From student to graduate

Abstract

This paper presents a consideration of the experiences and perspectives of four female academics who are the first graduates of a new Professional Doctorate programme at a university in the South West of England. The authors position themselves simultaneously as researchers and research participants, engaging in collaborative autoethnography to reflect critically on their experiences. Key issues are identified, including the need to navigate some significant shifts in identity throughout the doctorate, and how the course structure and peer relationships supported each of the authors to reach their end goal – the successful completion of their studies. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential implications of the authors’ experiences for leaders of professional doctorates. These include student/lecturer contracts and actively facilitating opportunities for students to establish relationships for peer support.

Keywords

Autoethnography learners peer group professional doctorate transitions

Introduction

Research into professional doctorates has been conducted mostly by academics who lead or teach these programmes (Pratt et al., 2015). In this research, doctoral students are generally positioned as subjects (see McAlpine and Lucas, 2010; Malfroy and Yates, 2003). In contrast, this paper presents four students’ perspectives of the doctoral journey. As recent graduates of the same Professional Doctorate in Education (EdD) at a university in the South West of England, we position ourselves simultaneously as researchers and research participants.

We are four mature women who entered higher education (HE) through non-traditional routes. We started our undergraduate and masters’ degrees later in life and began our careers in HE after practising in other fields of education. We have busy personal lives, and families that have expectations of us and make demands on our time; nevertheless, we all take pleasure in learning and in facilitating others’ learning.

When beginning the programme two of us were employed by the university providing the EdD, and two of us were not: this difference clearly had an effect on our doctoral journeys. Other differences between us – our professional interests, ambitions and our commitments outside work – are also relevant to this discussion.

We have used a form of collaborative autoethnography for our research. This is a qualitative methodology that is context-conscious and focuses on the self (Ngunjiri et al., 2010). Autoethnography is often criticised for its subjectivity but, as Denzin (2014) points out,

Experience, lived and otherwise, is discursively constructed…hence, there can never be a clear unambiguous statement of anything, including…meaning. (Denzin, 2014: 2)

In autoethnography it is assumed that the writer is well-positioned to write about themselves but that critical self-reflection is essential (Denzin, 2014). For collaborative autoethnographers, it is important both to retain and move beyond the critical self-reflection associated with autoethnography and to work as a team, providing support for each other as ideas are interrogated (Chang et al., 2013). Trust and trustworthiness are essential between collaborators to facilitate frank exchanges and, as will become evident later, this approach reflects the mutually supportive relationships that we established as doctoral students. Furthermore, honest and open exchanges must be ethically conducted: in collaborative autoethnography confidentiality, informed consent and the avoidance of harm to others (including, in this case, the providers of our doctoral programme) must be strictly observed (Chang et al., 2013).

In this endeavour, we talked, wrote, shared our writing and talked again. Through our conversations we identified significant periods of transition that we experienced as learners, as professionals and in our personal lives, both during and after the EdD. The first period of transition was encountered as we entered the programme; the second as we navigated our way through it; and, lastly, the final transition took us through our vivas and out of the EdD. These transitional periods have been used to structure the paper and extracts from our individual narratives are used to illuminate our discussion. We end the paper by drawing some tentative conclusions, highlighting the implications of our work for leaders of similar professional doctorates.

Transitioning into the EdD

This first transitional period encompassed our decision-making processes for choosing to undertake a professional doctorate and was the starting point for the identity shifts that we each encountered during the programme.

Becoming a doctoral student

Our decisions to embark on a part-time doctoral programme were influenced by our motivation to learn and by those around us:

I chose the EdD as I was looking to extend my knowledge but also to challenge myself and to ‘see how far I could go’. (Louise)

I completed my MA two years before beginning an EdD programme and was keen to undertake further and more in-depth research. (Helen)

Studying at doctorate level provided us with opportunities to challenge ourselves and to become apprentice researchers (Park, 2005); learning about research and developing the skills to carry it out. Our motivation was further fuelled by the enthusiasm of those around us who had already started their doctorates:

My colleague…had started her EdD the previous year. [Her] enthusiasm for her learning was infectious. This contributed to my motivation for doing a doctorate. (Karen)

I had fairly recently moved into a part-time lecturing post in HE and was influenced by the enthusiasm of several colleagues already engaged in doctoral studies. (Helen)

We chose to follow the professional doctorate route based on our perceptions of ourselves as learners, our life styles and the value we placed on learning with peers.

