American and Australian doctoral literature reviewing practices and pedagogies

The literature review is fundamental to the doctoral enterprise of academic disciplines, yet research into how the doctoral literature review is learned, taught or experienced is limited. Responding to an apparent under-examination of the literature review as a critical feature of doctoral learning, this thesis investigates the doctoral literature review process as experienced by American and Australian doctoral candidates, doctoral supervisors and academic librarians. The research followed a qualitative approach shaped by two questions: "How is the doctoral literature review process learned?" and, "What is learned by doing a doctoral literature review?" Data were generated from in-depth interviews conducted with 42 participants in education, nursing and the physical and biological sciences. Critical literacy, critical pedagogy and critical information literacy provided frameworks for interpreting participants‘ experiences and perspectives on literature reviewing practices, disciplinary influences and mutually associated doctoral literacies.

The doctoral literature review is traditionally considered to be two segregated events—literature seeking and writing in an academic genre. The study findings challenge this perspective, proposing instead that doctoral literature reviewing is a complex, comprehensive process characterised by interdependent activities in a cycle of gathering, reflecting upon and synthesising literatures. Moreover, these findings indicate that, by engaging with disciplinary literatures and the literature review process, doctoral researchers become familiar with an array of critical doctoral literacies—disciplinary literacy, information literacy and reading and writing literacies. Thus, the doctoral literature review can be conceptualised as a pedagogy through which candidates acquire the lived practices and craft skills of disciplinary-specific research; learn to manage large bodies of information, literature and knowledge; and learn to read and write as scholars in their disciplines.

This project reconceptualises traditional perspectives on doctoral literature reviewing and recommends further exploration into its pedagogical potential. By approaching the doctoral literature review as a pedagogical process, the inquiry attempts to unpack literacies embedded within the doctoral enterprise, thereby exposing them as explicit aspects of doctoral learning. Becoming aware of the interrelatedness of critical doctoral literacies can mobilise supervisors, librarians and candidates to exploit the literature review process more fully. Ultimately, this research contributes to an international focus on a central feature of the doctorate and, as such, more broadly informs and supports doctoral pedagogy, particularly for those involved in American and Australian doctoral education.

Doctoral research and scholarly communication : candidates, supervisors and information literacy

This study investigates information literacy and scholarly communication within the processes of doctoral research and supervision at a distance. Both doctoral candidates and supervisors acknowledge information literacy deficiencies and it is suggested that disintermediation and the proliferation of information may contribute to those deficiencies. Further to this, the influence of pedagogic continuity—particularly in relation to the information seeking behaviour of candidates—is investigated, as is the concomitant aspect of how doctoral researchers practise scholarly communication. The well-documented and enduring problem for candidates of isolation from the research cultures of their universities is also scrutinised. The contentious issue of more formally involving librarians in the doctoral process is also considered, from the perspective of candidates and supervisors. Superimposed upon these topical and timely issues is the theoretical framework of adult learning theory, in particular the tenets of andragogy. The pedagogical-andragogical orientation of candidates and supervisors is established, demonstrating both the differences and similarities between candidates and supervisors, as are a number of independent variables, including a comparison of on-campus and off-campus candidates. Other independent variables include age, gender, DETYA (Department of Education, Training & Youth Affairs) category, enrolment type, stage of candidature, employment and status, type of doctorate, and English/non-English speaking background. The research methodology uses qualitative and quantitative techniques encompassing both data and methodological triangulation. The study uses two sets of questionnaires and a series of in-depth interviews with a sample of on-campus and off-campus doctoral candidates and supervisors from four Australian universities. Major findings include NESB candidates being more pedagogical than their ESB counterparts, and candidates and supervisors from the Sciences are more pedagogical than those from Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, or Education. Candidates make a transition from a more dependent and pedagogically oriented approach to learning towards more of an independent and andragogical orientation over the duration of their candidature. However, over tune both on-campus and off-campus candidates become more isolated from the research cultures of their universities, and less happy with support received from their supervisors in relation to their literature reviews. Ill The study found large discrepancies in perception between the support supervisors believed they gave to candidates in relation to the literature review, and the support candidates believed they received. Information seeking becomes easier over time, but candidates face a dilemma with the proliferation of information, suggesting that disintermediation has exacerbated the challenges of evaluation and organisation of information. The concept of pedagogic continuity was recognised by supervisors and especially candidates, both negative and positive influences. The findings are critically analysed and synthesised using the metaphor of a scholarly 'Club' of which obtaining a doctorate is a rite of passage. Recommendations are made for changes in professional practice, and topics that may warrant further research are suggested.

