Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctoral education. Pandemics throughout history have generated new educational theories and practices, accelerated some trends and signalled the abrupt end of others. The unpredictable effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have particularly impacted upon First Nations and transcultural communities and People of Colour throughout the globe. A second significant recent global trend that occurred at the height of the pandemic was the reignited #BlackLivesMatter (#BLM) protest campaign. This campaign drew attention to the vast inequities faced by black, transcultural (migrant, refugee, culturally diverse and international) and Indigenous peoples and triggered rapid action in higher education institutions against racism and unconscious bias.

This conceptual paper draws upon postcolonial/decolonial theory to demonstrate how the COVID pandemic and #BLM movement prompts us to revitalise doctoral education.

These two issues have created renewed urgency around the need to decolonise higher education and a desire to transform the “business-as-usual” geopolitical power dynamics that continue to privilege Northern knowledge over culturally diverse knowledge systems from First Nations and transcultural contexts. A key site where special opportunities exist to effect this transformation lies in doctoral education. Doctoral education is a significant location of new knowledge creation and the development of the world’s future researchers.

Applying post/decolonial theory enables one to rethink how doctoral education should be changed to work towards greater decolonisation.

This study applies Santos’ ideas about “the sociologies of emergence” in the global South to think about how doctoral education should be reconstructed as a liberated zone of decolonisation and epistemic justice.

Despite the rhetoric emphasising partnership working, there has been a dearth of research related to the educational practices that reify interprofessional partnerships for young children with special educational needs. This doctoral study examined the subtle power shifts in the interactions between early years educators and other professionals against the backdrop of deficit policy discourses and institutional challenges. This research adopted a case study approach and utilised methodological triangulation to unveil educators' phronetic knowledge. The findings point to power differentials and partnership inequities which affect the roles and identities of early years educators. Participants assumed emergent leadership roles that encompassed elements of social pedagogy and pedagogical eclecticism which eschewed medicalised interventions in favour of intuitive pedagogical approaches centred on the child and family.

In Denmark, there has been, over decades, an intensified political focus on how humanities research and doctoral education contribute to society. In this vein, the notion of impact has become a central part of the academic language, often associated with terms like use, effects and outputs, stemming from neoliberal ideologies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humanities academics are living with the impact agenda, as both experienced researchers and as doctoral supervisors educating the next generation of researchers in this post-pandemic era. Specifically, the authors are interested in the supervisor-researcher relationship, that is, the relationship between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda as researchers and then the way they tell their doctoral students to do likewise.

The authors have studied how the impact agenda is accommodated by humanities academics through a series of qualitative interviews with humanities researchers and humanities PhD supervisors, encompassing questions of how they are living with the expectation of impact and how it is embedded in their university and departmental context.

The study shows that there is no link between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda in relation to their own research work and then the way they tell their doctoral students to approach it. Within the space of their own research, the supervisors engage in resistance practices towards the impact agenda in terms of minimal compliance, rejection or resignation, whereas in the space of supervision, the impact agenda is re-inscribed to embody other understandings. The supervisors want to protect their students from this agenda, especially in the knowledge that many of them are not going to stay in academia due to limited researcher career possibilities. Furthermore, the paper reveals a new understanding of the impact agenda as having a relational quality, and in two ways. One is through a positional struggle, the reshaping of power relations, between universities (or academics) and society (or the state and the market); the other is as a phenomenon very much lived among academics themselves, including between supervisors and their doctoral students within the institutional context.

This study opens up the impact agenda, showing what it means to be a humanities academic living with the effects of the impact agenda and trying to navigate this. The study is mapping and tracking out the many different meanings and variations of impact in all its volatility for academics concerned about it. In current, post-pandemic times, when manifold expectations are directed towards research and doctoral education, it is important to know more about how these expectations affect and are dealt with by those who are expected to commit to them.

Data storytelling courses position students as agents in creating stories interpreted from data about a social problem or social justice issue. The purpose of this study is to explore two research questions: What themes characterized students’ iterative development of data story topics? Looking back at six years of iterative feedback, what categories of data literacy pedagogy did instructors engage for these themes?.

This project examines six years of data storytelling final projects using thematic analysis and three years of instructor feedback. Ten themes in final projects align with patterns in feedback. Reflections on pedagogical approaches to students’ topic development suggest extending data literacy pedagogy categories – formal, personal and folk (Pangrazio and Sefton-Green, 2020).