Although we were enthusiastic learners, there was also some anxiety about studying at doctorate level:

In the past I had always doubted my capabilities and took my education in little steps, so embarking on the doctorate was a huge risk in terms of self-confidence and transformation. (Louise)

I had not had a successful school career and had often been described as ‘a practical person and not academic’. I saw the first assignments as an opportunity to build my confidence and change my views of myself as a learner. (Karen)

It was important to us that the first two years of the programme were taught in groups. We saw this phase as an opportunity to establish relationships with our fellow learners:

I was keen to be part of a group of learners sharing ideas, providing each other with support and expanding my educational perspectives beyond my comfort zone. (Valerie)

Establishing connections and peer support from others was important. (Louise)

The benefits of social learning are well-documented (Baker et al., 2002; Downs, 2009; Race, 2005) and an EdD provides more opportunities for it than would a PhD, which can be a much more individual and isolating experience (Klenowski et al., 2011).

Each assignment during the taught phase provided a building block in the process of reconstructing our views of ourselves as learners and in fostering our confidence. The EdD structure was also similar to our previous experiences of learning:

The EdD followed a similar ‘delivery’ format to my MA – several weekends over the course of an academic year – following a pattern with which I was familiar. (Helen)

This sense of familiarity was reassuring as we began a new programme with different expectations, relationships and content. Finally, practical issues also shaped our decisions to study an EdD at our chosen university:

I deliberately chose a university close to home for the EdD. I wanted to minimise additional pressures such as travelling time. (Helen)

Practically, as I had two part-time jobs, [by] studying on the EdD programme I believed the schedule would be…manageable and achievable to meet my end goal of being awarded a doctorate. (Karen)

We all had to balance the demands of home–life, work and postgraduate study, which is challenging by nature (Kember, 1999). We perceived that the location and the schedule of the EdD programme would minimise potential barriers and strengthen the likelihood of achieving a doctorate.

Insider/outsider experiences

During our doctoral journeys we all experienced being ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ in a variety of ways, both as students and in our ongoing professional worlds. Hellawell emphasised that there is ‘not one continuum but a multiple series of parallel ones’ (Hellawell, 2006: 490) when conducting a research degree. Each continuum (such as ethnicity, gender, class) has a different function and, depending on the function, the researcher experiences differing degrees of ‘insiderness’. In addition to these functions, during the doctorate journey we experienced varying levels of ‘insiderness’ on the ‘researcher’ and ‘academic’ continua:

The position of researcher was not expected as part of my job role, [it] had not been offered to me before. (Louise).

Louise was in the process of crossing into an unknown territory of research: having worked in HE but in a further education context, she felt she was an outsider on the research continuum when she began the EdD (see Walkerdine, 2006).

Having come from a primary and early years teaching background and consultancy, I was still uncertain about pedagogy in Higher Education. The EdD seemed to offer the possibility to problematise what I was doing and how I was doing as an HE lecturer. (Valerie)

We had all started to teach in HE after professional careers in other educational sectors and we all had some sense of being outsiders with regard to the HE academic community. Embarking on a doctorate enabled us to challenge our own and others’ perceptions in this respect, and to travel along the academic continuum to become an insider in the HE context. Mercer (2007) recognises that features which can determine one’s position on the various continua are constantly shifting and, as we progressed through the EdD programme, our own levels of ‘insiderness’ and ‘outsiderness’ as researchers and academics shifted significantly.

