**1. Introduction**

In 2001, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching instituted a five-year project entitled the "Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate" (CID) that sought to examine the purpose of doctoral education in the United States. The primary outcomes included two publications: *Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline* [1] and *The Formation of Scholars: Rethinking Doctoral Education for the Twenty-First Century* [2]. These volumes argued that the goal of doctoral education was to create more than simply experts in a field but also stewards of a discipline [1] (p. 5). The CID defined a steward as "a scholar first and foremost", one to whom "we can entrust the vigor, quality, and integrity of the field" (p. 5) and went on to describe the activities of a steward in three categories—generation, conservation, and transformation. A steward is someone who "will creatively generate new knowledge, critically conserve valuable and useful ideas, and responsibly transform those understandings through writing, teaching, and application" [1] (p. 5).

In a higher-education symposium held at Baylor University in October 2016, a panel reviewed the first 10 years of the construct's use [3] and drew attention to current applications in three settings: in the Graduate School at Baylor University (Waco, Texas), the "Reframing the PhD" project (2015–2018) in Australia (http://reframingphd.com.au/), and as an alternative model for training and certifying "mentors" through the American Statistical Association. The panel a ffirmed the validity and value of the stewardship model as the goal of doctoral education, demonstrating how the active promotion of disciplinary stewardship is well worth supporting [3–5]. In doing so, they also highlighted the relevance of the characteristics of stewardship in areas beyond the scope intended by the CID. Namely, they asserted: (1) its validity for professionals and practitioners within a discipline as well as scholars in the traditional sense; and (2) its validity for educational levels prior to the doctorate. This expansion is alluded to in the original [1] (p. 10): "Upon entry into practice, all professionals assume at least a tacit responsibility for the quality and integrity of their own work and that of colleagues. They also take on a responsibility to the larger public for the standards of practice associated with the profession". In order for "all professionals" to assume these responsibilities, teaching and learning about them is essential. The purpose of this paper is to expand the construct of stewardship so that it can be developed by all professionals and practitioners, and can be initiated earlier than doctoral education.

This paper expands upon the ideas generated at the Baylor symposium. We developed a general curricular framework that can be used by di fferent disciplines to promote the explicit integration of stewardship throughout higher education and into the workplace. This framework is in the form of a curriculum development tool that can also be used outside of formal curricula, the Mastery Rubric [6]. With its development, we sought to ensure that, rather than assuming a "tacit responsibility" for integrity and their professional practice standards, all those who proceed through the developmental trajectory for stewardship—whether or not they do so in a doctoral curriculum—would be prepared to engage fully and responsibly in their profession.

Articulating such a framework adds formative value to the stewardship model by permitting both students and faculty to determine where they are in their own stewardly development so that individuals can set goals for further growth. Additionally, while we agree that the characteristics of a steward are fully and most explicitly formed through doctoral education, many individuals do, or would, advance and sustain their disciplines *without* pursuing doctoral education. Further, many doctorally-prepared faculty around the US *teach* first and foremost, with scholarship playing a secondary role in their professional lives. Thus, the construct *is* relevant for more than just "the scholar first and foremost". We therefore argue for the expansion of the stewardship model beyond doctoral education and beyond those for whom scholarship is their primary responsibility. This expansion could also enhance the practical value of the model, but articulating a developmental trajectory for stewardship is needed to promote its wider adoption across disciplines and levels of practice, providing guidance for curricula that can prepare stewards throughout higher education rather than solely for doctoral education.

Subsequent sections of the Introduction more fully describe stewardship and explain and contextualize the proposed expansion of its scope. The Mastery Rubric construct is also introduced. The Methods Section is focused on the creation of the Mastery Rubric for Stewardship and the validity evidence supporting its creation and use, as well as the alignment of this Mastery Rubric with diverse disciplinary professional practice standards. The results of these methods reinforce the determination that stewardship can be achieved by all practitioners, and can be initiated prior to doctoral training.

