Doctoral Practices

2008-04-15T14:47:00.001+10:00

Wrapping up the process

2008-02-29T12:14:00.001+11:00

This post brings to a conclusion my doctoral practices as a candidate. I have updated select extracts of recent publications on the side bar, examples of which include an abstract of my thesis and related conference papers. I am currently awaiting confirmation that the thesis has been uploaded to the Australian digital thesis data base and entered in the ANU library catalogue.

I received my PhD certificate a few weeks ago and am currently working on the Carrick-funded project on skills development for HDR candidates. An internal article PhD busts PhD stereotype was published this week, generating some inquiries about my doctoral and current research. The reading group (HERO) established a couple of years ago involving candidates and staff from universities in Canberra remains active. Our second meeting for the year will be held next week on Tuesday 4 March. When matters of interest pertaining to doctoral practices arise I shall endeavour to maintain the twin processes of documentation and reflection.

Obtaining examiners' reports

2008-01-21T13:03:00.000+11:00

I received a letter from the ANU on Friday advising that my PhD has been approved. The reports of three examiners were enclosed, each recommending that the thesis be accepted without amendment—along with a few comments and suggestions. So I guess it’s a case of mission accomplished! I remain very grateful for all the support I have received during my candidature—from my principal supervisor and panel members, CEDAM staff and candidates, CIs, IPs and project team members, informants, respondents, bloggers, critical friends, partner … —the list is extensive indeed. Looking back, I have learned a great deal—as much about myself as my research topic—but have also become increasingly aware of how much I don’t know. I hope that in future I might be able to provide practical support to others engaged in the doctoral enterprise—whether at critical points (e.g. ‘hitting a wall’, ‘writer’s block’) or routine moments (e.g. ‘reflecting critically’, ‘contemplating possibilities’). It would be great to have the opportunity to offer something in return and in a way that is meaningful to the individual or group seeking input. If invited, I suspect my primary focus would be on listening and clarifying rather than offering advice—preferably in an informal context.

Undertaking Employment

2008-01-09T08:53:00.000+11:00

Although my status has been full-time throughout my candidature, I did undertake two consultancies during the initial stages. The first was undertaken in 2004 and involved writing a paper for the National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership—now Teaching Australia. The second was in 2005 and involved input to the Review of the South Australian Certificate of Education. Both of these initiatives drew on knowledge and expertise developed prior to enrolling in a doctorate.

After submitting my thesis in October 2005 I have been engaged primarily in the writing of journal articles and a book chapter. I have also maintained my involvement in a small number of CEDAM
initiatives such as the development of a strategy for raising the profile of the Centre’s PhD program in the academic and wider community. However, on 2 January 2008 I commenced a three-month contract with CEDAM to assist with the initial implementation of a project funded by the Carrick Institute as part of the discipline-based initiatives scheme. The main task is to conduct a review of the literature on the development of generic and specific capabilities among HDR students.

Co-presenting at a symposium

2007-11-23T10:27:00.000+11:00

Shaping the Future of Supervisor Training was the title of a symposium conducted this week at the University of Technology Sydney on 19-20 November. Funded by the Carrick Institute, this event was part of the fIRST Project, that is, the “for Improving Research Supervisor Training” Project. An interesting feature of fIRST is its institutional membership involving 41 universities from Australia and New Zealand.

The structure for the symposium involved six sessions which were led by small groups of academics and researchers. Together with three representatives from other universities, I contributed to the opening session entitled “What is the future nature and purpose of the doctorate?”. My input involved reflecting on the contemporary framing of the doctorate (e.g. as Education, Knowledge Production, Personal Development, Professional Development, Leisure, Training or Other), by drawing on the results of a national online survey of doctoral candidates administered in 2005 as part of the ARC Linkage Project on Reconceptualising the Doctoral Experience.

In accepting the invitation to the symposium, I had some initial reservations about participating in further discussion on supervision, a topic that has dominated the field of doctoral education for the past twenty years. One of my concerns is that many academics continue to conceptualise supervision in terms of a dyadic relationship, in which candidates are viewed as young, full-time, on campus etc. However, it was good to interact again with colleagues who at the end of my candidature constitute a ‘community of practice’. The final session “What is the agenda for future research education?” was useful in that it moved beyond some of the conventional conceptualising around supervision. For example, the tension between reductionism (e.g. supervision as a component of the doctorate) on the one hand, and a more holistic view (e.g. reflecting the diversity and complexity of the doctorate) on the other, was explored.

Submitting the thesis

2007-10-31T10:46:00.000+11:00

After arranging for the printing and binding of the required number of thesis copies on 25 October 2007, these were duly submitted via the Registrar’s office at the ANU with the appropriate protocols in place. As anticipated, some final refinements to the content of the thesis—along with the inevitable dotting of Is and crossing of Ts—were completed earlier in the month.

I was surprised at the number of minor inconsistencies that kept emerging in subsequent and multiple re-readings of the thesis. A swag of these involved my Endnote referencing system. During the course of my candidature I managed to rack up just under 500 references—with most the finer details concerning publisher, location, URL, page numbers and so on—as well as my own notes for the majority of publications. Although there were a small number of gaps, the database was in reasonably good shape—or so I thought. However, comments from a couple of advisers identified the need to do some close checking, and when I did, began to discover a raft of inconsistencies in relation to the way in which my data had been recorded. For example, in some instances I had recorded the publisher as ‘Open University Press’, in others ‘OUP’; in some instances the location as ‘Chicago’ and in others ‘Chicago, Illinois’ and so on.

At last count my thesis reference list comprised around 200 citations. I probably spent two full days in order to achieve consistency in relation to my Endnote records—not to mention refining the referencing style for both the citations and the bibliography. Pedantic? Possibly. Necessary? Probably. I was stunned at the level of attention that some readers of my second draft devoted to correcting errors concerning the use of apostrophes, capitals, acronyms and the like. In their eyes, attention to this form of scholarship was obviously as important—if not more so—than the substance of the thesis. The clear message—confirmed in the literature—is that many examiners are easily riled by what they perceive to be sloppy work, particularly in relation to a lack of attention to detail.

Hopefully, most of the editorial gremlins have been removed and the thesis is now on its way to the examiners. However, a word of advice offered by the officer responsible for the administration of PhD examinations at the ANU provided a sobering outlook with regard to outcomes. She casually remarked, “while we request examiners to provide their assessment within two months, on average it is three or four”. It sounds like the best policy from this point is to forget about the thesis and get on with disseminating and publishing the major outcomes of my research.

Presenting another paper

2007-10-08T09:00:00.000+10:00

Given that a considerable volume of water has passed under the bridge since my last post, a summary of recent events is in order. Earlier in the year I submitted a proposal to present a paper at the British Educational Research Association (BERA) annual conference in London in September. Although the proposal was accepted, my preoccupation with thesis writing resulted in conference participation being moved to the back burner. Completing the second draft of the thesis by the end of August provided the green light to proceed.

In contrast to AERA’s annual conference in Chicago which involved over 10,000 people, the BERA conference had about 1200 participants and was more collegial as a result. Both professional associations—like AARE here in Australia—are oriented primarily towards school education. Specific Interest Groups (SIGs), however, provide a very effective means of accessing a broader range of interests. While AERA has over 150, AARE has 35, and BERA 30.

My paper was included as part of BERA’s Higher Education SIG, and was entitled The Doctoral Experience in Science: Challenging the current orthodoxy. The paper begins by developing a theoretical framework in the form of a conventional model of the PhD student experience in the natural and physical sciences. This is followed by one of my case narratives about contemporary practices and arrangements in which the voices of a candidate and her co-supervisors are integrated. Drawing on a wider literature, I then provide an interpretation of the narrative, encouraging readers to construct their own meanings, before comparing and contrasting them with mine as researcher/narrator.

I was assigned the graveyard shift—9.00am Saturday morning on the last day of the conference—along with a team headed by Mark Sinclair from CQU and two other teams from the UK. Despite the timing, it was a stimulating session with about 30 people in attendance. Needless to say, established conference schedules—fifteen minutes to present a paper and five minutes for discussion—doesn’t allow much space for critical reflection or earnest contemplation. However, a follow up interaction over coffee, a hurriedly exchanged business card, or a scribbled email address on the program always holds the promise of a new insights, contacts or resources.

On returning to Australia, a batch of correspondence included anticipated responses to the second draft of my thesis. Fortunately, there was a common view among members of my supervisory panel that the document is in reasonable shape—with room for tightening in places, of course. Having completed my intention to submit the thesis a month ago, I’m now feel that I am entering the final lap which hopefully will be completed in a couple of weeks. As one panel member commented, a thesis should be seen ongoing rather than complete. “It is your responsibility to determine the point at which to stop”. I shall certainly be bearing that in mind as October marches on.

Completing the second draft

2007-08-22T12:00:00.000+10:00

I arranged a meeting on 31 July to discuss the first draft of my thesis with my supervisor and the director of the centre where I’m based. True to form they offered some very helpful comments, especially in relation to the ordering of material and strengthening of argument. As a result I have essentially re-written the first two chapters; added a closing chapter; juggled some sections around; transferred some items to the appendices; and jettisoned a fair bit of material as well.

Although this involved a substantial amount of work, it was relatively straightforward given that I had a clear understanding of what I needed to do. The ‘collage’ is a useful metaphor for conveying the idea of sorting and assembling the thesis material in order to maximise its potential impact. As mentioned in previous postings, one of my greatest ‘problems’ has been an embarrassment of research riches. This has been mainly in relation to the amount of qualitative and quantitative data generated and the number of theories employed to inform the analysis and interpretation. Hence the importance of removing anything that distracted from my argument, no matter how intriguing that material might be.

