Negotiating structural barriers to environmental collaborations in doctoral programmes

IF 1.7 Q2 GEOGRAPHY Geo-Geography and Environment Pub Date : 2024-01-12 DOI:10.1002/geo2.133
Joshua Lait, Hannah Hayes, Sylvia Hayes, Roger Auster, Ellie Fox, Madeleine Timmins, Augustin Bauchot
{"title":"Negotiating structural barriers to environmental collaborations in doctoral programmes","authors":"Joshua Lait,&nbsp;Hannah Hayes,&nbsp;Sylvia Hayes,&nbsp;Roger Auster,&nbsp;Ellie Fox,&nbsp;Madeleine Timmins,&nbsp;Augustin Bauchot","doi":"10.1002/geo2.133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This commentary reflects on the experiences of a cohort of human and physical geographers in enacting environmental collaborations during their doctoral studies. The authors identify three key structural barriers encountered whilst attempting a collaborative approach: (1) doctoral funding priorities, (2) doctoral resourcing and (3) assessing doctoral collaboration. The authors discuss how the negotiation of these encounters came to frame their understanding of collaborative approaches to environmental knowledge creation. Competitive application processes for doctoral studentships can encourage the overpromising of the impact of planned environmental collaboration, potentially co-opting the voices of partners/communities to satisfy doctoral funding requirements. Given insufficient funding of collaborations, the authors argue that this overpromising of doctoral research's impact can later result in difficult trade-offs between undertaking additional commitments at the expense of the career progression of the doctoral student, contributing to educational inequalities and scaling-back the initial plans at the cost of collaborators encountering environmental crises. The trade-off is further problematised by institutional assessment procedures that do not adequately recognise the more nuanced contributions of environmental collaborations and a prevailing culture promoting peer-review publishing. Overall, the commentary argues that these barriers help to reproduce inequalities in the distribution of voice in environmental scholarship, undermining efforts to democratise environmental knowledge creation in doctoral research. The authors call for specific structural reforms of doctoral programmes to help address these challenges and support a broader resistance to the inadequate resourcing and evaluation of environmental collaborative research in UK higher education.</p>","PeriodicalId":44089,"journal":{"name":"Geo-Geography and Environment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/geo2.133","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geo-Geography and Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/geo2.133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This commentary reflects on the experiences of a cohort of human and physical geographers in enacting environmental collaborations during their doctoral studies. The authors identify three key structural barriers encountered whilst attempting a collaborative approach: (1) doctoral funding priorities, (2) doctoral resourcing and (3) assessing doctoral collaboration. The authors discuss how the negotiation of these encounters came to frame their understanding of collaborative approaches to environmental knowledge creation. Competitive application processes for doctoral studentships can encourage the overpromising of the impact of planned environmental collaboration, potentially co-opting the voices of partners/communities to satisfy doctoral funding requirements. Given insufficient funding of collaborations, the authors argue that this overpromising of doctoral research's impact can later result in difficult trade-offs between undertaking additional commitments at the expense of the career progression of the doctoral student, contributing to educational inequalities and scaling-back the initial plans at the cost of collaborators encountering environmental crises. The trade-off is further problematised by institutional assessment procedures that do not adequately recognise the more nuanced contributions of environmental collaborations and a prevailing culture promoting peer-review publishing. Overall, the commentary argues that these barriers help to reproduce inequalities in the distribution of voice in environmental scholarship, undermining efforts to democratise environmental knowledge creation in doctoral research. The authors call for specific structural reforms of doctoral programmes to help address these challenges and support a broader resistance to the inadequate resourcing and evaluation of environmental collaborative research in UK higher education.

Abstract Image

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
谈判博士课程中环境合作的结构性障碍
这篇评论反思了一批人文和自然地理学家在博士学习期间开展环境合作的经历。作者指出了在尝试合作方法时遇到的三个主要结构性障碍:(1) 博士经费的优先次序,(2) 博士资源配置,(3) 博士合作评估。作者讨论了如何通过对这些遭遇的协商来构建他们对环境知识创造合作方法的理解。博士生奖学金的竞争性申请过程可能会鼓励对计划中的环境合作的影响进行过度承诺,从而有可能将合作伙伴/社区的声音合为一体,以满足博士生经费的要求。作者认为,由于合作资金不足,这种对博士生研究影响的过度承诺可能会导致博士生在承担额外义务时牺牲自己的职业发展,造成教育不平等,以及以合作者遭遇环境危机为代价缩减最初计划之间进行艰难的权衡。机构评估程序没有充分认识到环境合作所做的更细微的贡献,以及提倡同行评审出版的主流文化,都使这种权衡更加困难。总之,评论认为,这些障碍助长了环境学术话语权分配的不平等,破坏了博士研究中环境知识创造民主化的努力。作者呼吁对博士课程进行具体的结构性改革,以帮助应对这些挑战,并支持更广泛地抵制英国高等教育中环境合作研究资源不足和评估不足的现象。
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: Geo is a fully open access international journal publishing original articles from across the spectrum of geographical and environmental research. Geo welcomes submissions which make a significant contribution to one or more of the journal’s aims. These are to: • encompass the breadth of geographical, environmental and related research, based on original scholarship in the sciences, social sciences and humanities; • bring new understanding to and enhance communication between geographical research agendas, including human-environment interactions, global North-South relations and academic-policy exchange; • advance spatial research and address the importance of geographical enquiry to the understanding of, and action about, contemporary issues; • foster methodological development, including collaborative forms of knowledge production, interdisciplinary approaches and the innovative use of quantitative and/or qualitative data sets; • publish research articles, review papers, data and digital humanities papers, and commentaries which are of international significance.
期刊最新文献
Place-based and people-centred: Principles for a socially inclusive Net Zero transition ‘Side-hustling’ in commercial agriculture among young university graduates in Ghana Electric feels: The role of visual methods in energy ‘futuring’ Street vendors as actors of a sustainable food system—The case of Mexico City Deep learning for sea surface temperature applications: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis and methodological approach
×
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