Bringing the critical into doctoral supervision: What can we learn from debates about epistemic justice and the languaging of research?

Richard Fay, Jane Andrews, Z. Huang, Rosso White
{"title":"Bringing the critical into doctoral supervision: What can we learn from debates about epistemic justice and the languaging of research?","authors":"Richard Fay, Jane Andrews, Z. Huang, Rosso White","doi":"10.47989/kpdc109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we discuss how, as supervisors in largely Anglophone university contexts in England, we are trying to develop supervisory practices informed by the discussions of epistemic (in)justice and the languaging of research. Having rehearsed these discussions, and considered the opportunities provided by research integrity policy formulations in our context, we conceptualise doctoral supervision critically, interculturally, and ecologically. We then report our efforts to shape the supervisory agenda so that, in the local spaces available to us, the shaping influences of the epistemic and linguistic in the wider research environment are problematised. In particular, we focus on two strands of our thinking, namely: a) the implications of epistemic hierarchies and the value of an intercultural ethic for the transknowledging at the heart of doctoral research; and b) the role of language(s) in research and the value of a translingual researcher mindset. In both strands, our thinking has moved from a more instrumental to a more critical stance regarding research, researcher thinking, and supervision. This development highlights some of the complexities involved in developing critical intercultural praxis for doctoral supervision. We conclude with recommendations—aimed at all those involved in doctoral supervision—to facilitate a critical intercultural supervisory culture.","PeriodicalId":413842,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Praxis in Higher Education","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Praxis in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47989/kpdc109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

In this article, we discuss how, as supervisors in largely Anglophone university contexts in England, we are trying to develop supervisory practices informed by the discussions of epistemic (in)justice and the languaging of research. Having rehearsed these discussions, and considered the opportunities provided by research integrity policy formulations in our context, we conceptualise doctoral supervision critically, interculturally, and ecologically. We then report our efforts to shape the supervisory agenda so that, in the local spaces available to us, the shaping influences of the epistemic and linguistic in the wider research environment are problematised. In particular, we focus on two strands of our thinking, namely: a) the implications of epistemic hierarchies and the value of an intercultural ethic for the transknowledging at the heart of doctoral research; and b) the role of language(s) in research and the value of a translingual researcher mindset. In both strands, our thinking has moved from a more instrumental to a more critical stance regarding research, researcher thinking, and supervision. This development highlights some of the complexities involved in developing critical intercultural praxis for doctoral supervision. We conclude with recommendations—aimed at all those involved in doctoral supervision—to facilitate a critical intercultural supervisory culture.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将批判性引入博士指导:我们能从关于认知正义和研究语言的辩论中学到什么?
在这篇文章中,我们讨论了作为主要以英语为母语的英国大学背景下的导师,我们如何试图通过对认知正义和研究语言的讨论来发展监督实践。在排练了这些讨论,并考虑了在我们的背景下研究诚信政策制定所提供的机会后,我们对博士监督进行了批判性、跨文化和生态学的概念化。然后,我们报告我们为塑造监督议程所做的努力,以便在我们可用的地方空间中,认识论和语言学在更广泛的研究环境中的塑造影响是有问题的。特别是,我们专注于我们的思维的两条线,即:a)知识层次的含义和跨文化伦理的价值在博士研究的核心知识;b)语言在研究中的作用以及翻译研究者心态的价值。在这两个方面,我们的思维已经从更工具性的立场转向了更批判性的立场,包括研究、研究者思维和监督。这一发展突出了一些复杂性,涉及发展关键的跨文化实践的博士监督。最后,我们提出了一些建议——针对所有参与博士监督的人——以促进关键的跨文化监督文化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Critiquing the sacred and the profane in higher education Can we please stop talking about 'Bildung'—and for that matter, too, 'the Humboldtian university'? Tapu-gogy: Confining profane pedagogy to a new sacredness beyond the educator’s reach Why critique the sacred and the profane in higher education: In conversation with Professor Bruce Macfarlane Laure and Bataille as educators: On the useless value of sacred experiences
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1