There has also been a degree of tension for me around the implementation of the research process and the construction of the thesis. As a narrative researcher there is a compulsion to record what I did and how I did it, with a view to allowing the reader to identify critical incidents, influences, positionality and so on. As the author of a thesis, however, there is a need to guide the reader through an argument—rather than a research process. I have found the metaphor of ‘choreography’ very helpful in that regard. In their book Helping Doctoral Students Write, Kamler and Thomspon (2006) have a chapter on ‘choreographing the dissertation’. One of their key points is that “choreography conveys more than a set of moves strung together”, it also is about the way in which “the moves can be put together” (p.91).

At the risk of metaphorical mixing, my artistic piece has now been configured in its penultimate form. It is now in the hands of my supervisory panel and the Chief Investigators of the ARC project within which my research is embedded. It will be fascinating indeed to receive responses from six academic researchers who have been observing with my progress during the past three years or so. The response of the CIs will be particularly interesting given that I have moved beyond the doctoral experience as a primary construct. Given that my thesis begins by problematising ‘doctoral experience’, this may prove to be challenging for some of them. In the meantime, however, I need to attend some administrative matters, not the least of which is lodging my intention to submit.

Completing the first draft

2007-07-20T14:44:00.000+10:00

I managed to complete a first draft of the thesis last week. This was accompanied more by a sense of relief than achievement given the ability to print out a fully paginated and referenced document of around 100,000 words. There are nine chapters which hang together reasonably well from my perspective—although there is at least one chapter that could do with further refinement. A substantial amount of detail is contained in a set of appendices. My principal supervisor and prescribed authority are currently wading through the contents with a view to identifying major gaps, inconsistencies and any other shortfalls. As noted previously, the time and effort academics continue to devote to such processes is admirable and insufficiently acknowledged in the public domain.

Two aspects of my research made the task of thesis writing more difficult than I had anticipated. One was the sheer mass of data and analysis—thirty interview transcripts comprising 150,000 words in total, plus over 5,000 responses to a national survey involving 208 variables conducted in collaboration with my counterpart in the ARC Linkage Project.

The other was the variety of theoretical constructs which I embraced. Commencing with a ‘three pillar’
conceptual framework—learning, socialisation and outcomes—this was broadened to include narrative theory and practice theory —to assist with my interpretation of the qualitative data. I also found compelling a theory of reflexive interpretation along with various synoptic and systemic approaches. My supervisor’s diagnosis of “methodological indigestion” was followed by some therapeutic purging, although the urge to over-indulge periodically remains difficult to suppress.

On receipt of initial feedback the plan is to prepare a second draft that will then be circulated to three other members of my supervisory panel, along with another Chief Investigator of the ARC Linkage Project of which this research is part. All of this takes time and can’t be hurried. If experts are willing to engage with and provide feedback on your research, then there is an obligation to consider and reflect upon their comments and suggestions. At the end of the day of course, responsibility for the contents of the thesis contents must be mine, and mine alone.

Dealing with derailment

2007-06-30T12:03:00.000+10:00

Looking back over the past two years of this blog, the contents appear as an inordinately rational and analytical set of postings. This was partly deliberate given my original objective of focussing on doctoral ‘practice’ rather than ‘experience’. My initial foray into student accounts of the doctoral experience had revealed highly personalised doctoral narratives of the same genre—the ‘journey story’—replete with engaging but limited descriptions of agony and ecstasy associated with doing a PhD. Hence my aversion to documenting feelings and emotions on this site.

However, it is important to record that I have seriously considered withdrawing from my PhD program at three points. First, in April 2006 when a major health issue arose; second, in December 2006 when I hit a wall with my writing; and in April 2007 when the level of participant engagement with my research at two international conferences was less than anticipated. On each of these occasions I questioned the value of continuing—given that my career/future was not dependent on satisfactory completion; my research might have limited impact; and my energies might be better channeled into more productive endeavours. There was no shortage of justification for opting out.

Rather than plumb psychological depths, I’ll concentrate on practice,the mesh of doings and sayings that transpired, or selections thereof. It was important for me and others to acknowledge that I was experiencing derailment. This was easier said than done, especially when you regard yourself as a mature adult, an experienced professional or whatever—not to mention the impact that non-completion might have on other parties. During the past six months I have shared the issue of derailment with a few confidants—a couple of panel members and other academics familiar with my research.

At a personal level heartfelt understanding and moral support flowed freely. “Jim, this situation is normal—every candidate goes through it at some stage”. Such assurances were invariably followed by colorful recollections of their and/or others’ stories of doctoral trauma. A common suggestion was also forthcoming—“Jim, just keep at it—write yourself out of it”. Unfortunately, I was developing a propensity to write myself into holes rather than out of them. In mid-May as a last resort, I established yet another timeline—but in this instance as a form of contract with key individuals. If I didn’t have a working draft of a thesis by 30 June 2007 I would call it quits—and I meant it.

Well today’s the day—and yes, I do have a preliminary draft—which requires a good deal of further work. With a six-month extension secured last month, at last there is a coming together of the pieces—data, analysis, narrative, interpretation, argument and theorising—with literature embedded throughout the thesis. But how then, should this post be interpreted? Does it constitute yet another story or episode in the conventional journey genre? Do factors other than agency require further consideration? Have my guides and mentors been vindicated? Clearly, it is much easier to ask such questions than answer them. Despite having reached today’s milestone I remain deeply troubled that an educational process can become be so personally debilitating at times, yet continue to be accepted as par for the course.

Conferencing in Chicago and Montreal

2007-04-05T14:43:00.000+10:00

Following extensive planning during the past nine months, tomorrow will see me on a long flight to Chicago for the AERA Conference from 9-13 April. In addition to interacting with researchers from around the globe, it will be great to be participating in the inaugural meeting of the AREA Special Interest Group (SIG) on doctoral education; engaging with members of the SIG on narrative inquiry; and gaining external feedback on the paper I’ll be presenting.

After that, it’s off to the Challenging Research Pedagogies Conference to be held at McGill University from 15-18 April. This promises to be highly stimulating and challenging given the working nature of the exercise. I have prepared a two-page summary on behalf of the group with whom I have been participating in online dialogue since August 2006. It was startling to find last month that we had generated well over 10,000 words during our continuous emailing on issues pertaining to doctoral practices linked principally to disciplinary differences.

It will be good to meet and receive reports from the other nine groups that have been conducting on-line conversations as well, although I suspect that the level of interaction could be quite low in some groups. People are so busy with their academic practices and personal commitments that the idea of an online discussion can loom as an unwelcome distraction. Establishing a balance between structure and flexibility among groups at the conference will be critical. Too little structure and groups can flounder in terms of getting on with the writing tasks that are envisaged. Too much and participants can feel constrained.

Co-authoring material on survey processes

2007-03-30T14:23:00.000+10:00

A meeting of the ARC Linkage Grant team for the Reconceptualising the Doctoral Experience Project was held this week in Melbourne. In a previous post about meetings with CIs, IPs and SPs I outlined the key players and processes involved in such meetings. During the course of the meeting Kevin and I provided a progress report on the writing of our respective doctoral theses.

Further to discussion of this item, it was agreed that there would be value in co-authoring a paper that documented the processes associated with the planning and administration of an online national survey in mid-2005. On completion, this material could then be included as an appendix in both of our PhD theses. In addition, the text or an edited version thereof could provide a point of reference for future reports and papers prepared by us, the CIs, or a joint effort involving all team members.

Drafting an outline of the paper yesterday generated vivid memories of a complex and extended process. Essentially it took the best part of 12 months to get the survey up and running. We began by seeking approval from our two universities (December 2004), then spent much of 2005 designing, trialling, piloting, uploading, data collecting and data clean up associated with a survey instrument. Kevin’s ICT skills were certainly a major boon during the development of the online instrument. Details of some of the negotiations entered and the support secured from key groups were documented in my post on 8 September 2005.

Although this was probably the last formal meeting of the ARC Linkage Project Committee, members will no doubt continue to collaborate in the context of shared aspirations and expectations with regard to future publishing, research and related initiatives in doctoral education.

Acting as a discussant

2007-03-05T08:41:00.000+11:00

In an earlier post I recorded my interaction with Prof Stephen Kemmis in the context of my coming to grips with practice theory. While ongoing dialogue with Stephen has been highly beneficial to me, I was surprised initially when he invited me to act as a discussant (along with Ass Prof Alison Lee and Prof Susan Groundwater-Smith) at a seminar and symposium on professional practice held last week at the Wagga Wagga Campus of Charles Sturt University (28 February-2 March 2007).

The first two days were conducted in the context of the International Practicum and Practice Project, which involves Australian, Dutch, Nordic, Swedish and British researchers. A number of collaborative publications are currently being developed, and the purpose of the two-day seminar was to review draft chapters from three books. Wednesday was devoted to discussion of publications from the Netherlands and Australia concerned with the development of praxis. Most of Thursday was taken up with a review of the RIPPLE volume. Research in Professional Practice, Learning and Education (RIPPLE) is “a multi-disciplinary research centre that conducts high-quality applied research and consultation in the field of professional practice”. A paper by Stephen entitled What is Professional Practice? can be accessed from the RIPPLE website.