Transitioning during the EdD

As we transitioned through the different elements of the EdD programme, from the initial interview to the taught modules and into our thesis, we experienced the identity change one would expect, given that learning is inseparable from identity or position (Biesta et al., 2011). Although education can seem like a safe space in which to reconstruct identity (Parr, 2001), we discovered that this transformation can also cause discomfort and be an emotionally intense experience (Mezirow, 2000). There were three main areas of identity change and transformation for us during the EdD: in our professional lives, in our personal lives and as learners when progressing from the taught to the thesis stage.

Identity change and transitions in our professional lives

The intensity of studying at doctoral level and dealing with uncertainties about our own knowledge base left us feeling exhilarated and, at times, confused. We began to question things we had previously taken for granted (see Bolton, 2005). This led to transformations in our professional lives (see also Wellington and Sikes, 2006) and in our teaching practice: we began to do things differently. Our developing levels of understanding and knowledge together with a growth in self-confidence during the EdD enabled us to move along the academic continuum mentioned earlier. However, our experiences were not uniform; three of us became more confident whereas one of us lost confidence for a while:

My confidence as a teacher grew as I used my new insights and understanding. (Karen)

My identities as an EY teacher and HE lecturer were shaken up which affected my confidence in supporting learners. (Valerie)

Changes in our family relationships

For one of us, transformations in thinking and perspectives had a detrimental impact on home life and family relationships (Wellington and Sikes, 2006). These changes were not always welcomed and caused tension which intensified during the thesis stage of the programme:

Dealing with the emotional fall out at home, as a result of my changing perspective and changes to routine due to study commitments were harder to cope with than the EdD itself. (Louise)

Feelings of isolation and detachment from family, friends or work colleagues can be deepened if learners have no one with whom to share the journey (Baker and Pifer, 2015). Meeting in a self-selected peer group offered us a space to make meaning of the changes that were occurring:

…being able to rely on the support of my peers was essential in helping me to cope with identity transformation. (Louise)

…belonging to an informal small group that met regularly offered what felt like a safe and supportive space in which to ask for and offer ideas, suggestions and advice, both in respect of EdD-related issues and the wider personal and professional challenges we were simultaneously navigating. (Helen)

For three of us, having a colleague (Valerie) a year ahead of us in the programme enabled us to make sense of what was going to happen next on our EdD journey:

I would share Valerie’s doctorate progress – the transfer viva, submitting, viva, etc – with Helen and Louise. (Karen)

During the taught phase of the doctorate, tutors had encouraged us to engage with our group via online forums. Whilst peer support can be developed through online forums, these can also be problematic:

We were encouraged to blog to share ideas in between sessions but this rarely happened…writing down my confused thoughts and exposing them to the judgment of others was too scary for me and I think for many of the group as there was little engagement. (Valerie)

The thesis stage of the programme

On moving to the thesis stage, we felt that the support of our peer group was even more essential:

This group offered a ‘we’ that helped me to negotiate the isolation of being an ‘I’, as far as my thesis-writing was concerned. (Helen)

The thesis stage offered fewer opportunities for scheduled group collaboration, leaving learners more exposed to potential isolation. Membership of the small peer group helped to sustain and develop our motivation and momentum.

We all agree that relationships with supervisors whilst we undertook our individual research were important in terms of keeping up the momentum of our studies and helping us to develop confidence in our research skills and abilities:

The relationship with my two supervisors was very significant in helping me to transition from the taught elements of the programme to the more independent thesis element…their constructive questions and challenging enabled me to become more confident in critically analysing my own work. (Helen)

Even with this support, one of us felt unable to go to her supervisor to share the challenges of identity change or a crisis in confidence because she felt this positioned her as not coping. Learners may feel reluctant to share anything that they perceive will make them look weak, or may assume that HE staff are more interested in the academic rather than the affective domain (Stagg and Krimmins, 2014). Further complications arose for those of us who were insiders in the institution when colleagues and fellow researchers became our doctoral supervisors, causing a change in how we were positioned (Gergen, 2009) and some uncertainty as to the nature of this newly-constructed relationship. These scenarios sometimes motivated us to turn to peers, rather than our supervisors, for support.

