A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences

The paper reports on the findings of a community learning approach to doctoral education involving scholarly writing groups (SWGs) which was developed and implemented in the context of a higher degree research programme within the social sciences in an Australian university. The research evaluated the impact of the teaching intervention on students' perceptions of the community learning experience, their knowledge of scholarly writing and their attitudes towards writing. The findings are suggestive of the advantages of community approaches to learning in higher degree research education as a supplement to independent supervision. The SWGs were associated with improvements in both participants' knowledge of scholarly writing and their attitudes towards writing. However, a variety of characteristics of doctoral education are potential impediments to the creation of ongoing and regular interactions in learning communities such as SWGs. The paper concludes that a flexible approach to the recognition and enhancement of community approaches to learning is required to acknowledge the complex and diverse context of contemporary doctoral education.

Fellowship plan and conceptual framework

This document is written to provide: (1) a brief plan of the intended directions of the ALTC program ‘A Pedagogy of Supervision in the Technology disciplines’; and (2) an overview of existing research outcomes which are likely to be of interest to the technology disciplines, including some cross disciplinary research and some focussed specifically on some part of the technology field.

A review of the conversations and their content

This is the 2nd of a series of discussion papers (Table 1) around the pedagogy of supervision in the technology disciplines. The papers form part of an Australian Learning and Teaching Council Fellowship program conducted by ALTC Associate Fellow, Professor Christine Bruce, Queensland University of Technology.

Cases from the technology disciplines

This document is a collection of ‘cases’ adapted from interviews with supervisors of higher degree research students from the technology disciplines. The supervisors come from a wide range of sub disciplines and represent many levels of experience. We follow in this document Hammond and Ryland’s (2009)2 suggested ranking of supervision experience:  No completions – No experience or new supervisors, with no doctoral completions as principal supervisor  Experienced – 1 to 5 doctoral completions as principal supervisor  Very experienced – over 6 doctoral completions as principal supervisor The cases focus attention on thinking about supervision as a teaching and learning practice; a dimension of higher degree research supervision that is increasingly being recognized as important. They are offered as prompts for individuals and groups of supervisors in thinking about their supervision as a teaching and learning practice.

Student resources for the use of supervisors

The materials presented here are intended to: a) accompany the document Supervisor Resource and b) provide technology supervisors with materials that may be readily shared with students. These resources are not designed to be distributed to students without contextualization, they are intended for use in workshops or in discussions between supervisors and students. As authors, we anticipate that supervisors or workshop facilitators are most likely to extract individual resources of interest for particular occasions. The materials have been developed from conversations with supervisors from the technology disciplines.

Resource for supervisors and cases

The framework presented in the resource is intended to provide technology supervisors with a range of options available to them with respect to supervisory pedagogy. It has been developed to highlight different aspects of thinking about supervision as a teaching and learning practice; as well as approaches, strategies and roles associated with supervision. It will enable technology supervisors to become aware of the diverse options available to them and provide systematic ways of thinking about supervisory practices. Use of this framework will encourage supervisors to make choices based on broader, rather than more limited, repertoires. It will also encourage thinking about supervision as a teaching and learning practice.

Survey of eResearch practices and skills at QUT, Australia

Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is a multidisciplinary university in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and has 40,000 students and 1,700 researchers. Notable eResearch infrastructure includes the QUT ePrints repository, Microsoft QUT Research Centre, the OAK (Open Access to Knowledge) Law Project, Cambia and leading research institutes. ---------- The Australian Government, via the Australian National Data Service (ANDS), is funding institutions to identify and describe their research datasets, to develop and populate data repositories and collaborative infrastructure, and to seed the Australian Research Data Commons. QUT is currently broadening its range of research support services, including those to support the management of research data, in recognition of the value of these datasets as products of the research process, and in order to maximize the potential for reuse. QUT is integrating Library and High Performance Computing (HPC) services to achieve its research support goals. ---------- The Library and HPC released an online survey using Key Survey to 1,700 researchers in September 2009. A comprehensive range of eResearch practices and skills was presented for response, and grouped into areas of scholarly communication and open access publishing, using collaborative technologies, data management, data collection and management, computation and visualization tools. Researchers were asked to rate their skill level on each practice. 254 responses were received over two weeks. Eight focus groups were also held with 35 higher degree research (HDR) students and staff to provide additional qualitative feedback. A similar survey was released to 100 support staff and 73 responses were received.---------- Preliminary results from the researcher survey and focus groups indicate a gap between current eResearch practices, and the potential for researchers to engage in eResearch practices. Researchers are more likely to seek advice from their peers, than from support staff. HDR students are more positive about eResearch practices and are more willing to learn new ways of conducting research. An account of the survey methodology, the results obtained, and proposed strategies to embed eResearch practices and skills across and within the research disciplines will be provided.

