Can this template be filled in by the completed outline by the person who completes the outline? Basically complete the Lit review to match the outline.
Proposal 1 Decision making about online or traditional higher education: Technology's effect on the social aspect of education: A LITERATURE REVIEW by Student’s Full Legal Name Liberty University A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education University 2021 Overview A systematic review of the literature was conducted to explore the problem of first-generation students (FGS) who have advanced to doctoral education with experiences with impostor phenomenon behaviors and a sense of belonging. In the first section, the theories relevant to the impostor phenomenon (IP), and social identity theory will be discussed, followed by a synthesis of recent literature regarding impostor phenomenon, first-generation college students, and the experiences of first-generation doctoral students. In the end, a gap in the literature will be identified, presenting a viable need for the current study. Theoretical Framework This literature review will examine how the impostor phenomenon (IP) interrelates to the identity theory for first-generation college students now pursuing doctoral education. The constructs used in this study regarding the impostor phenomenon are low self-esteem, high self-monitoring, and higher negative self-evaluations as related to their non-impostorism counterparts (Kolligian & Sternberg, 1991). Social identity theory indicates that three constructs determine an individual's social identity: social categorization, social comparison, and social identification (Tajfel, 2010). These constructs can impact an individual’s behaviors outside and inside of their groups. The social identity approach combines ideas regarding individual self-categorization to a group and the social identity of individuals within a group (Burke & Stets, 2009; Stets & Burke, 2000). Self-esteem, self-monitoring, and negative self-evaluation may prove to be commonalities in an individual's perceptions and behaviors of their standing within their group (Allen, 2011; Tajfel, 2010). In the case of this research, the behaviors of first-generation doctoral students experiencing impostor behaviors could show commonalities with their sense of belonging to their programs (Gardner, 2013; Gardner & Holley, 2011; Whitehead & Wright, 2017). Impostor phenomenon is the perception of an individual that they are an intellectual and professional fraud (Clance & Imes, 1978). Those experiencing impostorism experience worry and anxiety about their abilities within the group and fear that their fraudulence will be exposed to those that have perceptions of them that do not match their impostor self-perceptions (Kolligian & Sternberg, 1991). Clance and Imes's (1978) development of the impostor phenomenon was originally based on high-achieving women who had feelings of phoniness even with evidence of success. As the concept began to be applied in research to other populations and demographics, self-report measurement scales were developed to measure impostor behaviors. Oftentimes, the measurement scales were based on varying definitions and applications of the original imposter phenomenon framework (Clance, 1985; Mak et al., 2019). The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS), a 20 item scale that addresses a fear of evaluation and feeling less capable than peers is the most commonly used scale by researchers and practitioners (Mak et al., 2019). Another commonly used scale is the Harvey Impostor Phenomenon scale which was the first scale created and was used by Clance in the development of the CIPS (Clance, 1985; Mak et al., 2019). As research has continued regarding the impostor phenomenon other scales have been developed to incorporate variances to the definition of impostor phenomenon which has been called “impostorism”, “perceived fraudulence” and “impostor syndrome” in recent years (Clance & Imes, 1978; Clance & OToole, 1987; Kolligian & Sternberg, 1991; Langford & Clance, 1993; Mak et al., 2019). A 51-item Perceived Fraudulence Scale reflects the characteristics outlined by Kolligian and Sternberg (1991). The Leary Imposter scale, a 7-item instrument focuses solely on the sense of being an impostor or fraud and is centered on Leary’s what? (Mak et al., 2019). Social identity theory (SIT) argues that, in many social situations, individuals think of themselves and others as group members rather than unique individuals (Stets & Burke, 2000; Tajfel, 2010). Social identity refers to the self-categorization of individuals into groups. Individuals' self-identity is impacted when they are categorized either by society or in a self-selected manner (Tajfel, 1982). Tajfel (2010) asserts in his theory that the groups that people associate were an important source of self-esteem and a sense of belonging. However, the grouping of in-group (us) and out-group (them) categorization, leads in-group members to find negative aspects of an out-group as a way to increase their self-image through their ingroup (Burke & Stets, 2009; Tajfel, 2010). Individuals with strong affiliations to their groups, however, are more likely to garner self-esteem from the group (Tajfel, 2010). Positive self-evaluation as a group member can be achieved by conforming to the group norms (Allen, 2011; Tajfel, 1982). However, negative self-evaluation of individual roles within their in-group affects affiliation and sense of belonging (Burke & Stets, 2009). To date, most research on the impostor phenomenon has been focused on individual behaviors of those within marginalized groups (Mack, 2019; Sims & Cassidy, 2019; Stone et al., 2018). However, a re-framing of research is lacking on how environmental factors, like categorization into a marginalized group or lack of affiliation within an associated group impact impostorism for individuals (Feenstra et al., 2020; Kolligian & Sternberg, 1991). By pairing the social identity theory framework with impostor phenomenon theory, researchers can begin to question if impostor syndrome arises from within individuals or if external factors, like context and social structure, create impostor feelings (Feenstra et al., 2020). Related Literature The point where impostor phenomenon and identity within and outside of groups can be explored by looking at related literature for both impostor phenomenon and the group applicable to this study, first-generation college students in doctoral programs. I get what you are saying but needs rewording. The literature intersects in areas related to how the individual self-evaluates their place within the in-group of their program and how that self-evaluation in comparison with others in the group affects their impostorism behaviors and tendencies. The student place within the program and group can be categorized as a sense of belonging (Shavers & Moore, 2019) Literature related to impostor phenomenon, first generational students including those pursuing advanced degrees, and sense of belonging will be reviewed in this section. Impostor Phenomenon Research applying impostor phenomenon theory to the academic environment in higher education has been conducted on students, faculty, and administrators (Clance & Imes, 1978; MacInnis et al., 2019; Mak et al., 2019; Sims & Cassidy, 2019; Stone et al., 2018). The higher education environment is by culture and history, an environment of evaluation, assessment, and intellectual pursuits (S. K. Gardner, 2013). Impostor phenomenon behaviors can center on feelings of “intellectual phoniness” as described by Clance and Imes (1978) and may include ideas that luck, working harder than others, charm and personality instead of talent or skill are the contributors of success for the “impostor” (Leonhardt et al., 2017; Vaughn et al., 2020). Often impostor phenomenon can be seen as a form of self-harm to academic success, and in the original definition of self-evaluation and self-esteem, that concept remains in both student and academic professional applications (Leonhardt et al., 2017; Mack, 2019; Vaughn et al., 2020). However, Leonhardt et al. (2017), in recent studies, have distinguished groups in which “strategic impostors” use the negative self-evaluation as a means of appearing modest or less self-promoting to disguise the fear of exposure experienced by those with impostorism. However, results from Leonhardt et al.’s (2017) work did not show significant differences of impostorism feelings between the group of true or strategic impostors in their results, it just exposed different mechanisms of working through the impostor behaviors may differ. First-generation College Students Research on students categorized as first-generation college students is prevalent among studies of undergraduate student populations (Beattie, 2018; Bettencourt et al., 2020; Engle & Tinto, 2008; Gardner, 2013; Lunceford, 2011). The definition of first-generation college students can vary by institutional purpose or study. There are times when FGS is defined as students enrolled in 4-year colleges with neither parent holding a bachelor’s degree (Beattie, 2018). Other definitions include a student whose parents did not attend college, in using this definition does not exclude those with older siblings who may have college experience (Gardner & Holley, 2011). Some definitions include wording that the student is “first in family” to attend college, which further narrow’s the definition to distinguish those who are the first out of the generation to attend the University (Ilett, 2019). Unfortunately, in reviewing the literature the two terms can be used interchangeably without definition or distinction. For this literature review, either distinction of first-generation or first in family applies to our review. Researchers have found the study of first-generation students important because FGS often faces barriers to access and student success (Engle & Tinto, 2008). FGS students are more likely to come from lower socio-economic backgrounds than continuing generation students (CGS) (Beattie, 2018). A FGS at the undergraduate level is more like to be low-income, female, be older than traditional college-aged, have a disability, come from minority backgrounds, have dependent children, and be financially independent of their parents (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Gardner, 2013; Roksa et al., 2018). Much work in FGS research has used Bourdieu’s (year) – remember the need to cite primary works - capital theory which focuses on the cultural capital of an individual to help provide access to social and economic rewards, in this case, higher education, that can be passed from one generation to another (Beattie, 2018; English & Bolton, 2021). Other large areas of research focus on attrition and persistence to a degree (Engle & Tinto, 2008). First-generation Doctoral Students (FGDS) Over one-third of doctoral students enrolled in 2010 identified as having an FGS student background (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Gardner, 2013). Graduate school challenges are amplified for FGDS because they are not aware of the systems involved in graduate education. FGDS, in the large part, are coming from institutions without doctoral programs and models from home or popular culture (Gardner & Holley, 2011). Many students are learning graduate program structures and practices as they go. (Gardner, 2013). Graduate education settings are environments of evaluation by peers and faculty but also a time of self-evaluation of students in comparison with peers and faculty (Donovan & Erskine-Shaw, 2020). In social identity theory, this process of comparison is critical to identity as an in-group or out-group member (Tajfel, 1982). Self-evaluation is confirmed if the evaluation and feedback are clear to the individual and determination can be made