The sheer pressure of completing the thesis stage, grappling with changing levels of confidence and our new, emerging identities as researchers caused turmoil for some of us:

Transitioning to the thesis stage was like stepping off the high board of a swimming pool. Often…I was unsure – I felt as if I was bobbing about rudderless and could not see the way to the end point. When we met, we were able to share our challenges and losses (past relationships/past identities, etc.). (Karen)

Here, as with the other professional and personal challenges and identity changes experienced during the programme, the peer group provided essential support in a way that family members or supervisors could not.

Transitioning through the viva and out the other side

What we discuss here as our final period of transition began with the submission of our completed theses. Despite the subsequent requirement to defend our respective submissions, ‘handing in’ felt like a major milestone that took us closer to the completion of our professional doctorates. This section therefore includes our experiences of the viva and beyond.

Experiences of the viva

Recognising it as a significant transition point on the way to exiting an EdD, all of us approached the viva with the expected mix of trepidation, fear and anxiety, whilst also seeing it as one more step to the end. We all wanted to ‘get it done’ by this stage, keen to get on with other projects and to have some free time in our lives. We found that the mock viva, a rehearsal with our supervisors, was excellent preparation and fitted with the collaborative approach to our studies. Rehearsing responses to questions and having to articulate the deep learning that had taken place through our research gave us confidence during the viva itself, and alerted us to potential tricky questions. This meant there were fewer surprises and, for more than one of us, the viva turned out to be a very enjoyable experience.

Valerie was the very first participant on the new EdD programme to get to the viva stage. The programme leader paced outside the room like an expectant father. She realised at that point how much had been invested by the academic team in her success; Valerie’s was potentially the first doctorate awarded after nearly six years. Anyone who takes on the leadership of an EdD programme has to be in it for the long haul. The opportunity to talk at length with supervisors in a debrief after the viva was a key part of the transition out of the EdD. It was a time to share the emotional relief and joy of the achievement. For all of us, the external validation of our research was part of the transition to researcher. A sense of legitimacy came through strongly in our post-doc narratives:

I can remember the feeling of lightness and delight…I was less of a fraud working at the University…maybe I feel I belong to the club…(Karen).

The final submission of the thesis, the walk onto the graduation stage, watched by our proud families – the end of the doctorate – led to further shifts in our professional identities. We moved from teacher to early career researcher, from learner to ‘post-doc’. We talked at length in our discussions for this article about our use of the title ‘Doctor’ in our professional and personal lives. For each of us it represents something slightly different and the extent to which we are comfortable with using it varies. Having worked so hard for it, why are we sometimes hesitant, reluctant, even embarrassed, to put it forward as a significant part of who we are? It was evident from our shared narratives that we are all still moving along the insider/outsider academic continuum (Mercer, 2007), with its associated personal shifts in perceptions of ourselves.

For some of us, the relief at finally achieving our goal was replaced with a sense of loss, along with uncertainties about our next steps. There was a feeling of burnout for one of us, as though she was not able to reach that level of writing again. All of us felt the need for space and time for other things that had been neglected whilst we pursued our doctoral goal, yet we were aware of the pressure to publish from our theses before the research became dated. The motivation and drive that got us through the doctorate now had to push us towards other goals. We found our new doctoral status afforded us opportunities not previously available, some more unexpected than others. One of us found that she no longer ‘fitted’ in her institution and, once again, peer group support proved invaluable. Her engagement in ongoing critical dialogue with peers enabled her to try out ideas, discuss changing perspectives and safely test out who she was becoming. This gave her the confidence to seek out new opportunities, which would not have been available to her without a doctorate. The conversations with peers on the programme had provided a learner-led third space (Hilsdon, 2014); ‘a transformative space to test out who I was becoming’ (Louise). This acknowledges that the shift in perspective was a personal one; the stories she was telling about herself were different.