Data storytelling can develop students’ abilities to move from being consumers to creators of data and interpretations. The specific topic of personal data exposure or risk has presented some challenges for data literacy instruction (Bowler et al., 2017). What “personal” means in terms of data should be defined more broadly. Extending the data literacy pedagogy categories of formal, personal and folk (Pangrazio and Sefton-Green, 2020) could more effectively center social justice in data literacy instruction.

Implications for practice include positioning students as producers of data interpretation, such as role-playing data analysis or decision-making scenarios.

Data storytelling has the potential to address current challenges in data literacy pedagogy and in teaching critical data literacy.

Course descriptions provide a template for future data literacy pedagogy involving data storytelling, and findings suggest implications for expanding definitions and applications of personal and folk data literacies.

The United National Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) emphasises the need for those with disabilities to be guaranteed full access to participation in society (United Nations, 2006). This rights-based approach in higher education foregrounds the importance of removing practical and attitudinal barriers within how institutions, or staff, interact with students with traumatic brain injury (TBI) that facilitate their access. This chapter summarises the key findings of my PhD thesis where I use my unique positioning as a TBI survivor and status as a PhD student to gain deeper understanding of the experience of access for neurodiverse students in higher education. I contend that we can be marginalised in these settings. In this chapter, I argue for the importance of student voice in decision and policymaking processes in higher education, aligning with ‘nothing about us, without us’ (Charlton, 2000). A blended methodology of autoethnography and phenomenology was used in my scholarship, which meant listening to the perspectives of students with TBI who often navigate the educational environment differently. Loss, change of identity and care are significant factors in shaping experiences. This research has much to offer as it uses the researcher's and participant's voices to transform rather than maintain the status quo regarding access for students with TBI. Inclusive education must place flexibility and diversity at its core and consider the person when putting academic programmes and support in place.

Professional and corporate codes of ethics (Codes) are commonly used, but they are not consistently effective. Research has indicated the importance of values included in Codes, but there is little research exploring how to improve the effectiveness of Code values. There are proven pedagogies that can be used in ethics training, notably, the values-focused approach known as value self-confrontation (VSC). VSC comes from the field of psychology and has been researched for over 50 years. This theory-based methodology is effective at increasing the importance of targeted values and positively changing attitudes and behaviors. Based on our thematic review of extant VSC literature, we develop a simplified VSC implementation strategy and instrument called code value self-confrontation (CVSC). CVSC involves a self-confrontation between a participant’s personal values and the values of the organization. This confrontation can create value dissonance in the participant, which can increase the importance given to the values of the organization. VSC has been effective at positively impacting pro-organization behaviors as well as societal issues such as equality, race relations, and environmentalism. By increasing the importance of ethical values, organizations can be rewarded with behavioral changes that translate into more ethical work behaviors and decision-making.

This chapter is about primary and secondary school teachers of history in England, and how they negotiate policy in order to teach sensitive and controversial issues which feature as part of the history curriculum. We present research conducted in two phases that used a bounded case study (Stake, 1995) as a methodological approach. In Phase One, two focus group interviews were undertaken; in Phase Two, six unstructured individual interviews were conducted. Participants were teachers of history in England from Key Stage 1–5 (children aged 4–18 years).

Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data which were informed by reflections on positionality and being a socially conscious researcher (Pillow, 2010). Three key policies were explored as part of this research: the National Curriculum (DfE, 2013), the Teachers' Standards (DfE, 2012) and the Prevent Duty (DfE, 2015). Research findings demonstrate how the context of the school is fundamental in how teachers enact policy in relation to their practice, particularly in light of political changes in society. Self-surveillance was identified as a key strategy, adopted in the teaching of sensitive and controversial issues. We frame this context around Kitson and McCully's (2005) theoretical continuum which indicates that there is a reluctance by some teachers to engage with the teaching of sensitive and controversial issues due to concerns with policy enactment.

The findings of this research illustrate that policy impacts on teachers in numerous ways. Policy was demonstrated to be ambiguous for teachers, and recommendations are made relating to policy and the need for clearer guidance for teachers to support them with their practice.

This chapter discusses the findings of doctoral research into further education lecturers' and middle managers' perceptions of how Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in the sector is planned and implemented. Thematic analysis revealed that mandatory CPD is perceived to: involve conflicting purposes between those planning it and its recipients (deriving from divergent understandings of professionalism and the role of CPD among stakeholders); and be characterised as mostly generic, didactic, and ineffective, leading lecturers to compensate by engaging in additional, separate forms of CPD. This chapter demonstrates the value of practice-based doctoral study in enabling the voices of educators to be positioned at the centre of an exploration of their own professional learning.