Table of Contents for Volume 18, 2023, of the International Journal of Doctoral Studies
《国际博士研究杂志》2023年第18卷目录表
{"title":"Printable Table of Contents. IJDS, Volume 18, 2023","authors":"Nicole A. Buzzetto-Hollywood","doi":"10.28945/5055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5055","url":null,"abstract":"Table of Contents for Volume 18, 2023, of the International Journal of Doctoral Studies","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87879108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose The purpose of this study is to introduce an instrument that contains a set of exercises intended to help doctoral students align the key sections of their dissertation document. The exercises are developed after providing cognitive analysis of the factors that make aligning these key sections challenging to many, and after discussing pedagogical tools that can be used to address these challenges. Background Writing doctoral dissertations is a formidable endeavor for numerous students. Among the myriad challenges that are faced is the issue of aligning key sections of the dissertation document. Students often struggle with conceptualizing the alignment among different sections of the various chapters of their dissertation. In this study, we introduce here an instrument that includes a set of exercises to help address the challenges of alignment in chapter one, before the issues spiral and addressing them becomes complicated. Methodology This paper reviews literature that discusses the underlying challenges that face the writing of doctoral dissertations in general and the alignment of the key sections in particular. It analyzes the cognitive factors that contribute to the challenges and examines the pedagogical tools that can be used to address these challenges. The review of the literature, the analysis of the cognitive, and the examination of pedagogical tools lead to the introduction of an instrument that is designed to help address the challenges of aligning the key sections of doctoral dissertations. Contribution This paper presents an instrument with a set of exercises that are intended to help students align key sections of their doctoral dissertation document. This alignment step is crucial to the successful completion of dissertation documents and is best tackled early in the writing. Delaying alignment or worse, ignoring alignment altogether, can complicate the issue and lead to numerous extra steps and delays. Our developed instrument here can be used to tackle this issue of alignment from the beginning and throughout the writing and completion status of dissertation documents. Findings Students are often faced with challenges when aligning the key sections of a doctoral dissertation. They struggle with conceptualizing the alignment process. They often write each section separately, and independently of other sections of a chapter and a dissertation. However, sections of the dissertation document are interrelated, and each section affects the writing of other sections. For the successful completion of the dissertation, the sections need to be aligned, and it would be best if these issues are tackled from the beginning of the writing and throughout the writing of the dissertation. Recommendations for Practitioners A methodological approach to aligning the sections of a doctoral dissertation is crucial for the resulting treatise to be coherent and present a unified purpose that threads through each chapter consistent
{"title":"Into the Challenges of Aligning Key Sections of Doctoral Dissertations: Cognitive Analysis, Pedagogical Tools, and Instrument Development","authors":"Azad Ali, Shardul Pandya, Umesh C VARMA","doi":"10.28945/5155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5155","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose The purpose of this study is to introduce an instrument that contains a set of exercises intended to help doctoral students align the key sections of their dissertation document. The exercises are developed after providing cognitive analysis of the factors that make aligning these key sections challenging to many, and after discussing pedagogical tools that can be used to address these challenges. Background Writing doctoral dissertations is a formidable endeavor for numerous students. Among the myriad challenges that are faced is the issue of aligning key sections of the dissertation document. Students often struggle with conceptualizing the alignment among different sections of the various chapters of their dissertation. In this study, we introduce here an instrument that includes a set of exercises to help address the challenges of alignment in chapter one, before the issues spiral and addressing them becomes complicated. Methodology This paper reviews literature that discusses the underlying challenges that face the writing of doctoral dissertations in general and the alignment of the key sections in particular. It analyzes the cognitive factors that contribute to the challenges and examines the pedagogical tools that can be used to address these challenges. The review of the literature, the analysis of the cognitive, and the examination of pedagogical tools lead to the introduction of an instrument that is designed to help address the challenges of aligning the key sections of doctoral dissertations. Contribution This paper presents an instrument with a set of exercises that are intended to help students align key sections of their doctoral dissertation document. This alignment step is crucial to the successful completion of dissertation documents and is best tackled early in the writing. Delaying alignment or worse, ignoring alignment altogether, can complicate the issue and lead to numerous extra steps and delays. Our developed instrument here can be used to tackle this issue of alignment from the beginning and throughout the writing and completion status of dissertation documents. Findings Students are often faced with challenges when aligning the key sections of a doctoral dissertation. They struggle with conceptualizing the alignment process. They often write each section separately, and independently of other sections of a chapter and a dissertation. However, sections of the dissertation document are interrelated, and each section affects the writing of other sections. For the successful completion of the dissertation, the sections need to be aligned, and it would be best if these issues are tackled from the beginning of the writing and throughout the writing of the dissertation. Recommendations for Practitioners A methodological approach to aligning the sections of a doctoral dissertation is crucial for the resulting treatise to be coherent and present a unified purpose that threads through each chapter consistent","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79298289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: This study examined the perceptions of doctoral supervisors and candidates around how expectations for doctoral supervision are clarified, and the strategies used. Background: Clarifying expectations is recommended in supervisor and candidate handbooks, supervisor training and recognition programme. Formal strategies have been adopted as a blanket approach by some departments, faculties, or universities but little research explores supervisor and candidate perceptions of this practice or available strategies. Methodology: Semi-structured interviews using stimulus material were held with nine supervisors and nine doctoral candidates from a university in England which adopts a team supervision model. Supervisor and candidate dyads were not used. Contribution: This study can be used to consider the process of clarifying expectations. A smorgasbord or selection of strategies is presented, for practice. Findings: Six supervisors were clarifying expectations at the beginning using an informal discussion, although some supervisors used multiple strategies. Candidates did not recall their expectations being clarified. Some supervisors and candidates believed that expectations did not need to be clarified and there were concerns about formal strategies. Team supervision had a positive and negative influence. Four candidates wanted expectations clarifying but the different starting points and power issues suggested that supervisors need to create the space for regular discussions as part of a working alliance. Recommendations for Practitioners: The stimulus material or smorgasbord of strategies can encourage dialogue between supervisors and candidates to enable them to discuss and select appropriate strategies, from the full range available. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers might want to undertake their own studies using stimulus material. The smorgasbord could be used in practice and research undertaken to see how it could be further developed. Impact on Society: Supervisors and candidates using the smorgasbord and the idea of the working alliance can assist to have ongoing conversations about expectations. Future Research: Researchers could conduct studies in other universities to see if similar findings are discovered. Future research could be undertaken where institutions have adopted a formal approach.
