Supervising the professional doctoral student

Abstract

This article presents a discussion around issues of identity for part-time professional doctoral students. The current supervision arrangements of a professional doctoral programme were considered, using an exploratory study, to explore the idea that supervision for competent confident professionals should, in the early stages, focus on identity in addition to progress and process. Differing supervision models are discussed alongside ideas of identity development, more knowledgeable others and socialisation. It is suggested that individual academic supervision may focus too much on process and progress in the initial stages of professional doctorate programmes, and that supervision from a near peer in order to help students transition from the centre of their professional identity to the centre of a researcher identity may be of benefit. Alternative models are suggested for the leadership and the design of taught elements of these programmes, in order more fully to support the development of the competent professional’s research identity.

Keywords

Doctoral supervision group supervision professional identity socialisation peripheral participation

Introduction: the professional doctorate, the part-time doctoral student and their identities

The professional doctorate described in this article is associated with a UK research-intensive Russell Group university¹ which was founded as part of the expansion in the 1960s of higher education in the UK. The professional doctorate programme is well-established and has been in operation for fifteen years. However, student numbers have remained relatively small, with an average intake of ten students per year; and completion rates are a cause for concern. The programme recruits mainly middle and senior leaders from local schools and colleges. Professional doctorates are ‘attractive to those who view their own personal development and academic ambition as fully integrated with their professional development and have a commitment to furthering the cause of their profession’ (Bourner et al., 2001).

Part-time students are typically in the 40–50 age group, with substantial family and work commitments (Watts, 2010); and it has been suggested that engaging professional doctorate students who are mid-career, time poor as well as being professional educators, presents the university with its greatest pedagogical challenge (Danby and McWilliam, 2005). In recent years, professional doctoral students in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States have become more diverse than ever (Petersen, 2012). Students come from different cultural and educational backgrounds and have varied motivations to pursue a research degree (Pratt et al., 2015). Supervisors and students who are unfamiliar with this diverse environment may easily experience unsatisfactory results in terms of completion (Boehe, 2016). In addition, part-time doctoral students have been found to have dissimilar experiences from their full-time counterparts; specifically, part-time students have been found to be less satisfied with their doctoral experiences (Nettles and Millett, 2006).

Watts wrote that: ‘One of the main challenges for part-time students is the strain of having to make the psychological adjustment of constantly switching from one mind-set to another’ (Watts, 2008). Being recognized as a certain kind of person, in a given context, is your identity. We all then have multiple identities connected not only to our internal states but also to our performances in society (Gee, 2000). For the professional doctorate student, societies or environments in which they exist may be very different and may occasionally overlap: according to Fenge (2012: 403) this is a problem for the professional student because ‘Students may experience a tension between their practice and research, as they traverse the space between their practitioner world and that of the doctoral student’ (Fenge, 2012: 403). Identity changes whilst studying at doctoral level, and this often involves a collision of contrasting lives and environments (Atkinson-Baldwyn, 2009).

Methodology

The research emerged because difficulties arose for the lead author when attempting to maintain a professional identity as a competent and confident individual whilst also attempting to exist in a new environment in which, as a student, they were a novice lacking the correct language or skill set to appear as either competent or confident. The development of a new researcher identity was hindered by lack of knowledge and confidence, as well as by the perception of self and of others. In an attempt to understand whether this dichotomy of identity was a problem for other students on the programme, an exploratory study was conducted with students who were engaged in, or had experience of, part-time study or professional doctorate study.

The field work consisted of semi-structured interviews: two face-to-face, two via email, and one Skype interview. Table 1 summarises details of the interviewees.

Table 1.

Details of the interviewees.

Code	Age group	Gender	Full-time (Ft) or Part-time (Pt)	Year of study	Studying for EdD or PhD	Highest previous qualification
C	30–35	F	Ft (moved from Pt after year 1)	2	PhD	MA
D	40–45	F	Pt	5 (after 2 year temporary withdrawal)	EdD	MA
F	35–40	F	Pt	2	EdD	PG Cert
I	50–55	F	Pt	2	PhD	MA
P	40–45	M	Pt	2	Began EdD, transferred to PhD	MSc

The interviews were carried out over a three-week period; and as interviewees raised issues these were discussed with other interviewees, framed as new questions. Interviewees were peers engaged in part-time professional doctoral education who answered a call from the principal researcher. The exploratory study reported here comes from a largely interpretivist epistemological position. It is acknowledged that objective and value-free research is not possible; in addition to this general understanding, it is important to note that the fieldwork for this study was conducted by a professional doctorate student known to the interviewees.

