Search results

While higher education has been encouraging interdisciplinary research, few studies have been conducted to understand how interdisciplinarity shapes the identity construction of scholars, especially doctoral students who may already strive to socialize into academia.

Therefore, this study adopts the approach of autoethnography to analyze my lived experience of developing disciplinary literacy and constructing interdisciplinary identity as a Chinese international doctoral student at a North American university. Communication theory of identity (CTI) is the theoretical framework through which I understand the negotiation among my personal, enacted, relational and communal identities while communicating my research through diverse literacy practices.

This autoethnography reveals that interdisciplinary doctoral students can flexibly use discursive resources from different disciplines and literacy practices in both English and their first language to dynamically create interdisciplinary identities communicable to different discourse communities. Their identities in different disciplines can develop simultaneously, rather than suppressing one for the development of the other as they do interdisciplinary research.

This study first extends current scholarly discussion of disciplinary literacy to a less-investigated setting, i.e. doctoral education in higher education. Second, it adds an additive and current layer of interdisciplinarity to the existing understanding of international doctoral students’ identity construction. Third, it helps to understand how the development of disciplinary literacy can facilitate disciplinary identity construction and how disciplinary identity construction can facilitate the development of disciplinary literacy.

This paper aims to examine how doctoral students in education and applied linguistics fields successfully navigated graduate writing demands by participating in a support community that catalyzed writing productivity, peer mentoring and feedback. Guiding graduate students’ writing processes based on scholarly interests and providing peer support are vital to scholarly productivity and transition into academia.

Following a collaborative analytic autoethnographic case study design (Adams et al., 2022; Chang et al., 2013), the authors narrated major events that impacted their writing and publication experiences. The authors visualized their entire doctoral writing experience based on the frequency of writing events that contributed to writing productivity. In data triangulation discussions, the authors reflected on writing experiences.

Findings show that the support community alleviated individual struggles associated with writing a dissertation and high-quality papers. Key factors contributing to scholarly growth included nonevaluative peer support, feedback and shared academic resources. Writing within the periphery of faculty research and predominantly focusing on doctoral milestones led to individual scholarly interests being overshadowed. Without structured guidance, doctoral writers may develop initiatives to alleviate individual struggles and meet academic writing demands in the disciplines.

The authors recommend including structured guidance on developing writing productivity and a personal research agenda in the early stages of the doctorate.

This study offers unique examples of how a student group supported writing productivity and socialization into the academic community. It illustrates the multifaceted nature of academic writing influenced by faculty–student relationships, peers and individual initiatives. This paper provides doctoral writers and graduate programs with examples of accomplishing academic publishing goals.

This paper contends that data generated by research on supervision are often taken as authentic data. Through an examination of studies that use audio/visual recordings to investigate supervision, the paper both promotes and problematises the recording of supervision meetings as a useful technique for doctoral supervision research. This paper aims to encourage a critical evaluation of methodological choices in research on supervision, and both promotes and problematises the practice of recording supervision meetings to enhance nuance in research on supervision practices.

This paper reviews how prior studies have adopted different research methods to construct the space of supervision, and how the chosen methods have been justified. The paper draws on data from an empirical study which included interviews with supervisors in China, based on recordings of their supervision meetings.

Presenting a single case with one participant to explore the recording and interview process in detail, this study demonstrates how hearing the supervision meeting can present a multi-faceted picture of supervision practice. This multi-faceted picture underpins the alternative understanding of authentic data that this study unpacks.

Drawing on the tradition of poststructuralist critiques of traditional research methodology, this study is presented as a methodological paper, with a core aim of interrogating and problematising methodological decisions taken in studies of doctoral supervision. This study reviews research methods that were used in prior studies on supervision, investigating how the chosen methods were justified and how these methods affect the resultant construction of supervision.

Doctoral degrees are generally the highest level of education provided by educational institutions in Western countries. Nevertheless, doctoral degree holders – i.e. Philosophiae Doctors (PhDs) – struggle to find a job that matches their knowledge and expertise. This article investigates the effects that PhDs' satisfaction with different attributes of educational services has on their ability to obtain employment either in academia or outside it.