About twenty invited participants were involved in this seminar, which included local and international researchers such as Prof Wilfred Carr (Sheffield Uni), Prof Petra Ponte, Prof Jan Ax and Prof Peter Karstanje (Netherlands) and Dr Anne Kinsella (Western Ontario Uni). An additional thirty people attended a symposium held on Friday to explore practice and praxis in more detail. Presentations were made by Stephen, Wilfred, Petra and Prof Gail Whiteford (Charles Sturt) followed by discussion. As part of a concurrent session, Anne Kinsella, Matthew Campbell, Robyn Mason and me gave presentations on our current research on practice.

This was indeed a most stimulating, challenging and rewarding set of activities in which to be actively involved. Opportunities to interact with individuals and groups engaged in research on praxis and professional practice, as well as to review and discuss draft chapters face-to-face over an extended period, proved to be affirming, uplifting and productive. I detected a strong sense of shared commitment not only to understand practice more deeply, but also to develop more effective ways of engaging practitioners, a significant number of whom have been identified as experiencing a sense of estrangement or alienation from their professions and/or their professional work in recent times. I have little doubt that the books scheduled for online and hard copy publication in 2007-08 will have considerable impact in education and beyond in the years to come.

Connecting with narrative researchers

2007-02-27T12:32:00.000+11:00

I have completed my paper for the AERA conference, and am reasonably pleased with the result. As with much of my written material, a broad group of researchers at the ANU and beyond has been willing to read and offer comments on an initial draft. One of the most interesting aspects of this process is the diversity of feedback—especially in terms of what individual academics perceive as ‘significant’ or ‘problematic’. Clearly, a great deal depends on the epistemological and ontological position of the reviewer. As noted previously, however, the generosity that academics display in terms of time and effort continues to surprise and delight. I value immensely all feedback and any subsequent interaction.

A few days ago I received an email about the AERA Narrative and Research Special Interest Group (SIG). This appears to be on a grand scale, given that there will be a dozen sessions and around 45 refereed papers concerned specifically with narrative inquiry. My paper is part of the ‘higher education’ group, however, examples of other aspects of narrative include ‘methodologies’, ‘teachers’, ‘analysis’, ‘visual narrative’; and ‘cross-cultural contexts’. I have already established contact with Jean Clandinin (SIG Chair and co-author of Narrative Inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research) and Janice Huber (SIG Program Chair), and am really looking forward to meeting them, along with other group members.

I was alerted today to the fact that the AERA program has been uploaded. I am scheduled to present at 10.35am, Wednesday 11 March 2007 at the Hotel Continental. My paper is entitled Using narrative, interpretation and reflexivity to reconceptualise the doctoral experience.

Writing a conference paper

2007-01-31T12:20:00.000+11:00

Back in August of last year I submitted a proposal to present a paper at the AERA conference to be held in Chicago in April 2007. The process was somewhat daunting, given that over 2000 words was the expected length of the proposal, to be followed by a blind review of the contents by three referees. The structured format provided by the AERA program committee—objectives, theoretical framework, methods, data, results and importance of the study—made the task easier.

Needless to say, all aspects of this process have been electronic, even to the point of a screen that reveals the ratings and comments provided by the referees. They each used a set of criteria and a 5-point scale to assess the proposal, then supplied an overall rating. I was advised in November last that the proposal had been accepted and that each referee had assessed the proposal as a ‘4’. All papers need to be registered within a Special Interest Group (SIG) of the AERA, of which there are over 150. My paper is registered with the ‘Narrative and Research’ SIG.

The paper will combine the use of case narrative and reflexive interpretation to assist in the process of reconceptualising the doctoral experience. I prepared a draft towards the end of last year which actually proved to be a major circuit-breaker for me—in terms of my thesis writing rather than the conference paper per se. Having written a series of case narratives during the past 18 months using my qualitative data, I had been experiencing difficulty with interpreting them adequately. In the process of drafting the conference paper, I began to work on the development of a conceptual model and refining an approach to analysis and writing that has advanced the thesis considerably. As a result, I have been working on three chapters of the thesis for the past couple of months.

Given that my initial draft of the conference paper was almost 10,000 words, I’m now turning my mouse to the task at hand. My objective is to reduce the scope of the draft and craft a tighter paper with a narrower focus (e.g. 5,000 words) as quickly as possible. Hopefully, this should only take a couple of days. It’s hard to believe the first month of 2007 has slipped by already.

Engaging with international researchers

2006-12-29T12:33:00.000+11:00

Having accepted an invitation to participate in an international working conference entitled Challenging Research Pedagogies to be held in Canada next April, I have been participating as a member of an online working group on Doctoral Practices for the past couple of months.

Around 50 people who are actively conducting research on doctoral/research education are participating, with a view to collectively producing “cutting edge writing” that will be published as an outcome of the conference. There are five members in my group—from Canada, UK and Australia—and we have been exchanging ideas initially by email and are just beginning to interact via a user-friendly conference website. This technology will enable all group members to work collaboratively—prior to, during and immediately following the conference—in order to produce one or more chapters for the intended publication.

Given the diverse backgrounds and experiences of group members, the discussion to date has been lively, stimulating and challenging. Much of our early dialogue has been about identifying key issues that we intend to pursue. Examples include the purposes of research and research education; identity and status; and disciplinary differences. I have found the online dialogue not only enjoyable but also informative and look forward to working collaboratively on the chapter for which we are responsible.

Constructing case narratives

2006-11-23T11:31:00.000+11:00

During the past 18 months I have been writing and re-writing a series of case narratives that draw on the outcomes of interviews conducted with doctoral candidates and two individuals identified by them as playing a significant role in their research. I documented my rationale and methodology in a previous post entitled Conducting Interviews. Reflecting on the process that has transpired since then, there are three points worth recording.

1. Overview
I am defining case narrative as a synthesis of data gathered from a set of discrete but complementary interviews (i.e. 1 candidate, 1 supervisor and 1 significant other constitute 1 data set). On a continuum, a case narrative is situated after ‘case data’ and ‘case record’, but before ‘case study’. I am endeavouring to incorporate multiple voices (i.e. in the form of poly-vocal narratives) that will richly describe contemporary doctoral practice. While I fulfil the role of narrator, I refrain from commenting on or drawing conclusions from the material presented within the text itself.

2. Ethical considerations
In accordance with ethics approval obtained in 2004, I gained the written consent of interviewees prior to commencement. Essentially, my objectives were to maintain informant confidentiality and to generate verified transcripts of each interview. However, a further ethical issue arose with regard to the ‘release’ of the draft narratives I was beginning to produce. Given that each of the ten candidates had nominated two significant individuals, there was potential for a breach in confidentiality within each of the data sets I had established (i.e. each informant knew the identity of at least one other informant). This led me to develop (quite a lengthy and detailed) process, whereby I began contacting the three informants in each set, seeking their permission to include select extracts from their verified, edited transcript in a narrative I was in the process of drafting. This meant that any refinements could be made and incorporated before the draft narrative was circulated to the three informants simultaneously with a view to ensuring that the narrative contained no factual errors. Hence, I wholeheartedly support the argument advanced by Israel and Hay (2006) that consent should be a “dynamic and continuous process” (rather than confined to the beginning of a research project).

3. Authorship, format and style
In a previous post on Exploring Doctoral Narratives, I referred to the perceived limitations of certain doctoral narratives. While narratives written by candidates about their doctoral experience constitute a highly valuable resource, the ‘journey’ metaphor is dominant, along with a focus on the ‘agony and ecstasy’ associated with doing a PhD. Given my goal of generating more comprehensive accounts, and with up to four voices at my disposal (candidate, supervisor, significant other and my own as candidate & researcher), I needed to resolve a range of issues including authorship and genre (e.g. who’s story should this be, and how should it be told?). After trialling many and varied approaches, I am now generating accounts where the authentic voice of informants permeates the text; a journalistic style is employed (i.e. there are no indented or italicised quotations with a view to avoiding any privileging of text); and a variety of perspectives, insights and reflections are incorporated in order to avoid creating (or be seen to be creating) a single or ‘correct’ version of events.

Interacting with the media

2006-10-10T09:15:00.000+10:00

Two journalists have contacted me during the course of my candidature in response to material published about my research. One was Brendan O’Keefe from The Australian who followed up part of a joint paper prepared for an AARE Conference. He wrote a brief profile highlighting aspects of my being a mature age doctoral candidate. The article was published as part of the newspaper’s supplement on postgraduate study in September 2005.

Erica Cervini from The Financial Review filed a story yesterday entitled "PhD students enter the blogosphere". The article was part of that paper’s regular Monday lift-out feature on higher education, and reported on candidates using blogs to illuminate aspects of the contemporary doctoral experience. Reference was made to the work of Mary-Helen Ward from the University of Sydney—a colleague of mine whose Faultlines website is documenting research on PhD blogging—and mine via this site.

The proactive role played by these journalists is worthy of note. In both instances, they took the initiative by following up material that had been published in what could be regarded as relatively obscure locations—the proceedings of an academic conference and a PhD candidate’s blog. Second, they both contacted me by phone and asked permission to refer to this material and to conduct a short interview. Third, and even more surprising, was the fact that they got back to me with an outline of the article they were planning to submit to their editors.

In my previous roles, media liaison tended to be a two-edged sword. Much time and effort was spent endeavouring to convince education journalists and editors of the virtues of my organisation’s latest publication, conference or project—often with limited impact. However, as soon as a political issue arose, they would be on the phone for a comment—invariably on an issue that required the provision of an opposing or controversial viewpoint to warrant inclusion in the media report they were preparing. Maybe it’s just the nature of my current work/research context, but the demonstrated professionalism of these two journalists was impressive.