Two of us managed to write successfully for publication during the doctorate, subsequently having peer-reviewed articles published in international journals which did much to strengthen our confidence as academics. Having completed an EdD, we all shared the sense that our participation in the academic community of practice had legitimacy, as we shifted from the periphery to the centre (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Three of us aimed to orientate more towards research, but it has been hard to make the shift alongside the constraints of heavy workloads. Valerie, in particular, has found this disappointing and has still not achieved a solo-authored article in a peer-reviewed journal.

Gaining the doctorate for Valerie was influential in being promoted to Associate Professor. The doctorate itself was seen as necessary in developing as a lecturer and, as such, did not appear to be given much value. What was valued, however, was that it was an EdD, with its focus on theory into practice; that it had been gained while maintaining the day job; that the learning was influencing and enhancing her work with learners; and that it demonstrated her potential as a researcher in education.

Equally, Helen was not looking for further career progression, having studied the doctorate as an end in itself, but nevertheless found the EdD gave her the credentials and the self-confidence to apply for a new position: another shift in identity.

Conclusions: implications for management and leadership

Although this paper discusses a very small-scale study, with only four participants, it resonates with much of the previous research on the experiences of doctoral learners. Identity shift emerges here as a central theme and, ‘part of the lived complexity of a person’s project’ (Clegg, 2008: 329). We are unsurprised to have experienced such identity shifts, accepting that ‘doing a doctorate changes you’ (Barnacle and Mewburn, 2010: 433). However, we had not anticipated the extent of the change and its impact on our lives.

For us, the doctoral journey began with being exposed to the positive opinions of the pedagogy and ethos of the programme held by those already engaged in it. What we heard from other learners definitely influenced our decisions to embark on the EdD far more than any other programme publicity: there are clear implications here with regard to recruitment. The structure of the programme not only attracted us but also helped to retain our engagement, scaffolding our learning and building our confidence as we progressed. The social element of the programme, learning with and from fellow participants, was important in developing our knowledge and understanding. However, the concept of a knowledge community is not the same as that of a community of practice (Seaman, 2008) and leaders of professional doctorates might consider how they can successfully foster both. Whilst some learners on EdD programmes may struggle with forming relationships or support networks with their peers, or not regard this as desirable, membership of a small peer group, where we were able to receive both academic and emotional support, was critical to our sustained engagement.

The need for collegial reflective space in which there is mutual trust is clearly identified in our narratives and, we would argue, should not be left to chance. With hindsight, had we as learners understood how important such peer support would be for us, we might have taken steps to be more inclusive of other cohort members. As it was, we did not share the necessary level of trust with the whole group for this to seem like a natural or easy proposition. For trust to develop in any new group, early agreement on its ‘ground rules’ is likely to be the most important action it will perform (Armstrong, 2004). Programme leaders might consider how best to facilitate wider membership of supportive peer groups, perhaps by providing structured time to allow groups to establish their own ‘ground rules’. In turn, this could pave the way for participants to share their hopes, concerns and expectations regarding the programme, benefitting both learners and programme tutors.

The relationships with our thesis supervisors clearly affected all of us, for different reasons. Again, establishing ‘ground rules’ between supervisors and learner at the outset of the relationship, in which expectations and boundaries are clearly articulated, is likely to be beneficial to all parties. Our own experiences suggest that close attention should be given to the matching of supervisors with doctoral learners, particularly if learners are ‘insiders’ and in positions where they are teaching or researching alongside colleagues who are also tutors on their programme of study. Our individual experiences of transitioning out of the EdD have been varied, but we would argue that recent graduates need support as they negotiate the tricky terrain of publishing from their theses, building on their doctoral success, or taking on different professional roles as a result of their new status. The challenge for universities sponsoring their academics through EdD programmes, having invested a considerable amount of time and money in the academics, lies in how to support them, post-doctorate, to achieve their potential. EdD programme leads perhaps share that challenge but with a wider remit that includes all programme participants, not just those from their own institution. Some work on ‘future thinking’ and career planning as part of the EdD professional identity work would be beneficial to individuals and, where relevant, to participants’ institutions or sponsors. From our experience, continuing opportunities to meet in a safe dialogic space to make sense of our new identities have been crucial to moving on.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declare that no potential conflicts of interest exist with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Armstrong

(2004) Seven keys for small group success. Adult Learning 15(1–2):34–35.