## *1.1. Who is A Steward of the Discipline?*

As noted, the CID described stewards of the discipline as those committed to the foundation and future development of one's field as expressed in three activities: generation, conservation, and transformation. Generation is the heart of doctoral study, and of the PhD in particular. Of all graduate education, the PhD is distinguished by the expectation and obligation to make a new and significant contribution to one's field. Doctoral graduates are expected to be able "to ask interesting and important questions, to formulate appropriate strategies for investigating these questions, to conduct investigations with a high degree of competence, to analyze and evaluate the results of the investigations, and to communicate the results to others to advance the field" [1] (p. 10). Included here is the responsibility to critically evaluate new and existing claims in order to ensure the quality of others' work in the field, and to help promote scholarship that *advances the field*, and does not simply augmen<sup>t</sup> the author's CV. Thus, "generation" implies both making one's own contribution and judging the contributions of others.

Conservation means understanding the history and fundamental ideas of one's field so that depth of knowledge in one aspect of the discipline is balanced by understanding how that knowledge fits within the discipline overall. While doctoral students typically acquire narrow expertise, their specialization should be balanced by a commitment to knowing the field more broadly. Similarly, stewards know how their field (or their niche in it) complements the larger intellectual landscape beyond their own discipline. Stewards are thereby called to move the field forward while maintaining its defining characteristics. By doing so, stewards are "aware of the shoulders on which they stand and are able to judge which ideas are worth keeping and which have outlived their usefulness" [2] (p.12).

Transformation includes the tasks of responsible writing, teaching, and application. It represents "teaching in the broadest sense of the word" [2] (p.12). Whether one is in or outside of a traditional academic or research setting, stewards must clearly communicate within and across traditional disciplinary boundaries and to diverse audiences, including novice learners, specialists in the field, or the broader society. These transformations represent significant achievements, not all of which are taught or practiced in doctoral training. Transformation also includes the ability to apply one's knowledge and expertise to help solve problems, or bring greater understanding, within and outside of the specific discipline. Such application varies by field and topic of study, but stewards in all fields have a responsibility for transparency—open, honest, and thorough documentation or communication in all aspects of this broadest sense of teaching, including writing, teaching, mentoring, and the application of the knowledge of their discipline to problems within and outside of their discipline.

Thus, stewards are those who contribute to the generation, conservation, and transformation of their fields, and PhD program graduates should be able to bring their knowledge, skills, and expertise to bear on a wide range of challenges [7]. Significantly, the CID did not limit stewards to traditional faculty roles, but a ffirmed the diverse career paths pursued by doctoral graduates (see also, e.g., [8–10] (p. 299). Whether they serve in the academy as researchers or teachers, or they use their education in business, government, or non-profits, doctoral graduates may be seen as scholars, because, in the words of the CID, "the work of scholarship is not a function of setting but of purpose and commitment" [2] (p. 8). Admittedly, this is a broad view of scholarship, stemming in part from the Carnegie Foundation's

understanding of doctoral education as a kind of professional preparation: it is preparation for an academic profession [2] (pp. X–XI). This broad view is one we a ffirm, in so far as "scholar" means a steward of the discipline. Where we di ffer from the CID is with their: (a) view that stewardly formation occurs only within doctoral education; and (b) definition of stewards as those for whom scholarship is first and foremost. That is, we argue that, while stewards are fully and explicitly formed at the doctoral level, stewardship *can* also be developed earlier than doctoral training, and/or in professional practice. In our model, instilling the characteristics and identity of a steward can be a goal for doctoral, professional, and undergraduate education, promoting a commitment to the integrity and vigor of the discipline by scholars, professionals, and practitioners within a field.