{"title":"Using Stimulus Material to Explore How Supervisors and Candidates Clarify Expectations During the Research Supervision Process in England","authors":"J. Everitt, C. Blackburn","doi":"10.28945/5081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5081","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: This study examined the perceptions of doctoral supervisors and candidates around how expectations for doctoral supervision are clarified, and the strategies used. Background: Clarifying expectations is recommended in supervisor and candidate handbooks, supervisor training and recognition programme. Formal strategies have been adopted as a blanket approach by some departments, faculties, or universities but little research explores supervisor and candidate perceptions of this practice or available strategies. Methodology: Semi-structured interviews using stimulus material were held with nine supervisors and nine doctoral candidates from a university in England which adopts a team supervision model. Supervisor and candidate dyads were not used. Contribution: This study can be used to consider the process of clarifying expectations. A smorgasbord or selection of strategies is presented, for practice. Findings: Six supervisors were clarifying expectations at the beginning using an informal discussion, although some supervisors used multiple strategies. Candidates did not recall their expectations being clarified. Some supervisors and candidates believed that expectations did not need to be clarified and there were concerns about formal strategies. Team supervision had a positive and negative influence. Four candidates wanted expectations clarifying but the different starting points and power issues suggested that supervisors need to create the space for regular discussions as part of a working alliance. Recommendations for Practitioners: The stimulus material or smorgasbord of strategies can encourage dialogue between supervisors and candidates to enable them to discuss and select appropriate strategies, from the full range available. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers might want to undertake their own studies using stimulus material. The smorgasbord could be used in practice and research undertaken to see how it could be further developed. Impact on Society: Supervisors and candidates using the smorgasbord and the idea of the working alliance can assist to have ongoing conversations about expectations. Future Research: Researchers could conduct studies in other universities to see if similar findings are discovered. Future research could be undertaken where institutions have adopted a formal approach.","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87441390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: Scholars and practitioners agree that feedback is critical to doctoral students’ academic writing development, yet effective feedback processes are complex. The purpose of this case study was to examine the role of dialogue in a Writing Feedback Group (WFG) in facilitating the development of the scholarly writing of English as an Additional Language (EAL) doctoral students. The research question that guided this study was: How does dialogue within a writing feedback group create opportunities for EAL doctoral students to advance their knowledge and skills pertaining to scholarly writing? Background: Traditional doctoral student writing feedback, characterized as monologic and unidirectional, positions students as passive learners and is difficult for students to use to improve their writing. Dialogic and bi-directional feedback positions students as active learners as they engage in ongoing verbal and/or written exchanges about their writing. Examinations of verbal feedback on doctoral writing show face-to-face exchanges are a source of motivation and necessary for in-depth exchanges about ideas. There is limited understanding, however, as to how dialogue facilitates doctoral students’ development as scholarly writers. This case study examines the dialogue of EAL doctoral students as they read and respond to one another’s scholarly writing. Methodology: This was a qualitative case study of an established writing group. Four EAL doctoral students and one faculty member participated in this study during a 16-week semester. Conversational turns during 12 feedback sessions were analyzed using inductive coding with an interpretive approach to allow research findings to emerge from the data. A constant comparative method was used to classify and compare codes and categories and identify themes related to the study’s research question. Contribution: The findings from this study contribute to the body of knowledge on the role of dialogic feedback in doctoral writing development. The findings show how doctoral students’ dialogue about one another’s writing created critical learning experiences for their writing development. This study provides an explicit and systematic approach to dialogue in writing feedback groups. Findings: Dialogue scaffolded EAL doctoral students’ translation of their complex knowledge to accessible text and helped them respond to the rhetorical context. Dialogue also facilitated doctoral writers’ awareness of the importance of precise language and structural organization for readers of their academic writing. Recommendations for Practitioners: The WFG established a platform for doctoral students to try out their writing and to actively engage with others in receiving and providing ongoing feedback. It is suggested that institutions of higher education create ongoing opportunities for doctoral students to discuss scholarly writing. Writing feedback groups can take many forms, including established groups embedded into c
