglobal.com/member-engagement/declining-
membership-in-professional-organizations-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/  

 
Sullivan, D., & Stevenson, D. (2009). Promoting professional organization involvement. AORN 

Journal, 90, 575–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2009.09.007 
 
Staton, A. Q., & Darling, A. L. (1989). Socialization of teaching assistants. New Directions for 

Teaching and Learning, (39), 15-22. 
 
Taylor, M., & Yang, A. (2015). Have global ethical values emerged in the public relations 

industry? Evidence from national and international professional public relations 
associations. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
014-2226-4 

 
Tierney, W. G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. The Journal of Higher 

Education, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1997.11778975 
 
Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization 

in academe. Suny Press. 
 
Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1993). Enhancing promotion, tenure and beyond: Faculty 

socialization as a cultural process. The George Washington University.  
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED368322.pdf 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.277   31 
 

 
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Towards a theory of organizational socialization. In B. 

Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). JAI Press. 
 
Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional 

students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 
28(3). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457710.pdf 

 
Winfrey, M. (2017, May 12). Preparing for the future of agriculture through career exploration. 

AgriLINKS. https://agrilinks.org/content/preparing-future-agriculture-through-career-
exploration 

 
Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical 

guide. SAGE 
 
Zhang, Y. (2016). An overlooked population in community college: International students’(in) 

validation experiences with academic advising. Community College Review, 44(2), 153–
170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552116633293 

 
© 2023 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