For example, in many professions, conservation is practiced in that there are requirements for an understanding of the fundamental ideas of the field. Nurses, accountants, lawyers, statisticians, and many other professionals have a responsibility to maintain the standards and fundamentalprinciples of their professions. Similarly, transformation in the words of the CID, "teaching in its broadest sense", is a common expectation across workplaces, professions, and environments. Even "generation"—the hallmark of the PhD—can be achieved by those who are dedicated to their fields ye<sup>t</sup> lack the doctoral degree. Concretely illustrating this point is the GitHub repository for code and computing tools, which is a venue for "publishing" and making public—open to user and community input—new tools and techniques to promote scientific advances (see, e.g., [11]). Contributors to resources like GitHub need not hold doctorates, but they *do* need to be stewardly (e.g., [12]).

Additionally, the rate of PhD production across disciplines in the US has long outstripped the needs of the academic job market (see, e.g., [13]). Thus, increasing numbers of doctoral graduates work outside of the academy, and ye<sup>t</sup> may continue to function as stewards in their non-scholarly roles. In addition, many doctoral graduates seek employment in colleges or universities where *teaching*, and not scholarship, is the principal obligation. If the construct of stewardship is limited to those for whom scholarship is in fact "first and foremost", then the majority of college and university faculty (whose principal role is education, not scholarship) might not self-identify as stewards—which is clearly neither desirable nor true. Importantly, modern scientific practice has become highly interand multi-disciplinary, which suggests that academics may be contributing scholarship to their own discipline as well as others, or into the literature that comprises the intersection(s) between disciplines. These recent changes in the landscape of scholarly preparation and employment must be accommodated if the construct of stewardship is to be more widely engaged. We seek to promote commitment to the construct in the widest possible sense in scholars, educators, and professionals outside of the academy.

Finally, reserving the cultivation of stewardship to only doctoral students, who are the smallest proportion of students in any academic setting (sometimes by orders of magnitude), *leaves to chance* the development of stewardly attitudes towards a discipline or profession among the vast majority of graduates. While it is argued that "(u)pon entry into practice, *all professionals assume at least a tacit responsibility* for the quality and integrity of their own work and that of colleagues" [1] (p. 10—emphasis added), this should not describe only professionals who are graduates of doctoral programs. We conclude that, for the benefit of society broadly, and higher education specifically, the stewardship model *should not be limited* to doctoral education.

## *1.2. A Developmental Path for Stewardship*

In the words of the CID, "doctoral education is a complex process of formation". It includes technical training, but is more importantly concerned with developing the intellectual expertise, commitments, and perspectives required of a custodian of the field. "What is formed, in short, is the scholar's professional identity in all its dimensions" [2] (p. 8). This is perhaps most true—and observable—in doctoral education, but professional identity development could be more widely promoted if stewardly preparation were started *earlier* than the doctoral level. A Mastery Rubric is a tool for curriculum development and evaluation [6] that articulates a curriculum's intended outcomes and integrates a developmental trajectory that moves learners from novice to more expert performance

within an evidence-centered design framework. The Mastery Rubric construct supports the articulation of a developmental framework for stewardship where students as early as the first year of college (two- or four-year programs) and faculty can engage in, and actively monitor, development of the target knowledge, skills, and abilities [14]. Thus, we used the Mastery Rubric construct to create a developmental path for stewards of the discipline, profession, or enterprise across disciplines.

Mastery Rubrics have been published for clinical research [14], ethical reasoning [15], evidence-based medicine [16], and statistical literacy [17]. The construct is described in detail in [6]. In order to create a Mastery Rubric (MR), three elements are needed [6]:


Performance of the KSAs that are the ultimate objective of the curriculum should progress in recognizable stages from uninitiated towards expertise or independence. The specific achievements of a person at each stage and for each KSA are represented in the Mastery Rubric as performance level descriptors (PLDs). PLDs clarify, but do not restrict or prescribe, what instructors need to teach and assess, and what students need to demonstrate in order for their performance of a KSA at a given stage to be recognized as "achieved". The MR should capture the consensus around the curriculum; making the KSAs explicit, and their achievement at target stages explicit, so decisions about a new curriculum or revisions to existing ones can be facilitated and communicated.