Science and technology supervision resources

This document is an adaptation of a report submitted to the ALTC in 2009, with additional data collected through subsequent interviews with science supervisors. The organisation of the contents also reflects a development of thought since the original project. The framework presented in this document is intended to provide science and technology supervisors with a range of options with respect to supervisory pedagogy. It has been developed to highlight different aspects of thinking about supervision as a teaching and learning practice; as well as approaches, strategies and roles associated with supervision. It will enable science and technology supervisors to become aware of the diverse options available to them and provide systematic ways of thinking about supervisory practices. Use of this framework will encourage supervisors to make choices based on broader, rather than more limited, repertoires. It will also encourage thinking about supervision as a teaching and learning practice.

Risky business : managing creative practice postgraduates through HDR programs

In Australia, as elsewhere, universities are being encouraged to grow their postgraduate research candidature base while at the same time there is increasing pressure on resources with which to manage the burgeoning groups. In this environment HDR supervision strategies are seen as increasingly important as research managers seek the best possible ‘fit’ for an applicant: the candidate who will provide a sound return on investment and demonstrate endurance in the pursuit of a timely completion. As research managers know, the admissions process can be a risky business. The process may be tested further in the context of the new models of doctoral cohort supervision that are being discussed in the higher degree research management sector. The focus of this paper is an examination of the results of investigations of two models of postgraduate cohort supervision in the creative arts Master of Arts research program at QUT with a view to identifying attributes that may be useful for the formation of cohort models of supervision in the doctoral area.

Shut up & write!

This case-study exemplifies a ‘writing movement’, which is currently occurring in various parts of Australia through the support of social media. A concept emerging from the café scene in San Francisco, ‘Shut Up and Write!’ is a meetup group that brings writers together at a specific time and place to write side by side, thus making writing practice, social. This concept has been applied to the academic environment and our case-study explores the positive outcomes in two locations: RMIT University and QUT. We believe that this informal learning practice can be implemented to assist research students in developing academic skills. DESCRIPTION: Please describe your practice as a case study, including its context; challenge addressed; its aims; what it is; and how it supports creative practice PhD students or supervisors. Additional information may include: the outcomes; key factors or principles that contribute to its effectiveness; anticipated impact/evidence of impact. Research students spend the majority of their time outside of formal learning environments. Doctoral candidates enter their degree with a range of experience, knowledge and needs, making it difficult to provide writing assistance in a structured manner. Using a less structured approach to provide writing assistance has been trialled with promising results (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson, 2001; Stracke, 2010; Devenish et al, 2009). Although, semi structured approaches have been developed and examined, informal learning opportunities have received minimal attention. The primary difference of Shut Up and Write! to other writing practices, is that individuals do not engage in any structured activity and they do not share the outcomes of the writing. The purpose of Shut Up and Write! is to transform writing practice from a solitary experience, to a social one. Shut Up and Write! typically takes place outside of formal learning environments, in public spaces such as a café. The structure of Shut Up and Write! sessions is simple: participants meet at a specific time and place, chat for a few minutes, then they Shut Up and Write for a predetermined amount of time. Critical to the success of the sessions, is that there is no critiquing of the writing, and there is no competition or formal exercises. Our case-study examines the experience of two meetup groups at RMIT University and QUT through narrative accounts from participants. These accounts reveal that participants have learned: • Writing/productivity techniques; • Social/cloud software; • Aspects of the PhD; and • ‘Mundane’ dimensions of academic practice. In addition to this, activities such as Shut Up and Write! promote peer to peer bonding, knowledge exchange, and informal learning within the higher degree research experience. This case-study extends the initial work presented by the authors in collaboration with Dr. Inger Mewburn at QPR2012 – Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference, 2012.

The voices of the exegesis : Composing the speech genres of the practitioner-researcher into a connective thesis

Postgraduate candidates in the creative arts encounter unique challenges when writing an exegesis (the written document that accompanies creative work as a thesis). As a practitioner-researcher, they must adopt a dual perspective–looking out towards an established field of research, exemplars and theories, as well as inwards towards their experiential creative processes and practice. This dual orientation provides clear benefits, for it enables them to situate the research within its field and make objective claims for the research methodologies and outcomes while maintaining an intimate, voiced relationship with the practice. However, a dual orientation introduces considerable complexities in the writing. It requires a reconciliation of multi-perspectival subject positions: the disinterested academic posture of the observer/ethnographer/analyst/theorist at times; and the invested, subjective stance the practitioner/producer at others. It requires the author to negotiate a range of writing styles and speech genres–from the formal, polemical style of the theorist to the personal, questioning and emotive voice of reflexivity. Moreover, these multi-variant orientations, subject positions, styles and voices must be integrated into a unified and coherent text. In this chapter I offer a conceptual framework and strategies for approaching this relatively new genre of thesis. I begin by summarizing the characteristics of what has begun to emerge as the predominant model of exegesis (the dual-oriented ‘Connective’ exegesis). Framing it against theoretical and philosophical understandings of polyvocality and matrixicality, I go on to point to recent textual models that provide precedents for connecting differently oriented perspectives, subjectivities and voices. I then turn to emergent archives of practice-led research to explain how the challenge of writing a ‘Connective’ exegesis has so far been resolved by higher degree research (HDR) candidates. Exemplars illustrate a range of strategies they have used to compose a multi-perspectival text, reconcile the divergent subject positions of the practitioner researcher, and harmonize the speech genres of a ployvocal text.