Search

Remote supervision of doctoral writers became the norm in 2020 when university campuses around the world suddenly closed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For some supervisors the rapid move to online supervision signalled a radical shift in their approach to working with PhD candidates, but for others it has been a smooth extension of their existing supervisory practices. By bringing together scholarly works and selected grey literature on remote supervision of doctoral writing, this paper explores how we might understand best practices for developing doctoral writing at a distance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researcher developers conduct their work in the borderlands between academic disciplines and university administration. Navigating this third space [Berman, J. E., and T. Pitman. 2010. "Occupying a 'Third Space': Research Trained Professional Staff in Australian Universities." Higher Education 60 (2): 157–169. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9292-z] presents both challenges and opportunities for researcher developers as they mark out their responsibilities to doctoral candidates. Drawing on the work of [Evans, L. 2011. "The Scholarship of Researcher Development: Mapping the Terrain and Pushing Back Boundaries." International Journal for Researcher Development 2 (2): 75–98. doi:10.1108/17597511111212691] and [Little, D., and D. A. Green. 2021. "Credibility in Educational Development: Trustworthiness, Expertise, and Identification." Higher Education Research & Development: 1–16. doi:10.1080/07294360.2020.1871325], this provocation reflects on the role of the researcher developer working with PhD candidates and suggests a pedagogy that enhances credibility in this borderland work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital education, now common in higher education, is particularly evident in the expansion of blended and fully online offerings at universities. Central to this expansion are educational developers, staff who support teaching and learning improvement in courses they do not themselves teach. Working closely with staff, students, and the curriculum, educational developers see first-hand how the digital learning agenda is both implemented and experienced. This article reports on findings from a national study of three educational development groups: academic developers, academic language and learning developers, and online educational designers, from 14 Australian universities. Although their institutional settings, roles, and work practices varied considerably, a central theme was the tension arising from a perceived shift in institutional priorities from 'people development' to 'product development': that is, from building human (educator) capacity towards curriculum resource development, particularly for the online environment. Participants reported a decline in autonomy, with institutional strategy and targeted projects increasingly directing both the work that gets done, and the skill sets required to do it. Their observations have implications for how universities conceptualise the development and support of the educational process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Higher education learning is increasingly enacted in digital environments and doctoral education is no exception. Scholars – supervisors and PhD candidates – actively create their own digital profiles, and their research is often disseminated via social media in tandem with the traditional publication of journals and books. Online learning behaviours, social media and doctoral education are complex, and, when considered together, present distinct challenges. This paper explores the work and practices of digital academics using social media through a case study of an academic blog, DoctoralWriting. We use statistical data from the blog to map evolving pedagogic practices and forms of doctoral writing support and engagement. This analysis reveals horizontalised networks of co-creating consumers and producers who interact on social media platforms in ways that signal new transnational networks of learning and teaching. This paper contributes to our understanding of academic engagement with social media in contemporary doctoral education, particularly doctoral writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A ‘knowledge society’ relies on a workforce with high-level skills in Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Continuing development of ICT will arise partly from research undertaken by doctoral graduates. However, compared to other cognate disciplines, ICT has relatively few students taking up doctoral studies. This article explores some of the perceived barriers to undertaking doctoral studies in ICT in three Australian universities. Current students were surveyed regarding their post-course intentions relating to employment and further study, and the resulting data was analysed in terms of type of university attended, gender, nationality and first-in-family status. Overall, the perceived barriers to doing a research degree were related to the financial implications of such study and a limited understanding of what research in ICT involves. The following recommendations are made to universities and higher education policy-makers: that universities ensure that students have accurate information about the financial costs of doctoral studies; that students be provided with authentic undergraduate research experiences; and that pathways be developed to facilitate a smooth return to research degrees after periods of working in industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transnational academic mobility and the ongoing push towards “internationalization” together raise challenges for the cultural climate of today's universities. This paper explores these issues from the perspective of supervisors of research degrees in an Australian university in which “internationalization” and “academic mobility” apply to supervisors as much as to students. The concepts of the imagined community and cosmopolitanism are employed to interpret a series of one-on-one and group interviews conducted with international academic staff, conversations which reported surprisingly untroubled negotiation of cultural difference. Using the insights provided by the concepts of “imagined community” and “cosmopolitanism”, we investigate the mechanisms mobilized by these supervisors in apparently backgrounding cultural diversity in the workplace, and consider the implications of the academic subjectivities they perform. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