Secondary data were accessed from a nationwide survey performed in Italy between February and July 2014. More than 16,000 people who achieved a doctoral degree between January 2008 and December 2010 were involved in the analysis. The four-years' time-span was justified by the need to avoid potential biases produced by a short time lapse between data collection and the awarding of the respondents' doctoral degree. A logistic regression model was designed to shed light on the relationship between doctoral degree holders' satisfaction and their ability to find employment.

This study results suggested that the attributes of educational services had varying effects on the doctoral degree holders' ability to obtain work. More specifically, the perceived quality of research and methodological courses delivered by educational institutions and the quality of the technologies and digital resources available at the host university were found to positively affect the ability of doctoral degree holders to get a job in academia. Conversely, the satisfaction with the quality of the teaching activities was positively related to the doctoral degree holders' employability outside academia.

The quality of educational services provided to students attending a doctoral degree course affects their ability to find work. Enhancing the quality of educational services may reduce the risk of unemployment amongst doctoral degree holders.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, few attempts have been made to investigate the interplay between the quality of educational services and doctoral degree holders' employability.

This study aims to reflect on “good practices” in doctoral research supervision and transfer the author’s experience to other academics. The author explains the sources of his approach to doctoral research supervision drawing on traditional practice in adult learning and some reference to phenomenology as a “meeting of minds” between academic and industry mindsets.

This is a reflective paper condensing many years of practical experience advising industry managers doing doctoral research. It is not an empirical study as such but draws on extensive practitioner experience based on many successful PhD completions in the business and management domain.

There are no empirical findings as such, but ample practical experience of doctoral research process and outcomes over 40 years of supervision in both the UK and Australian Universities.

Generalisation is limited to the number of doctoral research completions (between 70 and 80).

The paper concludes with indicators of what the author regards as “good practices” in doctoral research supervision.

None is directly applicable, but academe-industry working partnerships might be improved with the author’s learner- and customer-centred approach to doctoral research with adults in senior positions in the industry wanting to do research.

This paper is based entirely on the author’s own working experience as a senior academic in UK and Australian Universities.

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.

This chapter proposes authentic leadership as a generic competence and an integral part of doctoral education regardless of field of study. The authors explore its potential to enhance the development of doctoral candidates and academics and search for answers to the questions: Can and should authentic leadership be developed as a generic competence in doctoral education? How can it be designed and implemented in a doctoral training module? What would its learning outcomes be? The authors address these questions in the context of doctoral education. They assert that authentic leadership training should be mandatory for all doctoral candidates, and that supervisors should be actively engaged in the development of this underappreciated transferrable skill.

Social marketing and government policy are intertwined. Despite this, policy analysis by social marketers is rare. This paper aims to address the dearth of policy analysis in social marketing and introduce and model a methodology grounded in Indigenous knowledge and from an Indigenous standpoint. In Australia, a minuscule number of First Nations people complete doctoral degrees. The most recent, major policy review, the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) Report, made a series of recommendations, with some drawn from countries that have successfully uplifted Indigenous doctoral candidates’ success. This paper “speaks back” to the ACOLA Report.

This paper subjects the ACOLA Report, implementation plans and evaluations to a detailed Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis using Nakata’s Indigenous standpoint theory and Bacchi’s Foucauldian discourse analysis to trace why policy borrowing from other countries is challenging if other elements of the political, social and cultural landscape are fundamentally unsupportive of reforms.

This paper makes arguments about the effects produced by the way the “problem” of First Nations doctoral education has been represented in this suite of Australian policy documents and the ways in which changes could be made that would actually address the pressing need for First Nations doctoral success in Australia.

Conducting policy analysis benefits social marketers in many ways, helping to navigate policy complexities and advocate for meaningful policy reforms for a social cause. This paper aims to spark more social marketing policy analysis and introduces a methodology uncommon to social marketing.