‘Untold’ doctoral stories: can we move beyond cultural narratives of neglect?

McAlpine, Lynn; Paulson, Julia; Gonsalves, Allison J.; Jazvac-Martek, Marian

doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.559199

Cited by 77 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years there has been growing recognition of the need to move beyond the institution and its expectations and recognize what PhD candidates bring to the degree, including their home and work life, previous research and other knowledge, experience, and priorities. These considerations can shape expectations and are especially important if we are to understand more comprehensively the nature of the individual challenges doctoral learners face and what impedes their progress (Cantwell, Scevak, Bourke, & Holbrook, 2012;McAlpine, Paulson, Consalves, & Jazvac-Martek, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PhD Candidate Expectations: Exploring Mismatch with Experience

Holbrook

Shaw

Scevak

et al. 2014

IJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper identifies the nature of initial expectations of PhD candidates, the prevalence and type of mismatch between expectations and experience, and to what extent mismatch is reflected in satisfaction with candidature. The data were drawn from telephone interviews with a sub-sample of 104 PhD candidates from an initial online national survey of 1,374 candidates at Australian universities. Based on the interviews, eight categories of initial expectations coalesced into three dimensions: the doctoral 'Task', the 'University' (including supervision), and 'Personal' factors. The relationships between candidates' initial expectations and subsequent experience were examined, with specific reference to mismatches that were positive, neutral, or negative (most being negative). Where there was mismatch, this was primarily in relation to what was involved in the 'Task' and the associated emotions. The negative mismatch codes were consistently related to candidate satisfaction with supervision, with department/university provision, and with their own preparation for the degree. Further analyses of experience indicated that negative mismatch caused candidates to question, not necessarily productively, their preparation, purpose, fit, and persona.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PhD Candidate Expectations: Exploring Mismatch with Experience

Holbrook

Shaw

Scevak

et al. 2014

IJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Linking back to Trowler, we offered the possibility of reflexive departments -as alternative to reflexive individuals -as drivers for change, within a supportive institutional and faculty policy environment. We drew links between this view and authors such as McAlpine (2012McAlpine ( , 2013, Backhouse (2007) and Boud and Lee (2005) who also highlight the role of the institution (in addition to that of the supervisor) in postgraduate education.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Broadening the spotlight: Using the Strengthening Postgraduate Supervision course to shift institutional thinkin

Steyn¹,

Schalkwyk²

2017

Strengthening Postgraduate Supervision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Five years ago the Programme Committee minuted the perception that the students' writing of assignments in English requires attention. This perception is related to a broader set of challenges facing postgraduate education, which is receiving much attention in South Africa of late (see for example Fataar 2012) and internationally (see Aitchison et al 2012, andMcAlpine et al 2012). This attention is due to a variety of trends: the pressure to increase numbers of postgraduate students, and the transition to postgraduate study that students experience.…”

Section: Research Setting: Postgraduate Health Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention to Student Writing in Postgraduate Health Science Education: Whose Task is It – or Rather, How?

Leibowitz

2013

JOAW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on an action research study designed to stimulate the metacognitive awareness of the writing of assignments in English of a group of students from diverse language and educational backgrounds, studying health science education at masters level. In the study, students were required to give and receive feedback on a marked written assignment to a peer, and receive feedback from a consultant working at the Writing Lab. They were then required to submit a reflective report, which constitutes the key data source for this study. An analysis of the reflective reports revealed that the students claimed that they learnt about their writing habits, about good academic writing, and about the experience of giving and receiving feedback. The study suggests that although an intervention making extensive use of a variety of sources of feedback appears to be able to stimulate students' metacognitive functioning in relation to their writing of assignments, a number of issues require concerted attention. These issues include: power relations and emotion, perceptions of legitimate authority, and the central role of the lecturer as disciplinary expert and guide. The article concludes with a recommendation for enhanced attention to intersubjective relations of power, language and identity in relation to feedback on writing, especially when peer feedback is involved.

show abstract

‘Untold’ doctoral stories: can we move beyond cultural narratives of neglect?

Cited by 77 publications

References 28 publications

PhD Candidate Expectations: Exploring Mismatch with Experience

PhD Candidate Expectations: Exploring Mismatch with Experience

Broadening the spotlight: Using the Strengthening Postgraduate Supervision course to shift institutional thinkin

Attention to Student Writing in Postgraduate Health Science Education: Whose Task is It – or Rather, How?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About