{"title":"Writing Feedback and the Success of English as an Additional Language (EAL) Doctoral Students: The Role of Dialogue","authors":"Tracy Griffin Spies, Gloria Carcoba-Falomir, Suheyla Sarisahin, Fatmana Kara Deniz, Yunying Xu","doi":"10.28945/5202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5202","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: Scholars and practitioners agree that feedback is critical to doctoral students’ academic writing development, yet effective feedback processes are complex. The purpose of this case study was to examine the role of dialogue in a Writing Feedback Group (WFG) in facilitating the development of the scholarly writing of English as an Additional Language (EAL) doctoral students. The research question that guided this study was: How does dialogue within a writing feedback group create opportunities for EAL doctoral students to advance their knowledge and skills pertaining to scholarly writing? Background: Traditional doctoral student writing feedback, characterized as monologic and unidirectional, positions students as passive learners and is difficult for students to use to improve their writing. Dialogic and bi-directional feedback positions students as active learners as they engage in ongoing verbal and/or written exchanges about their writing. Examinations of verbal feedback on doctoral writing show face-to-face exchanges are a source of motivation and necessary for in-depth exchanges about ideas. There is limited understanding, however, as to how dialogue facilitates doctoral students’ development as scholarly writers. This case study examines the dialogue of EAL doctoral students as they read and respond to one another’s scholarly writing. Methodology: This was a qualitative case study of an established writing group. Four EAL doctoral students and one faculty member participated in this study during a 16-week semester. Conversational turns during 12 feedback sessions were analyzed using inductive coding with an interpretive approach to allow research findings to emerge from the data. A constant comparative method was used to classify and compare codes and categories and identify themes related to the study’s research question. Contribution: The findings from this study contribute to the body of knowledge on the role of dialogic feedback in doctoral writing development. The findings show how doctoral students’ dialogue about one another’s writing created critical learning experiences for their writing development. This study provides an explicit and systematic approach to dialogue in writing feedback groups. Findings: Dialogue scaffolded EAL doctoral students’ translation of their complex knowledge to accessible text and helped them respond to the rhetorical context. Dialogue also facilitated doctoral writers’ awareness of the importance of precise language and structural organization for readers of their academic writing. Recommendations for Practitioners: The WFG established a platform for doctoral students to try out their writing and to actively engage with others in receiving and providing ongoing feedback. It is suggested that institutions of higher education create ongoing opportunities for doctoral students to discuss scholarly writing. Writing feedback groups can take many forms, including established groups embedded into c","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134889861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: The goal of this essay is to critically reflect on the emerging trend for PhDs by Prospective Publication (PbPP) in Australian Business Schools and to explore its appropriateness for fledgling academics. Background: The PbPP is a relatively new and increasingly popular alternative to traditional PhD by monograph (PbM). It is the idea that a doctorate can be completed by writing a series of papers that are published, or close to being published, as journal articles or book chapters. For students, it offers the chance to get a head-start on their publishing careers and helps them find their first academic jobs. For supervisors working in an academic environment increasingly characterized by ‘publish or perish’ dynamics, it guarantees meaningful rewards from doctoral supervision. However, despite the attractiveness of publishing during candidature, it is a very different way to complete a doctorate with many challenges for students, supervisors, and institutions. Methodology: We adopted critical collaborative autoethnography. Through this method, we reflect on our experience supervising and administrating PbPP students and integrate our reflections with the literature on PbPPs to highlight policy concerns and our position on them. Contribution: We argue that the primary goal of the PbPP is to produce students who can conduct research collaboratively after graduation, as opposed to people who can conduct independent research, although the two outcomes are not mutually exclusive. We also argue that assessment of PbPP should be significantly enhanced to determine the nature of the student’s contribution to the thesis, their understanding of research design, and their broader understanding of their subject. Finally, we argue that despite the attractiveness of PbPP, it can only be successfully attempted by students with elite levels of intellect, dedication, critical analytical skills, language skills, resilience, and patience and supervisors with expertise in the field of study, experience of publishing different types of paper, familiarity with the working of the journal publication process, and workload capacity. Findings: PbPP theses should be examined by viva voce. Viva voce examinations of PbPP theses should determine (1) the nature of the doctoral candidates’ contribution to the thesis, (2) whether it is sufficient for the award of a doctorate, (3) the contributions of the papers to advancing the field of research, and (4) the students’ understanding of the theory in their field. Viva voce examinations of PbPP theses should seek to discover the student’s ability to contribute to collaborative efforts of research teams. PbPP students should also sit an examination of their understanding of research philosophy, design, methodologies, and related topics. It should be externally set, administered, and marked by an independent examination board. PbPP candidates need to demonstrate excellent ‘research English’ language skills before com