Reaching another milestone

2006-09-15T08:53:00.000+10:00

Almost 12 months has past since my posting on meeting with IPs, CIs and SP, namely, industry partners, chief investigators and supervisory panel.

Yesterday witnessed the most recent meeting of my supervisory panel, that was preceded by an open seminar for panel members, staff and students at which I presented an overview of my research to date. In many ways, this constituted a mid-late term review of candidature-and the reaching of another milestone. Around a dozen people participated in the seminar which included four of my five panel members—including Professor Terry Evans who travelled from Deakin University to the ANU to participate in the seminar, panel meeting and a meeting for another research project.

The thrust of the seminar was the provision of an historical and methodological account of my mixed method approach. The focus was on reviewing aspects of my qualitative data (30 semi-structured interviews) and quantitative data (NVivo analysis of a component of the project's 2005 national online survey of doctoral candidates). I highlighted major features of narrative and practice theory-both of which have assumed a level of significance above and beyond my original conceptual framework that constituted a tri-focal lens of learning, socialisation and knowledge production.

In preparation for the panel meeting I had previously circulated material that included a 2006 annual report; a draft outline for my thesis comprising an abstract and proposed chapters; and a series of milestones for 2007. Given that there are aspects of my thesis plan that could be described as unconventional—for example, a set of case narratives will form a key component, and aspects of the literature will be integrated across the text (rather than include a literature review as a discrete chapter)—I was apprehensive that some members of the panel would be concerned to say the least. However, some constructive suggestions were advanced, and following discussion a modified version of the plan was endorsed. Given increased accountability processes regarding PhDs at the ANU, there is a level of formality involving signed documentation around annual reporting.

As a result of yesterday's seminar and the meeting, I now have a sense in which I am entering the final and most challenging stage of candidature—a process that will involve extensive drafting and re-drafting of chapters. However, I also feel reasonably optimistic at this stage given that the basic structure, content and argument seem to be in place.

Interacting with Stephen Kemmis

2006-08-12T15:22:00.000+10:00

A few months ago I read an article by Kemmis, S. 2005, Searching for Saliences, Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 13, 3, 391-426. Having worked with Stephen twenty years ago, I dropped him an email renewing our acquaintance and registering my interest in his current research and writing. As a result, I arranged a trip to the Wagga campus of CSU to catch up and discuss what appeared to be a common interest in practice theory.

Given that practice—academic, professional, teaching and research—constitutes a priority within CEDAM, I subsequently organised for him to come across to ANU to conduct a workshop for staff, higher degree research students and couple of other individuals interested in his research on practice. Using the model employed for the visit of Etienne Wenger just over twelve months ago, I circulated pre-reading material and requested participants to register their interests and concerns about 'practice'.

As a result, a draft agenda was constructed and workshop held at CEDAM yesterday. It was a stimulating activity involving a dozen or so highly engaged participants. Rather than a formal presentation followed by questions, the group opted for a free-flowing dialogue to which Stephen actively contributed at strategic points. For example, he shared his thoughts regarding theoretical influences (e.g. Hegel, Marx, Wittgenstein, Bourdieu, Foucault, Habermas, Schatzki), as well as tabled a framework on the individual and extra-individual features of practice constructed as part of a forthcoming publication.

Various dualities and tensions emerged during the discussion (e.g. individual-social, categories-patterns, rational-irrational), along with a series of debates about what might be behind the current interest in practice (e.g. an assault on the professions and/or academia), and the nature and extent of the 'gravitational pull' towards the subjective (e.g. pressure to view practice through the eyes of the individual). I quickly drafted a one-page draft report of the workshop today with a view ascertaining the level of participant interest in extending this informed dialogue.

Contributing to an academic unit

2006-08-03T10:45:00.000+10:00

A ‘conceptualising day’ was held in CEDAM yesterday—an opportunity to discuss a range of activities that are currently being conducted in the Centre with a view to developing ways of 'working smarter'.

I was asked to make a presentation with another staff member on academic practice. It comprised a ten-minute talk followed by twenty-minutes of discussion. With a reasonably good understanding of practice theory and doctoral practice, I was able to identify a number of issues and concepts (e.g. the practice 'site'). We were the first item on the agenda, followed by another five dynamic duos.

Like many in-house seminars, a host of ideas was raised and much lively discussion generated, but at the end of the day, many participants were left wondering what would become of it all. It was agreed that the outcomes would be synthesised further and we would meet to pursue them at a staff meeting in around 10 days time. From a personal perspective, however, a few points are worthy of note.

First, the work I have been doing as part of my PhD was given a level of formal recognition. This is not to say that it hadn't been before, but the fact that my research was seen to have value beyond the doctorate, seemed to bestow upon it a higher level of legitimacy. In other words, the knowledge was being used to address a practical problem beyond the ARC Linkage Grant project and my own PhD.

Second, there was a sense of participating in the discussion from a position that was approaching that of a staff member. As most candidates would attest, your status in the academic organisational unit in which you are enrolled can be problematic. It's more a case of determining what you are not than what you are. Not being student or staff member, you generally assume a curious position - someone with limited status of position who is in a perpetual state of transition (e.g. from novice to expert researcher).

Third, I felt that my own standing within the Centre may have gone up a notch. As a mature-age candidate, you can always claim a certain degree of authenticity on the basis of an established career (at least initially), but you also need to be able to demonstrate at some stage that you are building the capacity to contribute to debates that are wider than the narrow focus of your own research—and beyond the realms of your prior experience.

Employing practice theory

2006-06-30T10:14:00.000+10:00

During the past eighteen months I have collected extensive data on doctoral practice using my original conceptual framework. Some of my richest data is contained within the edited and verified transcripts of interviews conducted with ten candidates and two individuals identified by each candidate as significantly influencing their PhD research.

While my tri-focal lens—theories of learning, socialisation and knowledge production—proved very effective as a means framing and implementing the process of data gathering, I have found it less useful in terms of interpretation. More thinking and voluminous reading has led me to an in-depth exploration of practice theory. Essentially, this is concerned with the unravelling and illuminating the complexities of human activity—although some theorists have begun to incorporate material processes and products into the realms of activity and practice.

While practice theory can be viewed as a relatively recent phenomenon in terms of publication and discourse, individuals acknowledged as being highly influential in its development span the centuries. Some practice theorists begin (or remain pre-occupied with) Aristotelian concepts (e.g. techne and phronesis). Others draw their inspiration and ideas from 20th Century philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Heiddeger; sociologists like Bourdieu and Giddens; or postmodernists of the ilk of Derrida, Foucault and Latour.

For me, two publications suggest a coming of age for practice theory. One is a collection of essays published in 2001 edited by Schatzki, Knorr Cetina and von Savigny entitled The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. The other is a recent edition of Pedagogy, Culture and Society 2005, 13, 3—edited by David Hamilton. Both publications were generated as a result of independently conducted seminars on practice, and contain material that is as challenging as it is stimulating.

While practice theory acknowledges that the individual and the social structures that they encounter are inextricably linked, attention tends to be placed on the explication and implications of these linkages. For example, I have found that some theorists have provided powerful insights regarding the reciprocal relationships existing between agency and structure, and the extent to which one is continually shaping/constituting the other. These insights are proving very useful in terms of increasing my understanding of the ‘doings and sayings’ of doctoral candidates; interactions with their learning partners; the dynamics of their operating environments; and the outcomes of their research.

Appreciating practical resources

2006-05-26T16:06:00.000+10:00

It’s always good to get your hands on a text that lives up to expectations. I finally got my hands on a staff member’s copy of Doctorates Downunder this week. While there are a number of 'how-to' guides for PhD candidates and their supporters on the market, this is definitely one of the better ones.

Given that the publication is co-authored by one of my advisors, I could be accused of biased reporting, however, there really are a number of very positive aspects. First, it contains 28 short, sharp articles that are highly readable as well as informative. Second, the contents are structured into 9 sections that reflect various stages of candidature, that enable the reader to access particular areas of interest as appropriate. Third, many of the articles contain 'hands-on' advice that can be implemented without delay.

Given I'm in my third year, I zoomed in initially on Section 7—Preparing the Thesis, and Section 8—Preparing for Examination, then dipped in and out of each of the others. Articles on Argumentation by Erica McWilliam, and Opening the Black Box: How examiners access your thesis by Margaret Kiley and Gerry Mullins were great. I also found Robyn Barnacle’s piece On Being a Critical Researcher to be of really good value.

All in all, I would recommend it as a good read for PhD students at any stage of their candidature.

Reviewing and refereeing publications

2006-05-04T07:50:00.000+10:00

I have received a couple more requests recently to act as a reviewer and referee for publications that address issues in contemporary research. The first was to review a book on the use of narrative in social research. The associate editor of a journal contacted me to see if I would be willing to construct a review of around 1000 words for a new resource that should be “evaluative rather than descriptive”.

Given that the underlying theme of the book was the need to bridge the gap between qualitative and quantitative approaches, I was impressed with the way in which the author managed to blur the boundaries. For example, the term ‘reflexive bridge’ was coined to describe the way in which narrative can be employed to span the long-established divide between these alternative methodologies.

One interesting aspect of reviewing the publication was the extent to which the analysis and arguments affirmed my own views regarding the power of narrative in research. Another was that it provided me with access to a range of new perspectives, insights and resources pertaining to the theory and practice of narrative, which I was able to relate directly to my own research, where narrative is becoming an increasingly important component.