Baker

Jensen

Kolb

(eds) (2002) Conversational Learning: An Experiential Approach to Knowledge Creation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Baker

Pifer

(2015) Antecedents and outcomes: Theories of fit and the study of doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education 40(2):296–310.

Barnacle

Mewburn

(2010) Learning networks and the journey of ‘becoming doctor’. Studies in Higher Education 35(4):433–444.

Biesta

GJJ

Field

Hodkinson

Macleod

Goodson

(2011) Improving Learning through the Lifecourse: Learning Lives. Oxford: Routledge.

Bolton

(2005) Writing and Professional Development, 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications.

Chang

Ngunjiri

Hernandez

(2013) Collaborative Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Clegg

(2008) Academic identities under threat? British Educational Research Journal 34(3):329–345.

Downs

(2009) Making Learning Happen. London: Downs Publishing.

10.

Denzin

(2014) Interpretive Autoethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Gergen

(2009) An Invitation to Social Construction, 2nd edition. London: Sage.

12.

Hellawell

(2006) Inside-out: Analysis of the insider–outsider concept as a heuristic device to develop reflexivity in students doing qualitative research. Teacher in Higher Education 11(4):483–494.

13.

Hilsdon

(2014) Peer learning for change in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 51(3):244–254.

14.

Kember

(1999) Integrating part time study with family, work and social obligations. Studies in Higher Education 24(1):109–124.

15.

Klenowski

Ehrich

Kapizke

Trigger

(2011) Building support for learning with a doctor of education programme. Teaching in Higher Education 16(6):681–693.

16.

Lave

Wenger

(1991) Situated Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Malfroy

Yates

(2003) Knowledge in action: Doctoral programmes forging new identities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 25(2):119–129.

18.

McAlpine

Lucas

(2011) Different places, different specialisms: Similar questions of doctoral identities under construction. Teaching in Higher Education 16(6):695–706.

19.

Mercer

(2007) The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: Wielding a double-edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education 33(1):1–17.

20.

Mezirow

(ed.) (2000) Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on theory in Progress (Higher Education). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

21.

Ngunjiri

Hernandez

Chang

(2010) Living autoethnography: Connecting life and research [Editorial]. Journal of Research Practice 6(1):1–17.

22.

Park

(2005) New variant PhD: The changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27(2):189–207.

23.

Parr

(2001) Education: What’s in it for mature women? In: Anderson

Williams

(eds) Identity and Difference in Higher Education: ‘Outsiders Within’. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 55–66.

24.

Pratt

Tedder

Boyask

Kelly

(2015) Pedagogic relations and professional change: A sociocultural analysis of students’ learning in a professional doctorate. Studies in Higher Education 40(1):43–59.

25.

Race

(2005) Making Learning Happen: A Guide for Post-Compulsory Education. London: Sage.

26.

Seaman

(2008) Birds of a feather? Communities of practice and knowledge communities. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue 10(1–2):269–279.

27.

Stagg

Krimmins

(2014) First year in higher education (FYHE) and the coursework post-graduate student. Journal of Academic Librarianship 40(2014):142–151.

28.

Walkerdine

(2006) Workers in the new economy: Transformation as border crossing. Ethos 34(1):89–122.

29.

Wenger

(1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Wellington

Sikes

(2006) A doctorate in a tight compartment: Why do students choose a professional doctorate and what impact does it have on their professional lives? Studies in Education 31: 723–734.