{"title":"PhD by Prospective Publication in Australian Business Schools: Provocations from a Collaborative Autoethnography","authors":"J. Billsberry, C. Cortese","doi":"10.28945/5102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5102","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: The goal of this essay is to critically reflect on the emerging trend for PhDs by Prospective Publication (PbPP) in Australian Business Schools and to explore its appropriateness for fledgling academics. Background: The PbPP is a relatively new and increasingly popular alternative to traditional PhD by monograph (PbM). It is the idea that a doctorate can be completed by writing a series of papers that are published, or close to being published, as journal articles or book chapters. For students, it offers the chance to get a head-start on their publishing careers and helps them find their first academic jobs. For supervisors working in an academic environment increasingly characterized by ‘publish or perish’ dynamics, it guarantees meaningful rewards from doctoral supervision. However, despite the attractiveness of publishing during candidature, it is a very different way to complete a doctorate with many challenges for students, supervisors, and institutions. Methodology: We adopted critical collaborative autoethnography. Through this method, we reflect on our experience supervising and administrating PbPP students and integrate our reflections with the literature on PbPPs to highlight policy concerns and our position on them. Contribution: We argue that the primary goal of the PbPP is to produce students who can conduct research collaboratively after graduation, as opposed to people who can conduct independent research, although the two outcomes are not mutually exclusive. We also argue that assessment of PbPP should be significantly enhanced to determine the nature of the student’s contribution to the thesis, their understanding of research design, and their broader understanding of their subject. Finally, we argue that despite the attractiveness of PbPP, it can only be successfully attempted by students with elite levels of intellect, dedication, critical analytical skills, language skills, resilience, and patience and supervisors with expertise in the field of study, experience of publishing different types of paper, familiarity with the working of the journal publication process, and workload capacity. Findings: PbPP theses should be examined by viva voce. Viva voce examinations of PbPP theses should determine (1) the nature of the doctoral candidates’ contribution to the thesis, (2) whether it is sufficient for the award of a doctorate, (3) the contributions of the papers to advancing the field of research, and (4) the students’ understanding of the theory in their field. Viva voce examinations of PbPP theses should seek to discover the student’s ability to contribute to collaborative efforts of research teams. PbPP students should also sit an examination of their understanding of research philosophy, design, methodologies, and related topics. It should be externally set, administered, and marked by an independent examination board. PbPP candidates need to demonstrate excellent ‘research English’ language skills before com","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77300308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: This study aimed to explore doctoral students’ perceived resilience and the coping strategies they choose to employ to overcome challenging circumstances during their studies. Background: Doctoral students often experience barriers which may include personal, professional, academic, and institutional-related challenges. The students’ ability to recover from any burdensome situations is essential for their progress, motivation, and well-being. Methodology: The data for this study were gathered utilising qualitative interviews conducted with a diverse cohort of thirteen doctoral candidates enrolled at a single higher education institution in the United Kingdom. These participants were deliberately chosen to encompass a range of backgrounds, including international and domestic students, varying study statuses and stages within their doctoral programs (full-time or part-time, and at the beginning, middle, or end of their studies), as well as differing funding situations (either funded or self-funded). The Grounded Theory methodology was employed as an appropriate analytical framework, providing a systematic set of procedures that facilitated the elucidation of the participants’ conceptualizations and the significance they attributed to the concept of resilience throughout their doctoral pursuits. Contribution: Empirical studies have explored the stressors and motivations of doctoral students’ journeys, but little is known about the in-depth investigation of the choices students make to respond to adversity and how they demonstrate resilience. This study aimed to fill this gap in the relevant literature. Findings: Five emergent contextual conditions represented circumstances of adversity for the study participants. These were relevant to five thematic areas: (1) supervision and supervisory support; (2) key milestones and challenges inherent to the doctoral journey (i.e., self-regulation and finding a daily working routine, data collection, and analysis, the writing process); (3) personal and family-related expectations and responsibilities; (4) study status related considerations (e.g., being an international and/or a part-time student); and (5) challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings demonstrated doctoral students’ state of psychological capital, inner strength, and persistence that they considered in their attempt to employ varied strategies to tackle challenging circumstances. Recommendations for Practitioners: The findings are transferable to different populations of doctoral students from diverse disciplines. Different students may be able to relate to the doctoral-related experiences that are reported and interpreted in this paper through the Grounded Theory analytic lens. This may enhance their sense of relatability with like-minded peers and help them realise that they are not alone in the challenges presented along the doctoral journey. Most importantly, the institutional-related challenges presented in
