Developing Generic Support for Doctoral Students

Carter, Susan; Laurs, Deborah

doi:10.4324/9781315779119

Cited by 27 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the multitude of learning opportunities for doctoral students provided through initiatives that target specific research skillsets (e.g., training on theories, data analysis programs, research writing), one could argue whether the role of supervisors in providing discipline-specific guidance could be replaced by other forms of training. This argument takes on significance within the purview that coursework programs (in Australian context) are not necessarily subject-specific and mostly involve generic research skills training (Carter & Laurs, 2014). Since discipline-specific training is not available in research skilling provisions, the role of supervisors in facilitating doctoral students' development of discipline expertise deserves scrutiny.…”

Section: Selecting Supervisors: Matching Discipline Expertise and Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When one embodies these practices, for example in thesis writing, doctoral students' development of discipline expertise contribute to a shift in scholarly identity (Carter & Laurs, 2014), where they eventually become doctoral level graduates who demonstrate "systemic and critical understanding of a substantial and complex body of knowledge at the frontier of a discipline or area of professional practice" (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013, p. 63) and to eventually take up "a position of expertise and authority" (Kamler & Thomson, 2014, p. 16). This shift in identity does not mean that one should rely solely on supervisors to develop technical and research skills.…”

Section: Disciplinary Knowledge In Action: a Conceptual Standpointmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards “Operating Within” the Field: Doctoral Students’ Views of Supervisors’ Discipline Expertise

Gube

Getenet

Satariyan

et al. 2017

IJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: This paper considers the role of supervisors’ discipline expertise in doctoral learning from a student perspective. Background: Doctoral students need to develop expertise in a particular field of study. In this context, developing expertise requires doctoral students to master disciplinary knowledge, conventions and scholarship under the guidance of supervisors. Methodology : The study draws on a mixed-method approach, using an online survey and semi-structured interviews conducted with doctoral students. Contribution: The paper brings to the fore the role of supervisors’ discipline expertise on doctoral students’ research progress. Findings: The survey data suggest that doctoral students nominate their supervisors on the basis of their discipline expertise. They also view supervisors’ expertise as key to the development of ‘insider’ knowledge of their doctoral research. Recommendations for Practitioners: Supervisors play a pivotal role in helping doctoral students overcome intellectual barriers by imparting their discipline knowledge as well as balancing satisfactory doctoral completion rate and high quality student experience. Impact on Society : Doctoral supervision equips doctoral students with the right arsenal to be able to competently operate within their field and prepares them for their future research or professional career that demands a high level of discipline expertise. Future Research: The scope of the findings leaves open a discussion about the experiences of doctoral students matched with non-discipline expert supervisory teams; for example, the extent of the mismatch and its ramifications.

show abstract

Section: Selecting Supervisors: Matching Discipline Expertise and Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Disciplinary Knowledge In Action: a Conceptual Standpointmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards “Operating Within” the Field: Doctoral Students’ Views of Supervisors’ Discipline Expertise

Gube

Getenet

Satariyan

et al. 2017

IJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From the literature review, the pattern of usage of the concept can be categorized in five conceptual areas, summarized into categories and subcategories as shown in Table 1. (Biggs, 2000); (Nerad & Heggelund, 2008a); (Sadlak, 2004); (Park, 2005); (Wellington, 2013) (Biggs, 2000); (Sadlak, 2004); (Park, 2005); (Wellington, 2013); (QAA, 2015); (G. E. Walker et al, 2008); (Nerad & ネラッド, 2015); (Keefer, 2015); (Kandiko & Kinchin, 2012); (Wisker et al, 2010); (Sweitzer, 2009); (Petre & Rugg, 2010); (Carter & Laurs, 2014); (Pérez, Fain, & Slater, 2011 …”

Section: Uses Of Th E Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Doctorateness: A Concept Analysis