As practices and expectations around doctoral writing continue to change, so too do the demands on academic developers and learning advisors. Social media is increasingly playing a role in doctoral education, just as it is in higher education more generally. This paper explores a blog initiated in 2012 to inform and support doctoral writing; since its inception, it has grown to include diverse and overlapping communities of academic developers, language and literacy specialists, supervisors, and students with shared interests in doctoral writing. This case study reflects on our experiences of entering the online environment through the lens of connectivist learning, noting the practices and communities that have been established, and the blog's positioning in relation to our formal roles within universities. We consider how blogging relates to our work as academic developers. Details of our experiences, with our analysis and reflection of them, can inform other academic developers seeking to engage in social media networks as part of their working lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Team supervision of PhDs is increasingly the norm in Australian and UK universities; while this model brings many improvements on the traditional one-on-one research supervision, it also introduces new complexities. In particular, many students find the diversity of opinions expressed in teams to be confusing. Such diversity in supervisor feedback is often experienced as unsettling, and the study indicates that students generally seek consensus from their supervisory team. The power dynamics existing in the relations between team members in this situation need to be carefully considered, and supervisors must be alert to the ways in which doctoral students can be effectively and productively inducted into the norms of academic debate and collaborative research projects. The paper explores the implications of diversity in feedback in relation to developing a pedagogy of supervision. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Despite the increasing numbers of candidates embarking on higher degrees by research (HDRs, e.g., PhD, professional doctorate, practice-based doctorate), we still have limited knowledge about why they are choosing this path. What are the factors that motivate students to embark on research degrees? Given that many of those who succeed in completing their doctorates will not go into academic positions, the motivations for choosing to undertake a research degree may not match the experience or outcomes (and hence, perhaps, contribute to incompletion rates). This article investigates the motivations of students in all faculties embarking on HDRs at an Australian university. A survey of 405 students was subjected to a factor analysis. Five factors emerged: family and friends, intrinsic motivation, lecturer influence, research experience, and career progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In designing supervisor development programmes that are appropriate to changing research contexts, it is necessary to draw on both established best practice and emerging innovations that respond to the changing contexts of higher degree research. We undertook a narrative enquiry at an Australian university to establish a clearer understanding of the supervisory models and pedagogies currently employed by effective supervisors. Three key findings have emerged: these supervisors employ a broad range of approaches informed by their own experiences of being supervised; they place great importance on their relationships with students; and they reveal a strong awareness of their own responsibilities in actively developing the emerging researcher identities of their doctoral candidates. These aspects of supervision models should be emphasised in supervisor development programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Supervision of research degrees is currently undergoing significant re-evaluation, as the research environment itself responds to new and ongoing external policy and funding pressures, internationalisation, increasing cross-disciplinarity and the proliferation of sub-specialisations amongst other factors. The Exploring Supervision Program is designed to aid new supervisors of research students to find effective ways of negotiating supervision in the context of this changing academy. To this end, a workshop facilitation approach is employed that we call ‘collaborative critique’, a technique designed to extend understandings of complex situations through discussion and debate stimulated by narrative, case studies and role plays. Here, we outline the rationale of collaborative critique and then demonstrate how it is used in a workshop on working in the multicultural academy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Writing groups for doctoral students are generally agreed to provide valuable learning spaces for Ph.D. candidates. Here an academic developer and the eight members of a writing group formed in a Discipline of Public Health provide an account of their experiences of collaborating in a multicultural, multidisciplinary thesis writing group. We consider the benefits of belonging to such a group for Ph.D. students who are operating in a research climate in which disciplinary boundaries are blurring and where an increasing number of doctoral projects are interdisciplinary in nature; in which both academic staff and students come from enormously diverse cultural and language backgrounds; and in which teamwork, networking and collaboration are prized but not always proactively facilitated. We argue that doctoral writing groups comprising students from diverse cultural and disciplinary backgrounds can be of significant value for postgraduates who wish to collaborate on their own academic development to improve their research writing and communication skills; at the same time, such collaborative work effectively builds an inclusive, dynamic research community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]