{"title":"What Does It Mean To Be a Resilient Student? An Explorative Study of Doctoral Students’ Resilience and Coping Strategies Using Grounded Theory as the Analytic Lens","authors":"D. Kokotsaki","doi":"10.28945/5137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5137","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: This study aimed to explore doctoral students’ perceived resilience and the coping strategies they choose to employ to overcome challenging circumstances during their studies. Background: Doctoral students often experience barriers which may include personal, professional, academic, and institutional-related challenges. The students’ ability to recover from any burdensome situations is essential for their progress, motivation, and well-being. Methodology: The data for this study were gathered utilising qualitative interviews conducted with a diverse cohort of thirteen doctoral candidates enrolled at a single higher education institution in the United Kingdom. These participants were deliberately chosen to encompass a range of backgrounds, including international and domestic students, varying study statuses and stages within their doctoral programs (full-time or part-time, and at the beginning, middle, or end of their studies), as well as differing funding situations (either funded or self-funded). The Grounded Theory methodology was employed as an appropriate analytical framework, providing a systematic set of procedures that facilitated the elucidation of the participants’ conceptualizations and the significance they attributed to the concept of resilience throughout their doctoral pursuits. Contribution: Empirical studies have explored the stressors and motivations of doctoral students’ journeys, but little is known about the in-depth investigation of the choices students make to respond to adversity and how they demonstrate resilience. This study aimed to fill this gap in the relevant literature. Findings: Five emergent contextual conditions represented circumstances of adversity for the study participants. These were relevant to five thematic areas: (1) supervision and supervisory support; (2) key milestones and challenges inherent to the doctoral journey (i.e., self-regulation and finding a daily working routine, data collection, and analysis, the writing process); (3) personal and family-related expectations and responsibilities; (4) study status related considerations (e.g., being an international and/or a part-time student); and (5) challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings demonstrated doctoral students’ state of psychological capital, inner strength, and persistence that they considered in their attempt to employ varied strategies to tackle challenging circumstances. Recommendations for Practitioners: The findings are transferable to different populations of doctoral students from diverse disciplines. Different students may be able to relate to the doctoral-related experiences that are reported and interpreted in this paper through the Grounded Theory analytic lens. This may enhance their sense of relatability with like-minded peers and help them realise that they are not alone in the challenges presented along the doctoral journey. Most importantly, the institutional-related challenges presented in ","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75884573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Bahnson, Gabriella M. Sallai, Kyeonghun Jwa, Catherine G. P. Berdanier
Aim/Purpose: The research reported here aims to demonstrate a method by which novel applications of qualitative data in quantitative research can resolve ceiling effect tensions for educational and psychological research. Background: Self-report surveys and scales are essential to graduate education and social science research. Ceiling effects reflect the clustering of responses at the highest response categories resulting in non-linearity, a lack of variability which inhibits and distorts statistical analyses. Ceiling effects in stress reported by students can negatively impact the accuracy and utility of the resulting data. Methodology: A longitudinal sample example from graduate engineering students’ stress, open-ended critical events, and their early departure from doctoral study considerations demonstrate the utility and improved accuracy of adjusted stress measures to include open-ended critical event responses. Descriptive statistics are used to describe the ceiling effects in stress data and adjusted stress data. The longitudinal stress ratings were used to predict departure considerations in multilevel modeling ANCOVA analyses and demonstrate improved model predictiveness. Contribution: Combining qualitative data from open-ended responses with quantitative survey responses provides an opportunity to reduce ceiling effects and improve model performance in predicting graduate student persistence. Here, we present a method for adjusting stress scale responses by incorporating coded critical events based on the Taxonomy of Life Events, the application of this method in the analysis of stress responses in a longitudinal data set, and potential applications. Findings: The resulting process more effectively represents the doctoral student experience within statistical analyses. Stress and major life events significantly impact engineering doctoral students’ departure considerations. Recommendations for Practitioners: Graduate educators should be aware of students’ life events and assist students in managing graduate school expectations while maintaining progress toward their degree. Recommendation for Researchers: Integrating coded open-ended qualitative data into statistical models can increase the accuracy and representation of the lived student experience. The new approach improves the accuracy and presentation of students’ lived experiences by incorporating qualitative data into longitudinal analyses. The improvement assists researchers in correcting data with ceiling effects for use in longitudinal analyses. Impact on Society: The method described here provides a framework to systematically include open-ended qualitative data in which ceiling effects are present. Future Research: Future research should validate the coding process in similar samples and in samples of doctoral students in different fields and master’s students.