The editor of another journal also emailed me to act as a blind referee for an article that had been submitted recently. Having acted as a referee previously for this journal, I was interested to observe that a web-based system for managing the journal had been introduced, whereby a username and password were required to access and provide a response to the article. Once again, the process of critically reviewing the research and writing of another author(s) proved to be a challenging experience that encouraged me reflect on my own practices.

Addressing health issues

2006-04-22T13:23:00.000+10:00

In response to my last post, ‘m-h’ revealed the impact of recent nasal surgery on her doctoral practices. The relationship between PhD candidates’ health and their research would appear to be a relatively unexplored issue in contemporary research. When designing our online national survey of doctoral candidates in 2005, Kevin and I had an initial interest in exploring the impact of candidates’ studies on their health and vice versa. However, while we resolved not to construct an item on personal health for ethical and other reasons, we did include one pertaining to disability.

During my semi-structured interviews with doctoral candidates, it was interesting to observe that a number of interviewees volunteered information about personal health issues, and the extent to which these had affected their doctoral research. In at least two cases, physical ailments were identified as having a significant impact (e.g. a capacity to undertake doctoral research had been limited by chronic pain or serious illness to this point in their candidature). While I didn’t pose any specific questions about personal health, it was interesting that this issue emerged, although none of the interviewees made reference to the impact of the PhD on their physical, emotional or mental health.

Addressing a serious health issue during the doctoral experience became a reality for me in February 2006 when I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Each year, around 10,000 men are similarly diagnosed in Australia, and around 543,000 world-wide. As a result, I suspended temporarily from my studies in April, and after spending five days in hospital, expect to resume full-time study in mid-May. Thanks to early detection, advanced screening and a skilled team of health professionals, the outlook appears very positive at this stage. While I missed this week’s QPR conference—and am indebted to my colleagues who delivered presentations on my behalf—I am confident that this particular health issue will constitute a ‘blip’ rather than a major impediment to my doctoral research.

I would be interested to learn of any research—and/or receive responses from currently enrolled candidates—concerned with significant physical, mental or other health issues occurring in the context of contemporary doctoral practice.

Presenting seminars

2006-03-30T11:03:00.000+11:00

Research seminars constitute a relatively common activity in CEDAM, the centre where I’m based at the ANU. Given that the number of HDR candidates here has risen to six, and a new member of staff has taken a pro-active role with regard to HDR coordination, a regular program of research seminars has been developed for 2006.

In a previous post Conducting a National Survey, I provided an outline of collaborative online research conducted in 2005 to generate more detailed information about the characteristics and activities of doctoral candidates than currently exists.

I presented a research seminar at CEDAM last week entitled Candidate Perspectives on the Doctoral Experience. My presentation focused on an analysis of two open-ended questions from our survey that were designed to identify ‘what has worked well’ and ‘sources of frustration’ for respondents to that point in their candidature.

Essentially, the presentation was designed to contribute to a re-thinking of the contemporary doctoral experience by drawing on the perspectives of candidates enrolled in Australian universities. Using the NVivo software package and a grounded theory approach, my objectives were three-fold. First, to describe the expressions of respondents (e.g. words, phrases and themes). Second, to interpret these expressions (e.g. meanings and links). Third, to theorise on the implications arising from these interpretations (e.g. models and matrices).

Around seven or eight PhD candidates and staff turned up at 4.00pm in the seminar room where I spoke for 30 minutes using a Powerpoint presentation, followed by lively discussion that lasted for another 30 minutes (we have a policy that seminars should be contained to a maximum of one hour). It was a productive exercise for me given that it provided an opportunity to present material formally, but more importantly, it enabled me to gain valuable feedback on my research methods and findings in a supportive environment. Essentially, the seminar was a ‘dry-run’ for a shorter presentation that will be part of an ARC Linkage Project Team workshop at the forthcoming QPR Conference to be held in Adelaide in April. Depending on feedback generated at QPR, a follow-up paper is a possibility.

Critiquing research articles

2006-03-10T09:43:00.000+11:00

It was my turn again this week to facilitate a critique of a contemporary journal article. In an earlier post local dialogue on blogging, I recorded the modus operandi of our Canberra-based reading/discussion group. About ten ‘hard core’ members have been meeting at 8.30am on the first Tuesday of each month for over 18 months, demonstrating high levels of enthusiasm and perspicacity.

I selected an article published this month by John Stephenson, Margaret Malloch and Len Cairns, entitled ‘Managing their own programme: a case study of the first graduates of a new kind of doctorate in professional practice’, Studies in Continuing Education, 28, 1, 17-32, March 2006, advising the group of my choice about two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting.

As fate would have it, one of our members knew the lead author and emailed him in the UK to tell him that we would be discussing his article. I was introduced to John subsequently, and began an online dialogue with a view to exchanging information about our mutual research interests, as well an any issues around the article on which he might value feedback. I collated these, but decided to table them at the meeting rather than circulate them to members in advance. The discussion on the day was lively, and considerable debate was generated around the concept of ‘third generation doctorates’; the lived experience of doctoral candidates; and links between theory and practice.

Immediately following the discussion group meeting I prepared a two-page summary of the main points raised—viz. strengths, issues and suggestions—and emailed it to the authors and group members for comment. While this generated a further round of emails, it will be interesting to see the extent to which any further interaction is maintained. Nevertheless, this simple exercise has demonstrated once again the power of information and communication technologies in supporting the development of networking, collegiality and capacity building among those researching in a common area of interest.

Conducting interviews

2006-02-28T13:06:00.000+11:00

I have recently completed my 29th semi-structured interview as part of my doctoral research. In a previous post determining a sample of PhD candidates I recorded the means by which I selected potential interviewees from a group of over 60 volunteers. In another post I outlined my tri-focal lens developing a conceptual framework that provided a structure that enabled me to generate key focus questions.

I have found the literature very helpful with regard to methodology and technique. While a range of strategies (e.g. ‘do’s and don’ts’) form part of many the standard research texts, an article by Holstein & Gubrium (2004) entitled The Active Interview was extremely useful in providing an overview and analysis of the interview process. I remain particularly attracted to their argument that understanding how the meaning-making process unfolds in the interview is as critical as apprehending what is substantively asked and conveyed.

In accordance with approved ethical procedures, I provided each interviewee in advance of the interview with details of the purpose of my research, requiring them to sign a consent form on the day that signified their willingness to be interviewed, along with a number of acknowledgments that included the maintaining of confidentiality.

In order to gain a multidimensional perspective on contemporary doctoral practice, during my interviews with ten doctoral candidates, I asked each of them to identify two individuals who had exerted considerable influence on the direction of their PhD research, one of whom should be acting in a supervisory capacity. Each was willing to do so, and agreed to act as a ‘go-between’, by ascertaining subsequently if the individuals they had nominated would be willing to receive an invitation from me to be interviewed. While the interviews with candidates were generally between 60-75 minutes duration, those conducted with ‘significant individuals’ were around 30-45 minutes.

With the support of a computer software package I have transcribed each interview, then emailed a draft copy to the relevant interviewee for comment. I am extremely thankful that the overwhelming majority of respondents were prepared to read and amend their draft copy, in all cases by tracking changes that clarified the meaning of certain statements they had made. While a few responded very quickly, others needed a number of reminders, with only two or three choosing not to register any amendments. I am still pursuing one ‘significant individual’ in order to conduct what should be my final interview for this study.

Summing up, it has been a very time consuming process, but well worth the effort in terms of the data created. The outcome will be a set of edited transcripts providing detailed and illuminating perspectives and insights on contemporary doctoral practice.

Undertaking research training

2006-02-13T13:24:00.000+11:00

Prior to the commencement of the academic year, an extensive program of research workshops is organised for Canberra's postgraduate students. This is a cooperative venture involving four local universities [ANU, UC, ACU and UNSW@ADFA] in a program that is also implemented mid-year. I attended a number of short courses in 2004 and 2005 and found them extremely useful—especially in terms of gaining hands-on experience with software programs such as NVivo, SPSS and EndNote. I have also trained myself to use other programs like Dragon Naturally Speaking (e.g. through software tutorials and related support).

During the past ten days I have attended two workshops on research methodology. The first was concerned with research based on interviews, narratives and other kinds of discourse. It was a useful half-day session that focused on the analysis of written and spoken texts. The presenter was well prepared, focused and informative. One of the most useful outcomes was a reference list that included useful texts for qualitative research generally (e.g. Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, Silverman, 1995, Miles and Huberman (1994); as well as narrative approaches specifically (e.g. Labov and Waletzky, 1997).

The second was based on Wagner’s (1993) concept of blank spots and blind spots in research, and explored a range of epistemological, ontological and methodological questions. This one-day workshop enabled me to link a number of related issues—especially positivist, interpretive, constructionist and other approaches to mapping the complex territory of research. A number of succinct tables provided by the presenter summarised different approaches to research in a way that was most helpful. His strategy of using small groups to undertake a series of semi-structured, practical tasks throughout the day also challenged participants to apply various theories and concepts to our own research practices.

Writing for UNESCO

2006-01-27T14:19:00.000+11:00

Toward the end of last year, I received an invitation to write a chapter for a UNESCO publication concerned with learning and teaching in the 21st Century, that is to be published in honour of an Australian professional educator. I’m not sure if the request came as a result of my previous involvement with UNESCO, my former role at ACE or my current honorary position with the ACE Foundation.

However, back in November, with a well-orchestrated three-week holiday in Vietnam and Cambodia rapidly approaching, I thought I could write something relatively quickly on my return. Could I possibly have forgotten that in my case, papers are written neither quickly nor easily? Needless to say, I have spent nearly all of January writing this article, the focus of which is the power of narrative.