The risky business of doctoral management

Universities are under no less pressure to adopt risk management strategies than other public and private organisations. The risk management of doctoral education is a particularly important issue given that a doctorate is the highest academic qualification a university offers and stakes are high in terms of assuring its quality. However, intense risk management can interfere with the intellectual and pedagogical work which are essentially part of doctoral education. This paper seeks to understand how the culture of risk meets the culture of doctoral education and with what effect. The authors draw on sociological understandings of risk in the work of Anthony Giddens (2002) and Ulrich Beck (1992), the anthropological focus on liminality in the work of Mary Douglas (1990), and the psychological theorising of human error in the work of James Reason (1990). The paper concludes that risk consciousness brings its own risks—in particular, the potential transformation of a culture based on intellect into a culture based on compliance.

Reconceptualising the Australian doctoral experience

This thesis showed that part-time doctoral candidates have complex interrelationships between activities inside and outside of their studies. It is argued that these interrelationships are critical as work becomes more focused on the creation of ideas and doctorates become more focused on the world of work.

Retheorising doctoral supervision as professional work

A competitive higher education environment marked by increased accountability and quality assurance measures for doctoral study, including the structured training of doctoral supervisors, has highlighted the need to clearly articulate and delineate the work of supervising doctoral students. This article responds to this imperative by examining the question: in the contemporary university, what do doctoral supervisors do and how might their work be theorized? The response draws on life history interviews with doctoral supervisors in five broad disciplines/fields, working in a large metropolitan university in Australia. Based on empirical analyses, doctoral supervision is theorized as professional work that comprises five facets: the learning alliance, habits of mind, scholarly expertise, technê and contextual expertise. The article proposes that this model offers a more precise discourse, language and theory for understanding and preparing for the work of doctoral supervision in the contemporary university.

'Becoming a supervisor' : the impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors' learning

The doctorate is an educative process for students but what is its impact on supervisors' learning about the practice of doctoral supervision? Internationally, there is an increased emphasis on formal training, monitoring and accountability of doctoral supervisors. Yet there is a striking silence about what doctoral supervisors learn through supervising doctoral students, and how the impacts on supervisors might be theorised. The aim of this article is to begin to address this gap in the doctoral education literature, based on a thematic analysis of two complementary interview studies of a cross-disciplinary sample of experienced doctoral supervisors. The analysis illustrates the significant impact of doctoral supervision on the learning and knowledge of doctoral supervisors, particularly in relation to how supervisors engage with/in the social and political context of their university, understand themselves and their students, and how the contemporary context of supervision affects the sort of pedagogical relationships supervisors establish with their doctoral students. Regardless of supervisors' discipline, position in the academic hierarchy or supervisory experience, the analysis indicates that supervisors' learning experiences shape their subjectivities and identities, and that supervision is an ongoing ontological process of ‘becoming a supervisor’. The importance of integrating a theory of ‘becoming a supervisor’ into supervisor professional development is proposed.

Mixed methods : a research design for management doctoral dissertations

Purpose – This paper seeks to examine two management doctoral research projects to highlight the advantages in mixed methods as the primary research design.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper summarises the methods of data collection and analysis which were used by two doctoral students in their management research. The researchers used mixed methods approaches (quantitative and qualitative) to explore different areas of management.
Findings – The paper supports the view that triangulation of research methods strengthens the findings and inferences made for understanding social phenomena in more depth, compared to using a single method.
Research limitations/implications – The paper relies excessively on two doctoral research projects which utilise sequential mixed methods. Therefore, arguments made in the paper are specific because other doctoral projects that have used different methods from those employed in the two projects were not considered.
Practical implications – Early researchers, in particular students commencing doctorate studies, should apply mixed methods research because it develops skills in the two most dominant data collection methods used in management research. This paper is a practical guide on how this could be done effectively.
Originality/value – The paper is drawn from two unique doctoral research projects. The paper’s originality and value is in providing experiences and practical insights on how mixed methods research is undertaken.

How shall we know them? Capturing the diversity of difference in Australian doctoral candidates and their experiences.

Although there is general agreement that doctoral students and their experiences are diverse, in what respect this is true is in question. Most institutional practices in the collection of data in this regard have been established to satisfy government reporting requirements and concerns, such as funding, participation and equity, and efficiency. Missing is more detailed and nuanced quantitative data and analysis, complementary to those of qualitative studies, to illuminate the nature and extent of doctoral student diversity and the effects on the quality of their candidacy. Drawing on select data and findings from a national survey of Australian doctoral candidates conducted in 2005, the article questions the utility of commonly used categories for quantitative data collection and analysis, and their use as the basis of (sub)groupings to represent doctoral diversity. In so doing, it presents a more complex picture of doctoral candidature that depicts the idiosyncrasy of the individual experience, as well as generic characteristics. Central to the argument is that doctoral candidates are diversely different, bringing varying goals, expectations, career histories and family and community responsibilities beyond the academy, that shape their engagement with their candidacy.