目的/目的:本文的研究旨在展示一种方法，通过定性数据在定量研究中的新应用，可以解决教育和心理学研究中的天花板效应紧张。背景:自我报告调查和量表在研究生教育和社会科学研究中是必不可少的。天花板效应反映了最高响应类别的响应聚类，导致非线性，缺乏可变性，从而抑制和扭曲统计分析。学生报告的压力天花板效应会对结果数据的准确性和实用性产生负面影响。方法:一个纵向样本例子，从研究生工程学生的压力，开放式的关键事件，以及他们早期离开博士研究的考虑，证明了效用和提高的准确性调整的压力措施，包括开放式的关键事件的反应。描述性统计用于描述应力数据和调整应力数据中的天花板效应。纵向应力等级用于预测多水平建模ANCOVA分析中的偏离考虑因素，并证明了改进的模型预测性。贡献:将开放式回答的定性数据与定量调查回答相结合，为减少天花板效应和提高预测研究生坚持度的模型性能提供了机会。本文提出了一种基于生命事件分类法(Taxonomy of Life events)结合编码关键事件来调整应力尺度响应的方法，以及该方法在纵向数据集应力响应分析中的应用，以及潜在的应用前景。结果:结果过程更有效地代表了统计分析中的博士生经历。压力和重大生活事件显著影响工程博士生的离职考虑。对从业者的建议:研究生教育工作者应该意识到学生的生活事件，并帮助学生管理研究生院的期望，同时保持对学位的进步。对研究人员的建议:将编码的开放式定性数据集成到统计模型中可以提高学生生活经验的准确性和代表性。新方法通过将定性数据纳入纵向分析，提高了学生生活经历的准确性和呈现。该改进有助于研究人员在纵向分析中使用的天花板效应校正数据。对社会的影响:这里描述的方法提供了一个框架，可以系统地包括存在天花板效应的开放式定性数据。未来研究:未来研究应在相似样本、不同领域博士生样本和硕士生样本中验证编码过程。
{"title":"Mitigating Ceiling Effects in a Longitudinal Study of Doctoral Engineering Student Stress and Persistence","authors":"M. Bahnson, Gabriella M. Sallai, Kyeonghun Jwa, Catherine G. P. Berdanier","doi":"10.28945/5118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5118","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: The research reported here aims to demonstrate a method by which novel applications of qualitative data in quantitative research can resolve ceiling effect tensions for educational and psychological research. Background: Self-report surveys and scales are essential to graduate education and social science research. Ceiling effects reflect the clustering of responses at the highest response categories resulting in non-linearity, a lack of variability which inhibits and distorts statistical analyses. Ceiling effects in stress reported by students can negatively impact the accuracy and utility of the resulting data. Methodology: A longitudinal sample example from graduate engineering students’ stress, open-ended critical events, and their early departure from doctoral study considerations demonstrate the utility and improved accuracy of adjusted stress measures to include open-ended critical event responses. Descriptive statistics are used to describe the ceiling effects in stress data and adjusted stress data. The longitudinal stress ratings were used to predict departure considerations in multilevel modeling ANCOVA analyses and demonstrate improved model predictiveness. Contribution: Combining qualitative data from open-ended responses with quantitative survey responses provides an opportunity to reduce ceiling effects and improve model performance in predicting graduate student persistence. Here, we present a method for adjusting stress scale responses by incorporating coded critical events based on the Taxonomy of Life Events, the application of this method in the analysis of stress responses in a longitudinal data set, and potential applications. Findings: The resulting process more effectively represents the doctoral student experience within statistical analyses. Stress and major life events significantly impact engineering doctoral students’ departure considerations. Recommendations for Practitioners: Graduate educators should be aware of students’ life events and assist students in managing graduate school expectations while maintaining progress toward their degree. Recommendation for Researchers: Integrating coded open-ended qualitative data into statistical models can increase the accuracy and representation of the lived student experience. The new approach improves the accuracy and presentation of students’ lived experiences by incorporating qualitative data into longitudinal analyses. The improvement assists researchers in correcting data with ceiling effects for use in longitudinal analyses. Impact on Society: The method described here provides a framework to systematically include open-ended qualitative data in which ceiling effects are present. Future Research: Future research should validate the coding process in similar samples and in samples of doctoral students in different fields and master’s students.","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"2010 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78903339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: Recent research highlights the growing decline in doctoral students’ mental health and wellbeing, caused not only by the pressures, stress, and isolation of doctoral studies but also by existential issues around personal development and future prospects. Consequently, we argue that there is an urgent need to reassess the supervisory process to support doctoral students in addressing these concerns. This paper offers a potential solution to this challenge by exploring and examining how integrating coaching methods into doctoral supervision can support doctoral students’ growth and development, thereby increasing their wellbeing and human flourishing. Coaching aims to help individuals produce optimal performance and improvements in personal and professional settings by deploying a series of tools and models. Coaching is essentially a non-directive form of development, enabling people to identify goals and skills and then extracting the capacity people have within themselves to achieve their ambitions. This paper explores how coaching methods could be made a regular feature of doctoral supervision. Background: The need to reconfigure doctoral supervision as a practice to address humanistic issues regarding whole-person development, self-actualisation, and personal worth is nothing new. Over the years, researchers have produced models of doctoral supervision, highlighting the growing need for supervision to incorporate more pastoral and emancipatory elements, which facilitate personal growth instead of focusing purely on academic function and criticality. Although coaching is identified in previous studies as being a valuable addition, nothing examines how to modify existing supervision practices to accommodate more pastoral elements. Methodology: This paper offers a conceptual analysis whereby the argument primarily synthesizes existing research on doctoral supervision to understand why coaching methods may provide a solution to the evolving requirements of student welfare and emancipation. Since the commentary in this paper is not based on the findings of an empirical study, the following two conceptual research questions frame the discussion. First, are coaching methods beneficial when supervising doctoral students? Second, what are the challenges when implementing and integrating coaching methods into existing doctoral supervisory practice? The paper utilises the Normalisation Process Theory as a ‘thinking tool’ to help answer these questions. The theory evaluates phenomena in applied social research settings to help understand how complex practices are made workable and integrated into context-dependent ways. Therefore, the theory acts as an analytical tool, enabling researchers to think through implementation issues when designing complex interventions and their evaluation. Contribution: This paper contributes to knowledge by highlighting ways in which management responsible for a doctoral provision in higher education setting