I’m notorious for endeavouring to kill two (or more) birds with one stone—even though I’m a lousy shot—so I wanted to write something that would have relevance to my doctoral research and writing. Given that my interest in narrative has heightened during the course of my candidature—primarily because I see this as a means of conveying the complexity of doctoral practice in a way that cannot be achieved by conventional approaches to research—I wanted to develop a rationale for the use of narrative.

To cut a long story short, I did some more reading (and re-reading) about the theory of narrative—finding resonance in the work of Van Maanen (1988), Richardson (1997), Lee (1998), Rhodes (2001) and more recently Thornborrow and Coates (2005). My draft begins with an overview of narrative, then goes on to explore its use in relation to the issue of quality teaching. Drawing on previous research and development at ACE on professional teaching standards, I demonstrate the extent to which teaching is often described in ways that are cold, clinical and detached. Through examples of narrative, I endeavour to illustrate the capacity of narrative to provide a human face to research on teaching.

As part of the writing process, today I have emailed a draft of the chapter to a few chosen colleagues whose opinion I respect. One has expertise in standards, one in narrative and a couple in doctoral education—including my principal supervisor. It will be interesting to see the nature of their feedback from different perspectives. Meanwhile, back to the core business of doctoral practice in 2006!

Developing a conceptual framework

2005-11-18T13:32:00.000+11:00

While conducting my initial review of the literature on doctoral education, I developed a conceptual framework to help steer my research. I refer to it as a tri-focal lens that enables me to view or approach the phenomenon of the contemporary doctoral experience. It has provided a focus for my research, and helped address the problem of being overwhelmed by the sheer volume and breadth of published material on doctoral education.

Virtually from day one, my principal supervisor pushed me to establish a theoretical construct that would help frame my work. Entries in my 2004 personal journal are littered with phrases like “explain what’s going on from a strong theoretical perspective”; “make sure I have a clearly articulated conceptual framework on which to base my research—rather than being wedded to a particular theory”; and “data doesn’t speak for itself—use theory to help explain it”. The three pillars of my framework can be summarised as follows.

Learning
Three issues identified in the literature include the contexts, practices and support mechanisms associated with the learning environments of doctoral candidates. I am particularly interested in theories of work-based learning (e.g. Boud & Griffin, 1987); cognitive apprenticeship (e.g. Brown, 1989); situated learning (e.g. Lave & Wenger, 1991); pedagogic continuity (e.g. Delamont et al, 1997); communities of practice (e.g. Wenger, 1998); doctoral pedagogy (e.g. Lee & Green, 2004); and e-learning (e.g. Hendrick & Omberg 2004).

Socialisation
Some of the theories which I have explored include adult socialisation (Miller & Wager, 1971); academic socialisation (Becher, 1989) organisational socialisation (Tierney, 1997); professional socialisation (e.g. Green, 1991); and doctoral student socialisation (Antony, 2002). I am interested in the different ways socialisation has been constructed (e.g. as a rational, linear event; as a developmental, interactive process).

Outcomes
Issues of knowledge production, generic capabilities and creative capital identified in the literature have captured my attention. I have found the following theories worthy of further exploration: knowledge worker (e.g. Drucker, 1974); reflective practitioner (Schon, 1983); mode 1 & mode 2 research (e.g. Gibbons et al, 1994); the triple helix (e.g. Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000); computer-mediated communication (e.g. Usher & Edwards, 2000); creative class (e.g. Florida, 2002); skilful performer (Pearson & Brew, 2002); enterprising self (e.g. Tennant, 2004); and self-organising agent (Boud & Lee, 2005).

Determining a sample of PhD candidates

2005-10-21T11:37:00.000+10:00

While Kevin and I have conducted a national online survey of doctoral candidates recently (see earlier posts), I have also been gathering qualitative data from a series of in-depth interviews. During the early part of my candidature I thought long and hard about how to establish a structured sample of PhD candidates for possible interview. First, I decided to limit the population to full-time candidates enrolled at my university (Kevin is concerned primarily with part-time candidates). Second, I decided to reflect the diversity of candidates (rather than endeavour to establish a representative sample). Third, I decided to call for volunteers who would be interested in talking to me about their current doctoral practices and experiences.

A major reason for reflecting the diversity of candidates was the considerable variation that exists within the doctoral population in terms of gender, age, field of study, year of candidature, scholarship, ethnicity, citizenship, country of permanent residency, academic staff status, location, employment, dependants, disability ... to mention a few. The field of study in which candidates are officially enrolled seemed an obvious place to start. However, disciplines/research have been classified in many different ways, and typically involve complex coding systems (e.g. RFCD, DEST, SEP, ISI-ESI codes), which can include many hundreds of sub-categories. Interestingly, the identification of ‘multidisciplinary’ as an authentic, discrete category is relatively uncommon, with ISI-ESI and PhD Weblogs constituting notable exceptions.

I toyed with the idea of using the ‘hard/soft, pure/applied’ classification developed initially by Becher (1989) and extended by others, but decided to employ the DEST classification that comprises eleven 'broad fields of study'. One reason was a perceived degree of subjectivity associated with classifying fields of study within Becher's framework. Another was that Kevin and I had used the DEST classification for an item on the national survey, and I thought there might be potential for connecting aspects of qualitative and quantitative data sets.

The content and distribution of an email invitation to candidates willing to participate in a semi-structured interview of up to one hour’s duration was negotiated with the Graduate School in May 2005. The email generated 63 volunteers, one of whom withdrew subsequently. Additional demographic information from each respondent was requested in order to develop summary profiles. I then developed a ‘diversity grid’—containing around a dozen variables—that I used to systematically and rigorously select 10-15 candidates for possible interview, who could be seen to reflect diversity at my university in the context of the national PhD population. A major objective of the grid was to avoid any potential skewing of interviewees (e.g. in terms of field of study, gender, age etc).

Meeting with CIs, IPs and SPs

2005-10-07T13:52:00.000+10:00

Face-to-face meetings are a regular feature of my life as a doctoral candidate. A couple of weeks ago, the Chief Investigators (CIs) and candidates (Kevin my PhD counterpart at Deakin University, Victoria and me) involved in the ARC project met to discuss the preliminary analysis of the ‘national online survey of the Australian doctoral experience’. Given the tyranny of distance (Canberra—Geelong) and budget constraints, we tend to meet once or twice a year in a lounge at Melbourne airport, with a view to maximising time and other resources.

Our meetings have been concerned primarily with aspects of the online survey—especially planning, implementation and follow-up. Our most recent meeting explored strategies to be employed in relation to the preliminary data analysis. We discussed sets of descriptive statistics, together with individual plans for further analysis that Kevin and I had circulated prior to the meeting. Outcomes included agreement on processes for establishing a common and agreed data file and issues around authorship for the publication of material.

I also meet with my Principal Supervisor for a couple of hours at least once a month. We usually meet in a campus café that serves a good brew and friand, where after a briefing on work I have completed to date, we discuss future directions, tasks and timelines. Although Kevin and I interact mainly by email, we also talk on the phone periodically if extended email exchanges are wearing our fingers to the bone.

I have two meetings scheduled for next week. One is a meeting of the Industry Partners (IPs) in the ARC project—three postgraduate student associations (CAPA, PARSA and DUSA). The logistics of this arrangement mean that one group will be in Melbourne (CAPA and DUSA representatives, Deakin CIs and Kevin), and linked by teleconference to another group in Canberra (PARSA representative, ANU CI and me). The purpose of the meeting is to brief IPs on the preliminary outcomes of the survey and to gain feedback and any additional input.

The other is a meeting of my Supervisory Panel (SP) that comprises two supervisors and three advisers. One of my advisers has a background in Sociology, while another would regard herself as multi-disciplinary, while two CIs and my Centre Director make up the group. Supervisory Panels are a requirement of doctoral study at the ANU, along with annual reports and annual plans that need to be formal approval. I have circulated an agenda and papers for the meeting which will run for a couple of hours. My major objectives include gaining feedback on a set of doctoral narratives that contain a synthesis of extensive interview data, as well as plans for further analysis.

Conducting a national survey

2005-09-08T11:32:00.000+10:00

For the past twelve months, I have been working in partnership with Kevin (my PhD counterpart at another university), and in collaboration with CI's Terry, Margot and Pete (our project’s Chief Investigators), to administer a national online survey of all doctoral candidates enrolled in universities Australia-wide. A major purpose has been to get a clearer picture of the contemporary characteristics, practices and experiences of doctoral candidates. The survey was implemented in July-August 2005, following a long and complex process that included trialling the items, piloting the online questionnaire and data analysis techniques, and a subsequent refining of the instrument.

Aspects of the complexity encountered are reflected in the high level of negotiation associated with objectives, content, methodology and intended outcomes. While there were major investments of time and effort regarding the survey structure and items, this was matched—or possibly exceeded—by work involving ethics, protocols, technology, strategy and the like. While Kevin and I have driven this exercise, we have also consulted with and sought the support of a wide range of parties including industry partners (this is an ARC Linkage Project), universities, student associations, professional groups—as well as our supervisors and CIs. Conducting an online survey may sound simple enough, but the logistics of reaching a potential doctoral population of around 35,000, for example, are considerable.

With support from groups like the Deans and Directors of Graduate Schools (DDOGs) and postgraduate student associations, an invitation was extended to doctoral candidates at each university to participate in the survey that was hosted on the CAPA website during July-August. A response rate of almost 15 per cent has been achieved and we are currently in the process of conducting a preliminary analysis of the data. Select findings will be presented in due course to various bodies including CAPA and its affiliates, DDOGs and at seminars and conferences, as well as via publications. If you have been involved in surveys directed towards doctoral candidates, I would be very interested to learn about your processes and outcomes.