Yazdani¹,

Shokooh

2018

IJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: This study analyses the concept of doctorateness and its defining characteristics and gives a definition for it by examining the various ways it is used in doctoral education literature. Background: The term ‘doctorateness’ is an immature unclarified concept referred to as a common quality for all doctoral awards. With the emergence of different types of doctoral studies worldwide, a clear definition for this concept is a requirement. Defining doctorateness can result in major implications for research and the practice of doctoral education, as determining attributes of doctorateness will pose serious expectations regarding standard setting for the process and outcome of doctoral programs and requirements of doctoral students. Methodology: In this study, Walker and Avant’s eight step method of concept analysis is used. The method is a systematic approach frequently used to analyze relatively new concepts. Contribution: The current study moves beyond the earlier studies by isolating defining attributes of the concept and giving a clear conceptual definition for doctorateness. Findings: Five defining attribute of doctorateness refined from literature include independent scholar, developmental and transformative apprenticeship process, original conceptual contribution/scholarship, highest academic degree, and stewardship of the discipline. Based on the defining attributes a definition is formulated for the concept of doctorateness. In addition to giving a definition a conceptual model consisting of five conceptual areas of purpose, process, product, prerequisite, and impact according to the usage of concept in the literature is also presented. Recommendations for Practitioners: By using the conceptual model and defining attributes presented in this study practitioners and professionals in doctoral education can study the effective design for doctoral programs and utilize the definition as a basis for evidencing doctoral awards. Future Research: Defining attributes can also contribute to psychometric researches related to tool development and constructing tools with explicit criteria for doctorate judgment.

show abstract

“…Many supervisors admit uncertainty and lack of expertise concerning how to develop student writing (Paré, 2011), and much learning by supervisors has been informal-supervisors recycle pedagogies from those who supervised them (Guerin, Kerr & Green, 2014; McAlpine & Amundsen, 2011) and from discussions in the corridors (Aitchison & Paré, 2012), valuing the views of trusted colleagues more than those centrally provisioned (Hamilton, Carson, & Ellison, 2013). With the advantage of their meta-level multidisciplinary viewpoint (Carter & Laurs, 2014), academic developers are well positioned to contribute to changing practices of researcher writing development. One new practice in this field is the use of social media in the work of academic developers and learning advisors, but to date the literature on this topic is relatively sparse (Lee et al, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blogging as community of practice: lessons for academic development?

Guerin

Carter

Aitchison

2015

International Journal for Academic Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dr Claire Aitchison is an Adjunct Fellow in the School of Education, University of Western Sydney. She is a foundational editor of Doctoralwriting which supports an international online community of academic and literacy developers, supervisors, and research students. Recent research projects include the rise of doctoral writing support external to the conferring university, doctoral student and supervisor experiences of candidates' writing, writing in practice-led doctorates, writing group pedagogies, doctoral writing in the creative arts, and pedagogies for writing for publication.None of the authors have a financial interest nor benefit from the direct application of their research. Blogging as community of practice: lessons for academic development?As practices and expectations around doctoral writing continue to change, so too do the demands on academic developers and learning advisors. Social media is increasingly playing a role in doctoral education, just as it is in higher education more generally (Conole & Alevizou, 2010). This paper explores a blog initiated in 2012 to inform and support doctoral writing; since its inception, it has grown to include diverse and overlapping communities of academic developers, language and literacy specialists, supervisors and students with shared interests in doctoral writing. This case study reflects on our experiences of entering the online environment through the lens of connectivist learning, noting the practices and communities that have been established, and the blog's positioning in relation to our formal roles within universities. We consider how blogging relates to our work as academic developers. Details of our experiences, with our analysis and reflection of them, can inform other academic developers seeking to engage in social media networks as part of their working lives.Keywords: blogging; connectivism; doctoral writing; community building; social media in higher education IntroductionThe practices and expectations around doctoral writing, research, and scholarship are changing, and so too are ideas about how academic developers and learning advisors can support doctoral writing in a tech-savvy world. Many supervisors admit uncertainty and lack of expertise concerning how to develop student writing (Paré, 2011), and much learning by supervisors has been informal-supervisors recycle pedagogies from those who supervised them (Guerin, Kerr & Green, 2014; McAlpine & Amundsen, 2011) and from discussions in the corridors (Aitchison & Paré, 2012), valuing the views of trusted colleagues more than those centrally provisioned (Hamilton, Carson, & Ellison, 2013). With the advantage of their meta-level multidisciplinary viewpoint (Carter & Laurs, 2014), academic developers are well positioned to contribute to changing practices of researcher writing development. One new practice in this field is the use of social media in the work of academic developers and learning advisors, but to date the literature on this topic is relatively sparse (Lee et al., 2013). Our resea...

show abstract

Developing Generic Support for Doctoral Students

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Towards “Operating Within” the Field: Doctoral Students’ Views of Supervisors’ Discipline Expertise

Towards “Operating Within” the Field: Doctoral Students’ Views of Supervisors’ Discipline Expertise

Defining Doctorateness: A Concept Analysis

Blogging as community of practice: lessons for academic development?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About