{"title":"Integrating and Normalising Coaching as a Routine Practice in Doctoral Supervision","authors":"Claudia Marie Bordogna, M. Lundgren‐Resenterra","doi":"10.28945/5096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5096","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: Recent research highlights the growing decline in doctoral students’ mental health and wellbeing, caused not only by the pressures, stress, and isolation of doctoral studies but also by existential issues around personal development and future prospects. Consequently, we argue that there is an urgent need to reassess the supervisory process to support doctoral students in addressing these concerns. This paper offers a potential solution to this challenge by exploring and examining how integrating coaching methods into doctoral supervision can support doctoral students’ growth and development, thereby increasing their wellbeing and human flourishing. Coaching aims to help individuals produce optimal performance and improvements in personal and professional settings by deploying a series of tools and models. Coaching is essentially a non-directive form of development, enabling people to identify goals and skills and then extracting the capacity people have within themselves to achieve their ambitions. This paper explores how coaching methods could be made a regular feature of doctoral supervision. Background: The need to reconfigure doctoral supervision as a practice to address humanistic issues regarding whole-person development, self-actualisation, and personal worth is nothing new. Over the years, researchers have produced models of doctoral supervision, highlighting the growing need for supervision to incorporate more pastoral and emancipatory elements, which facilitate personal growth instead of focusing purely on academic function and criticality. Although coaching is identified in previous studies as being a valuable addition, nothing examines how to modify existing supervision practices to accommodate more pastoral elements. Methodology: This paper offers a conceptual analysis whereby the argument primarily synthesizes existing research on doctoral supervision to understand why coaching methods may provide a solution to the evolving requirements of student welfare and emancipation. Since the commentary in this paper is not based on the findings of an empirical study, the following two conceptual research questions frame the discussion. First, are coaching methods beneficial when supervising doctoral students? Second, what are the challenges when implementing and integrating coaching methods into existing doctoral supervisory practice? The paper utilises the Normalisation Process Theory as a ‘thinking tool’ to help answer these questions. The theory evaluates phenomena in applied social research settings to help understand how complex practices are made workable and integrated into context-dependent ways. Therefore, the theory acts as an analytical tool, enabling researchers to think through implementation issues when designing complex interventions and their evaluation. Contribution: This paper contributes to knowledge by highlighting ways in which management responsible for a doctoral provision in higher education setting","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"455 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82946158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: To provide a research proposal writing framework to help doctoral students argue and motivate their efforts at furthering the existing knowledge available to understand some phenomenon or theory. Background: I discuss how the cognitive process theory of writing and the science writing heuristic can lead to a set of rhetorical moves and question prompts that students can use to develop the content of their research proposals. Methodology: I searched the literature on research proposal writing and, more broadly, academic writing to locate teaching and learning concepts associated with my recent question prompt approach used to guide my doctoral students. I used search words such as “writing” and “question prompts.” My review led me to the cognitive process theory of writing and heuristic scaffolding. I searched further using keywords such as “rhetorical move” and “heuristic prompts.” I performed several iterations of literature searches and reviews. Contribution: Instead of guiding a linearly developed research proposal that begins with an Introduction and proceeds to a Literature Review and then a Research Design and Methods section, the framework reveals a research proposal’s underlying logical flow and content by describing five rhetorical moves: establishing a topic question from an interesting phenomenon, establishing research opportunities, selecting a research question, providing a tentative solution, and establishing a plan to investigate the solution. Thus, the framework contributes to scholarship about how educators can facilitate independent reflection and broader problem-solving at the doctoral research proposal development stage. Particularly for the social sciences, it reveals the promise of the cognitive process theory of writing, dual problem space model of reflection, and heuristic scaffolding as valuable theoretical perspectives for the supervision of the planning phase of doctoral research. Recommendations for Practitioners: Teachers and advisors may use the framework’s rhetorical moves and question prompts as cognitive scaffolds to help students navigate an ill-structured problem typical of doctoral research projects in the social sciences. The question type of scaffolding gives the research student more responsibility; rather than the thesis supervisor or advisor articulating a model or nominating the technique, they require the student to self-regulate and develop it independently. This helps deal with the oft-experienced circumstance in which the supervisor does not have time to interact directly and regularly with the student.