Exploring doctoral narratives

2005-08-16T12:44:00.000+10:00

There are many ‘stories’ of the PhD experience. Some are written by candidates, some by supervisors, others by researchers/authors. They take various forms including journals, articles, books, blogs, websites and learning landscapes. Various genres are employed—narrative, journal, dialogue and so on.

For example, in her role as a doctoral supervisor in the UK, Salmon (1992) draws on the experiences of ten of her students to outline what’s involved in achieving a PhD. Reimer (1998) makes his own doctoral experience a central theme of the book Confessions of an Accidental Academic. A recent publication by Vilkinas (2005) describes the experiences of ten PhD students from the University of South Australia and their supervisors. Entitled The Thesis Journey: Tales of personal triumph, this 66-page publication contains “students’ personal accounts of their research passage”. PhD Weblogs is currently recording the experiences of over 300 people enrolled as PhD candidates across the globe.

Many conventionally published narratives are rich with description, and often provide critical insights and helpful tips for those who are—or are about to—embark on their PhD. The language is often highly metaphorical—taking journeys, making voyages, climbing mountains, scaling cliffs, giving birth, paddling canoes, conducting pilgrimages, being forged in fire—to mention just a few. At the same time however, many of these narratives focus primarily on the highs and lows, the trials and tribulations, the agony and the ecstasy associated with ‘doing a PhD’.

While personal narratives certainly have their place, they can sometimes include therapeutic, confessional or evangelical overtones, and be limited in terms of scope. Hence, I am keen to locate and explore a wider range of stories and approaches to writing about contemporary doctoral practices. I am particularly interested in the concept of poly-vocal narratives and intertextuality. To that end, I would welcome leads, suggestions and feedback with regard to identifying a more comprehensive range of PhD stories and innovative approaches to writing about doctoral practices today, for example,

- by a variety of authors—e.g. individual candidate, peer, supervisor, researcher, writer, employer, partner, friend ... as well as other forms of authorship ...

- in a variety of genres—e.g. narrative, thesis, case study, fiction, dialogue ...

- in a variety of contexts—e.g. disciplinary/multidisciplinary, full/part time, individual/team, world of work, commercialisation, globalisation ...

Representing postgraduate students

2005-08-05T08:43:00.000+10:00

It was exactly three months ago today that this blog was launched. In terms of quantitative measures, there have been 501 hits, 6 posts and 4 comments. As far as quality goes, well ... that’s another story. On reflection, a useful aspect of this blog is simply to record the nature, extent and diversity of my own doctoral practices. It seems to me that much of what PhD candidates actually do, who they interact with and how they work remains undocumented. Our practices are implicit rather than explicit.

The focus of this post, therefore, is on aspects of my involvement with PARSA (NB a new website is imminent). There has been a flurry of activity in this association over recent weeks, with meetings and various campaigns underway on Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) and student accommodation, as well as ubiquitous social events. One of my roles in PARSA is to co-chair with Steve, the Education and Advocacy Committee (E&A). There is a another committee that deals with social activities and outreach. Both groups meet at least once a month to discuss current and emerging issues and formulate policies and strategies. These committees do much of the groundwork, while the PRC (Postgraduate Representative Council) is involved in coordination and decision-making. There are PARSA representatives on over 30 university committees, and I’m a member of two major policy committees on research that meet five or six times per year.

Not surprisingly, the task of engaging postgraduates in contemporary issues facing their community is as much a problem for student associations today as it is for most member-based organisations in any field of endeavour. Invariably, a small number of committed individuals volunteer their services for the common good—whether that is in an education, work, recreation or neighbourhood setting. Given my 30 years' experience with professional associations, I can confirm that most office bearers tend to get out as much or even more than they put in.

As a mature age student (read self-appointed elder statesman in PARSA), I relish the vitality and enthusiasm of the PRC and its Executive, although the extent to which times have changed for students over the past 30 years, is brought home with ever-increasing frequency. If you are a young postgraduate student today, simply keeping your head afloat financially as well keeping on top of your research and life in general, constitute major challenges. Make no mistake; for most young people this is a high-stakes environment with regard to research, training and career trajectories. So compared with most of my PRC colleagues, I have the advantage of having established a career, collateral and so on before embarking on a PhD.

Hence, I am extremely concerned about the negative impact the proposed VSU legislation will have—especially on rural and international students and those with special needs—not to mention the community, the economy and Australia's standing internationally. I do hope that PARSA’s efforts to oppose this legislation will succeed in order to maintain a quality system of higher education in this country.

Interacting with Etienne Wenger

2005-07-13T15:09:00.000+10:00

In terms of my own doctoral experience, Monday 11 July 2005 proved to be a highly eventful and significant day, given extensive interaction with Etienne Wenger and groups of individuals from a diverse range of backgrounds and experiences in three seminars conducted at the ANU. Clearly, it is possible to pursue many aspects of my lived experience on that day—cognitive, pedagogical, social, cultural and so on—and I may well do so at a later date. In the short term, however, I am using this post as a means of reflecting critically on the organisational dimension in relation to my own candidature.

The context associated with these events is noteworthy. I had been introduced to Etienne’s work on situated learning, Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP) and Communities of Practice (CoP), at the commencement of my candidature (March, 2004). Much of this resonated with my own theory and practice of learning and teaching. Twelve months later, when I was in the process of setting up this blog, I stumbled across Etienne’s website; became a member of CPSquare (a global network of those interested in CoP); and established these as hyperlinks on my blog (April, 2005).

I emailed Etienne with details of my research expressing my interest in his social theory of learning, and its potential application to an aspect of doctoral education (May 2005). During our initial email exchanges it transpired that he would be coming to Australia in July as a keynote presenter at a Knowledge Management Conference in Sydney (i.e. 13 July). I then raised with him the possibility of conducting a seminar in Canberra for people familiar with his work to coincide with his visit.

He mentioned that Shawn Callahan, Director, Anecdote Pty Ltd, (Melbourne) was also interested in organising an activity, so I contacted him, who in turn put me in touch with Mark Schenk, Director, Dialogue Pty Ltd (Canberra)—both of whom work in the area of knowledge management. To cut a long story short, I established a small interest group comprising Shawn, Mark and a couple of colleagues at the ANU (e.g. CEDAM, NGSM), to organise a series of activities that included seminars with academics and doctoral candidates from ANU, UC and UTS (15); specialists in knowledge management from the public and private sector (10); an invitational seminar for a general audience (60).

Reflecting on this experience, I am struck by a number of factors:

1. EFFICIENCY—the entire exercise was negotiated and planned electronically and executed in just over two months—a very short period of time to engage an international expert with 80 local practitioners.

2. TRUST—Etienne, Shawn, Mark and myself would not meet in person until Monday 11 July—so a high level of trust was established on the part of all stakeholders during the planning stage (Shawn and Mark were the only group members who had met face-to-face and had worked together previously).

3. CONVERGENCE—the theory of CoP was enacted in practice in several ways during this exercise—especially in relation to the convergence of experience, competence and technology.

4. IMPACT—it was interesting to observe the pre-existing level of awareness about CoP in Canberra across education, management (e.g. knowledge, information, business), health and environment sectors—to mention just a few—along with a desire for ongoing dialogue. It was also possible to detect a ‘ripple effect’ emerging over a coffee or a glass of wine in a number of conversations that followed each seminar.

There are additional issues pertaining to the identity, status and performance of a contemporary doctoral candidate. For example:

—How should my own role in this exercise be interpreted? Does it reflect positive skills and attributes such as ‘enterprise’ and ‘creativity’, or can it be regarded as merely ‘opportunistic’ and ‘self-serving’?

—In terms of the contemporary PhD, do such exercises constitute peripheral or mainstream developmental activity? Where and how are they positioned in the learning/research/training/work/career interface?

—To what extent are other enrolled PhD candidates using technology, enterprise and collaboration in similar (and different) ways?

—How useful is it to record aspects of one’s own lived experience as a doctoral candidate, and what is the most effective mechanism for doing so (e.g. blog, website, narrative, refereed journal, thesis)?

A few comments to wrap up. From a personal perspective, this was a highly stimulating, challenging and rewarding series of activities. Experience in organising similar professional learning programs gained during my career proved to be very useful. I have little doubt that the level of networking established during this exercise will be extended in future in ways that are yet to be determined. My current view is that blogging provides a unique opportunity to record particular aspects of my doctoral experience; to seek complementary perspectives (e.g. from those who participated in this experience); and to facilitate other feedback (e.g. from enterprising PhD candidates in other areas of research).

Global Dialogue on Blogging

2005-07-04T14:10:00.000+10:00

I have been following with interest the Social Sciences Online: Past, Present and Future initiative of the Social Science Information Gateway SOSIG. Four themes were explored over a couple of weeks, namely, Learning and Teaching, Research Methods, Access to Data and E-Social Science. A total of twelve short papers were uploaded with a view to generating discussion. At the end of this exercise:
- 3 papers generated 0 comments
- 5 papers generated 1-4 comments
- 2 papers generated 5-8 comments
- 2 papers generated 9-12 comments.
One of the papers entitled "What are the potential uses of blogs in teaching and learning?" by Andy Ramsden from the University of Bristol, generated 10 comments. While much of the online discussion centred on differences between blogs and discussion boards, the main focus for many respondents appeared to be teaching, rather than learning or research.

