Search

In this article, I make a case for the methodological value of fiction and feminist storytelling to writing practices in management studies as well as provide an example of how this might be done. The epistemological conditions of fiction stimulate feminist critique distinct from the possibilities of autoethnography; we can write with less fear, in new collaborative and beautiful ways, with an audience in mind. Fiction offers us the opportunity to conjure collective dreams, to imagine feminist futures—it allows us to tell stories that simultaneously capture and release us. In practicing this, I present a fictionalized narrative inspired by an experience I had as a first year PhD researcher at a business management conference. There is nothing special or unique about the story. It is made up of the mundane, and yet it is overflowing with thematic significance. The story touches upon the aesthetics of academia, a politics of care, gaslighting, heteronormative assumptions, sexualization, embodiment, and neoliberal feminism, demonstrating how a single interaction can be about very many other, contradicting and co‐productive, things. I offer it as a message of solidarity to those who, like me, may struggle to articulate what exactly just happened, but know in their bodies that it was not fair—that it did not feel right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence regarding the mental health of doctoral researchers (DRs) is very limited; that which exists suggests DRs are particularly vulnerable to experiencing mental health difficulties during their PhD. Despite the associated jeopardy, however, to our knowledge there are no data published nor in the grey literature, reporting on suicidality amongst DRs. Using an online survey, we invited UK DRs to complete the Suicide Behaviour Questionnaire‐Revised and qualitatively describe their experience of suicidality and its association with their PhD studies. A total of 1,263 DRs provided these data, with 40% of these participants meeting Suicide Behaviour Questionnaire‐Revised criteria for being at high risk of suicide. Within the qualitative data, we identified three higher‐order themes: (a) lived experience of suicidality; (b) PhD: the good, the bad, the ugly; and (c) life outside the PhD. Our findings suggest that suicidality is a common, yet complex and nuanced, experience amongst doctoral researchers. Identifiable elements of the PhD and personal lives can increase or protect against suicidality. The risk and protective factors identified here require verification using quantitative methods, but still support the immediate need for universities to respond to the risk of suicidality amongst their DRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a need for interventions to improve the PhD pipeline for nursing program enrollment. PhD nursing students who have navigated the program successfully are in a strategic position to help by sharing their stories. Several strategies for successful completion of a PhD program and some common expected barriers have been documented in the literature. Method: The authors used personal reflections from their first and second years of study in a PhD nursing program to identify strategies to progress through a program. The personal reflections were analyzed by their student cohort and a faculty advisor using the Bridges' Transition Model as a theoretical framework. The cohort members included five females and one male, ages 29‐48, attending a PhD nursing program in the Southeastern, US. Results: The following strategies were identified from the personal reflections: seeking and offering support within your cohort; establishing a relationship with mentors; identifying and using a reference manager; mastering time management; soaking up statistics; and focusing on your focus. The strategies listed above occurred within the ending and/or neutral zone phases of the Bridges' Transition Model. Conclusion: It is important to note the early phases of transition and need for success strategies in these specific phases of transition. PhD nursing students are in a strategic position to positively influence the PhD pipeline by providing personal reflections that inform future PhD nursing students as well as PhD nursing programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The study purpose was to compare dissemination of PhD dissertation research by dissertation format: traditional (five‐chapter document providing a complete and systematic account of the PhD research) versus an alternate (substudy [document containing three smaller studies but not written as stand‐alone manuscripts] or publication [document containing three or more related manuscripts intended for submission or published in a peer‐reviewed journal]) format. Design: A retrospective study of all PhD dissertations (1999–2019) from one research intensive school of nursing. Methods: Following identification of graduates via the school's PhD database, we searched ProQuest and PubMed databases for the dissertation and first authored peer‐reviewed publications of each graduate to determine dissertation format, study design, timing and number of dissertation research publications, and inclusion of dissertation sponsor in authorship. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Findings: Of 113 graduates, 80 (70.8%) employed a traditional format, with the remaining graduates structuring dissertations using an alternate (substudy [n = 12], publication [n = 21]) format. Of those using the traditional format, 33 graduates (41.3%) never published dissertation research findings in a peer‐reviewed journal. For those who published their dissertation research in a peer‐reviewed journal, time to first publication was 1.4 ± 2.1 years (median 1.6 years) following degree conferral. In contrast, all graduates who utilized alternate formats published one or more components of their dissertation research with shorter time to first published manuscript (‐0.6 ± 1.1 years; median ‐0.5 years; p <.001). Number of peer‐reviewed publications was higher for those who utilized an alternate format compared to the traditional format (2.9 ± 1.5 [median 3.0] vs. 1.8 ± 1.1 [median 1.0], p =.001). Acknowledgment of the sponsor's contribution via publication authorship was higher for those using an alternate format compared to the traditional format (100% vs. 70.2%). Conclusions: Number and timeliness of peer‐reviewed publications stemming from dissertation research was higher for PhD graduates who utilized an alternate dissertation format. Alternate dissertation formats should be encouraged by PhD programs as one means to improve dissemination of PhD nursing research. Clinical Relevance: Dissemination of PhD research through peer‐reviewed publications promotes the continued development of nursing science to inform nursing practice and advances the career trajectory of PhD graduates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]