{"title":"A Framework of Rhetorical Moves Designed to Scaffold the Research Proposal Development Process","authors":"Colin D. Reddy","doi":"10.28945/5088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5088","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: To provide a research proposal writing framework to help doctoral students argue and motivate their efforts at furthering the existing knowledge available to understand some phenomenon or theory. Background: I discuss how the cognitive process theory of writing and the science writing heuristic can lead to a set of rhetorical moves and question prompts that students can use to develop the content of their research proposals. Methodology: I searched the literature on research proposal writing and, more broadly, academic writing to locate teaching and learning concepts associated with my recent question prompt approach used to guide my doctoral students. I used search words such as “writing” and “question prompts.” My review led me to the cognitive process theory of writing and heuristic scaffolding. I searched further using keywords such as “rhetorical move” and “heuristic prompts.” I performed several iterations of literature searches and reviews. Contribution: Instead of guiding a linearly developed research proposal that begins with an Introduction and proceeds to a Literature Review and then a Research Design and Methods section, the framework reveals a research proposal’s underlying logical flow and content by describing five rhetorical moves: establishing a topic question from an interesting phenomenon, establishing research opportunities, selecting a research question, providing a tentative solution, and establishing a plan to investigate the solution. Thus, the framework contributes to scholarship about how educators can facilitate independent reflection and broader problem-solving at the doctoral research proposal development stage. Particularly for the social sciences, it reveals the promise of the cognitive process theory of writing, dual problem space model of reflection, and heuristic scaffolding as valuable theoretical perspectives for the supervision of the planning phase of doctoral research. Recommendations for Practitioners: Teachers and advisors may use the framework’s rhetorical moves and question prompts as cognitive scaffolds to help students navigate an ill-structured problem typical of doctoral research projects in the social sciences. The question type of scaffolding gives the research student more responsibility; rather than the thesis supervisor or advisor articulating a model or nominating the technique, they require the student to self-regulate and develop it independently. This helps deal with the oft-experienced circumstance in which the supervisor does not have time to interact directly and regularly with the student.","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74584042","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim/Purpose: Graduate students face immense pressures and challenges as part of the graduate school experience, with few avenues to express their frustrations. While the crisis of graduate student mental health is well-documented quantitatively, and the stresses of graduate school are explored on the institutional level, there are few qualitative studies of these issues. Background: This study aims to explore graduate student attitudes and perceptions about graduate school and academia through the analysis of niche, graduate student-focused memes. Theories of emotional selection, emotional contagion, and collective coping predict that the creation and sharing of niche-interest memes reflect dominant attitudes and perceptions within niche communities under stress. Methodology: This study utilizes content analysis to thematically categorize a sample of 208 meme images created by and posted to the social media account High-Impact PhD Memes. The data is additionally categorized to measure resonance – how well each image was received by the page audience – and visualized using bar codes. Contribution: This study offers a new method for examining the attitudes and perceptions of niche groups online by proposing the measurement of emotional resonance, presents a novel visualization for the presentation of thematic coding and offers a new means to analyze internet memes for both content and emotional resonance. Findings: Findings indicate that the most frequently occurring themes in niche memes are not necessarily the ones that most highly emotionally resonate with the niche community of interest. The population of current and recent graduate students following High-Impact PhD Memes most highly resonated with the issues of literature access, financial/employment stresses, and overwork. Impact on Society: The findings of this study should encourage both researchers and higher education administrators to consider memes as reflections of the emotional states and perceptions of graduate students both collectively and individually, given how they comment on current, pressing issues. Based on the findings here, memes could feasibly be used as elicitation materials in well-being assessments or qualitative research studies to better understand and prompt reflections on the perspectives of graduate students, and ultimately improve programming and supports for the population. Future Research: Future research could apply similar methods to study other niche groups under pressure that use memes as a means of collective coping in order to better understand their attitudes and perceptions. Groups such as LGBTQ+ people, those with niche political affiliations, and neurodivergent people could all be studied with a similar approach.
{"title":"High Impact, Low Mood: An Analysis of Graduate Student Attitudes and Perceptions Through PHD Memes","authors":"Gordon W Maples","doi":"10.28945/5075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5075","url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: Graduate students face immense pressures and challenges as part of the graduate school experience, with few avenues to express their frustrations. While the crisis of graduate student mental health is well-documented quantitatively, and the stresses of graduate school are explored on the institutional level, there are few qualitative studies of these issues. Background: This study aims to explore graduate student attitudes and perceptions about graduate school and academia through the analysis of niche, graduate student-focused memes. Theories of emotional selection, emotional contagion, and collective coping predict that the creation and sharing of niche-interest memes reflect dominant attitudes and perceptions within niche communities under stress. Methodology: This study utilizes content analysis to thematically categorize a sample of 208 meme images created by and posted to the social media account High-Impact PhD Memes. The data is additionally categorized to measure resonance – how well each image was received by the page audience – and visualized using bar codes. Contribution: This study offers a new method for examining the attitudes and perceptions of niche groups online by proposing the measurement of emotional resonance, presents a novel visualization for the presentation of thematic coding and offers a new means to analyze internet memes for both content and emotional resonance. Findings: Findings indicate that the most frequently occurring themes in niche memes are not necessarily the ones that most highly emotionally resonate with the niche community of interest. The population of current and recent graduate students following High-Impact PhD Memes most highly resonated with the issues of literature access, financial/employment stresses, and overwork. Impact on Society: The findings of this study should encourage both researchers and higher education administrators to consider memes as reflections of the emotional states and perceptions of graduate students both collectively and individually, given how they comment on current, pressing issues. Based on the findings here, memes could feasibly be used as elicitation materials in well-being assessments or qualitative research studies to better understand and prompt reflections on the perspectives of graduate students, and ultimately improve programming and supports for the population. Future Research: Future research could apply similar methods to study other niche groups under pressure that use memes as a means of collective coping in order to better understand their attitudes and perceptions. Groups such as LGBTQ+ people, those with niche political affiliations, and neurodivergent people could all be studied with a similar approach.","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"91 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80424740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：