As with the SOSIG initiative, a quick scan of PhD Weblogs reveals that there is considerable variation with regard to current ratios pertaining to hits, posts and comments. What significance can be attributed to such quantitative measures in the blogosphere (e.g. patterns associated with hits, posts and comments)? What are the primary motivations for surfing, writing and responding? What are the distinguishing features of blogs that are demonstrating high levels of engagement?

Local Dialogue on Blogging

2005-06-21T09:44:00.000+10:00

A group of Canberra-based academics and PhD candidates working in higher education at the ANU, the ACU and UC meet on a monthly basis to discuss/critique a stimulating/provocative journal article. Pam and I established the HERO (Higher Education Reading Opportunities) group last year, and around ten of us have continued to meet on a monthly basis over an early morning coffee/breakfast (8.30am emerged as the most convenient time). At a recent meeting, caution was cast to the wind as I endeavoured to facilitate a discussion on blogging. Members had been requested previously to access a selection of blogs, including the debate on the Weblogs in Higher Education site (Cronin's view of blogs as "digital exhibitionism" verus Smith's view of blogs as "workplaces, places of exchange and risk").

The conversation was lively, although much of it centred around the distinction between information and knowledge. Some questioned the value of simply recording ideas, thoughts and reflections in a public domain and the limits of online interaction, while others pointed to the strengths of blogging in terms of networking, collaboration and co-production. A number of issues were raised including disciplinary and and trans-disciplinary developments in the blogosphere. Publishing was also discussed, in terms of changes and implications for conventional academic publishing vis-vis on-line journals and related ICTs. Members' experience with blogging ranged from the uninitiated to those with high levels of technical expertise. As a result, some of the discussion focussed on the capacity to use RSS feeds to harness particular areas/issues/people of interest. The issue of censorship also emerged, especially with regard to flaming, unethical behaviour, spam etc. There appeared to be widespread support for Streight's 'blog core values' (see comment by Chris following my previous post).

I am interested in the experiences of other PhD candidates with regard to reading groups, writing co-ops, electonic networks etc. What do people find most useful and why?

A disciplinary perspective on PhD blogs

2005-05-25T14:01:00.000+10:00

An intriguing feature of the PhD Weblogs site is the 'Top 5 Research Areas'. From a total of 289 blogs internationally at present, the Social Science General (SSG=69) and Multidisciplinary (M=68) continue to compete for the top spot, without any real threat from Computer Science (CS=32), Language and Culture (L&C=23) and Economics and Business (E&B=14).

Interestingly, however, a preliminary analysis I conducted today suggests that there are differences between countries in terms of the 'Top 3' research areas, e.g.

USA (N=129): M(32); SSG(26); L&C(16).
UK (N=23): M(3); CS(3); Biol&Biochem(3).
Canada (N=20): M(7); SSG(5); CS(2); Physics (2).
Australia (N=19): SSG(6); L&C(5); CS(3); Arts(3).
Portugal (N=13): SSG(4); M(3); Hist&Arch(3).

As part of the registration process for PhD Weblogs, candidates are required to nominate their research area from the 27 fields from the RFCD classification - so it's important to remember that candidates are determining their research category. My preliminary analysis also reveals that PhD blogs have been created in most of the 27 fields, with the notable exceptions of Pharmacology, Microbiology, Immunology, and Architecture and Urban Environment. So PhD blogging appears to have relatively widespread appeal rather confined to a selection of disciplines.

So how do we interpret and explain the predominance of the Multidisciplinary and Social Science General fields? Does this say something about knowledge structures, social/cultural factors, or the personalities of those who have decided to blog?

There is a good deal of research around the epistemological and social influence of disciplines, for example, Becher's Academic Tribes and Territories. One of his key ideas is that the ideals and practices of academic communities are intimately bound up with the nature of the knowledge they pursue. While collaborative work with others (e.g. Neumann and Parry) has been important, the original conceptual framework remains relatively constant, viz:

Hard Pure - natural science, mathematics
Soft Pure - humanities, social science
Hard Applied - science-based professions
Soft Applied - social professions

Even though reference is made in the work of these researchers to increased specialisation and the disciplinary evolution across a number of disciplines (e.g. Molecular Biology from Biology, Astronomy from Physics), the model does not cater for inter/trans/multi disciplinary sudies.

I am interested in how others are interpreting emerging patterns associated with the research areas of PhD bloggers, e.g.

1. Is the high proportion of multidisciplinary research in PhD blogging a reaction to the convention of 'academic tribes and territories' (or are PhD bloggers just 'soft')?

2. To what extent do PhD blogs constitute a new form of knowledge community (e.g. reflecting new kinds of relationships between people, ideas and knowledge production)?

3. What are the implications of PhD blogging for research, teaching, learning, work and career development?

The doctoral experience knowledge base

2005-05-16T13:41:00.000+10:00

One of my basic arguments is that with more comprehensive data and analysis on the current practices and experiences of doctoral candidates, not only would a number of myths associated with the PhD be dispelled, but also a much firmer foundation for the development of effective policy and practice in doctoral education would be established.

So what do we know about the experiences of PhD candidates? Where are the main data sources and what has been revealed in terms of key findings? What don't we know and what do we need to find out?

Quantitative studies such as the Australian Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire (PREQ) throw some light on higher degree students' perceptions of their experiences (see GCCA). While over 80 per cent of these students are satisfied with their overall experience (annual surveys 2000-2004), a number of shortcomings are revealed with regard to the intellectual climate in which they work (e.g. research ambience) and the infrastructure provided (e.g. financial support for research).

In terms of qualitative research, a national study by Neumann (2003) see DEST E&I Publications 2003 also found that the large majority of students are positive about their doctoral programs, with 12 per cent dissatisfied with their supervision experiences and five per cent with serious grievances. However, other studies in Australia such as Lee and Williams (1999), and in the USA by Lovitts (2001) indicate that the PhD can have highly negative aspects. The former examined dissatisfaction among doctoral candidates in the social sciences, while the latter investigated the causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study across the disciplines.

Blogs now provide a new and different means by which perspectives and insights on the contemporary PhD experience can be identified and shared. At this moment, the PhD Weblogs site contains the weblogs of 278 candidates internationally, 18 of whom are located in Australia. While there is considerable variation in terms of content and style, it is possible to detect some emerging patterns. For example, the PhD blogger's research tends to be a common focus–frequently illustrated by select readings and sites–and accompanied by various thoughts, comments and reflections. The lived experience of the blogger is also highlighted, although there is considerable variation around the extent to which personal/emotional and academic/professional dimensions are incorporated. While some blogs emphasise the highs and lows experienced, others record the nature and extent of progress made, especially in terms of intellectual development. However, a striking feature of the PhD blog is the universal desire for feedback.

Like other PhD bloggers, I too would be very interested to receive feedback, especially with regard to additional sources of data on the contemporary doctoral experience, as well as any comments regarding the perceived value of the PhD blog: not only as a learning device, but also as a research tool.

Doctoral Education – Champions, changes and challenges

2005-05-05T16:54:00.000+10:00

A significant number of academics, researchers, students and others have been working in the field of doctoral education for some time in Australia and elsewhere. As a relative newcomer to the field, I would like to acknowledge their contributions, scholarship and commitment to establishing the existing knowledge base.

During the past few years, many have written about changes occurring in doctoral education, along with the challenges and dilemmas that are emerging as a result. For example, a recent editorial in Studies in Continuing Education, Vol 26, No. 3 (November 2004) provides a succinct state-of-the-art summary, pointing to the increased scope and diversity of doctoral education today. Editorial writers Pearson, Evans and Macauley highlight the importance of understanding the interrelationships and significance of PhD candidates’ activities as students and their status as members of the workforce, arguing that a radical rethinking of the doctoral experience is required.

The three authors are also the Chief Investigators of an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project in which I am involved as a doctoral candidate. For more information about the Working Students: Reconceptualising the doctoral experience project, please see CEDAM, ANU. The focus of my PhD research is the nature of the contemporary study, research, training, work and career development interface for doctoral candidates, and its relationship to the dynamics of the environments in which they operate.

In creating this blog, I am seeking to fulfil a number of objectives. First, to stimulate debate around issues concerned with doctoral education in general, and the work practices of PhD candidates in particular. Second, to promote an exchange of views on current theories and approaches to the PhD. Third, to explore developments and trends associated with identity, authorship and publishing on the part of doctoral candidates. Fourth, to record selective thoughts and reflections associated my own doctoral experience.

I enrolled as a PhD candidate at the ANU in March 2003 and have been co-opted as an Executive Member of PARSA Postgrad & Res Students Assoc, ANU. As part of the ARC Linkage Project, I am working in collaboration with another PhD candidate from Deakin University. While he is concerned primarily with the experiences of part-time doctoral candidates, my interest is in full-time candidates.

In a co-authored paper presented at the AARE conference in December 2004, we outlined some of the processes and outcomes associated with the initial period of our candidature. Kevin used data and analysis to illustrate the changing nature of the doctoral population in Australia, while I used a narrative to reflect on my initial experience as a doctoral candidate Cumming&Ryland, 2004.

As you will note from this blog's side bar, I have flagged my interest in the learning environments of PhD candidates; processes of socialisation (e.g. in the university, profession, discipline, world of work); and knowledge production. My plan is to identify select papers and reports with a view to generating responses and interaction, either by means of a hyperlink or a conventional reference. In the meantime, I look forward to sharing and exchanging views on contemporary doctoral practices and experiences.