Lewis and Ritchie (2003) argued that knowledge of the social world is mediated through people’s understandings and meanings. Therefore it may be possible that data gathering and interpretations of the results may both have been influenced by an identity perceived by the interviewees to be both researcher and peer. This was unavoidable in the circumstances and, while every attempt was made to reduce issues of perceived identity in the way in which responses were recorded and analysed to ensure validity, it may not be possible therefore to derive generalisations from the findings.

The qualitative comments gathered from a range of part-time students were mostly in accordance with the established literature regarding issues of progression and identity; as such, it is argued that the suggestions made following this research could be applied to other professional doctorate cohorts having similar issues. However, a more empirical research project would be the next step in the process, to discover whether the suggestions made here could be more widely applied.

Issues of identity and socialisation

Golde (1998), in a study of the socialisation of first year graduates, provided a framework which mapped the development of a number of issues faced by first year students (see Table 2). We suggest that many of the same issues exist for professionals as they consider whether (or not) to enter the researcher community and embark upon a professional doctorate programme.

Table 2.

Development of issues faced by first-year post-graduate students*

Task	Question
Intellectual mastery	Can I do this?
Learning about the realities of life as a graduate student	Do I want to be a graduate student?
Learning about the profession	Do I want to do this work?
The above are then combined into – is postgraduate study an acceptable path	Is this the right choice?
Integrating oneself into the department	Do I belong here?

*Adapted from Golde (1998).

According to Deem and Brehony (2000), part-time students seldom spent time at their home university, visits to campus being limited to meeting their supervisor and accessing the library. Their social life rarely involved other students, nor was it connected to campus life. Periods of sustained study are difficult to arrange, resulting in part-time students having to find innovative ways to organize their work. We suggest that it is essential for part-time professional doctoral students to keep these specific dimensions in mind when looking at progression and identity throughout the professional doctoral process. This raises the question as to whether engagement with a community of doctoral peers could offer a richer and improved quality research learning environment for doctoral students (Pearson and Brew, 2002). Interviewee P commented that:

If supervisory meetings could pro-actively encourage and support part-time students with research projects e.g. seminars, tutorials, building networks and most importantly the co-writing of research papers or conferences, then we would be moving hugely in the correct direction. My observations from higher education is that these opportunities are more plentiful via the full-time route. My experience is that most of us are not well established in the research arena. We may be established in the sector as a practitioner but the research community is typically defined by multiple and historic track records of publications which we don’t have. We need effective collaboration.[Interviewee P]

Part-time study enables students to maintain their professional identity, which they have developed over numerous years. However, when students become part of a new educational environment they feel the loss of the well-constructed professional identity they have relied upon, in some cases for many years, and the questions raised by Golde (1998) come to the fore. The constant balance between home life, work life and study, and the perceived lack of identity as a competent confident person, can lead professional doctorate students to question their decision to undertake postgraduate study.

Some students, as a result of previous experience, may already be some way along their journey to a researcher identity, and this enables them to feel confident and use this confidence to bolster their professional identity. Teachers are not new to identity reconstruction and, as previously mentioned, many professional doctorate students are very successful mid-career individuals. They are then possibly capable of re-emerging in the centre of a competent confident researcher identity with little support. In this study all of the interviewees were educators – teachers having to take profound personal and professional risks in their everyday teaching practices, and constructing defence and support mechanisms in order to continuously reconstruct and reaffirm their identities (Zembylas, 2003). However, these well-constructed defence and support mechanisms can be stripped away when students embark upon the journey to become a researching professional from a position of limited previous research experience.

Pifer and Baker (2016) suggested that there are three stages to doctoral progression; and whilst not without their criticisms, stage models serve an important purpose in understanding students’ development and experiences in academic settings. Helping the student to respond positively to the questions raised by Golde (1998) and speeding up and supporting the journey of the part-time professional doctorate student through these stages are crucial factors with regard to students’ persistence and completion. Students may be more satisfied with their doctoral experiences, and the successful completion rates for institutions may increase, if students are supported through this identity transition (Nettles and Millett, 2006). Golde suggested that ‘structuring experiences in order to help students answer all four of the socialisation questions during the first year is in the best interest of all concerned’ (Golde, 1998: 64).

(Trinh, 1992) suggested that researching identity was moving away from traditional questions of who one is to new questions of when, where and how one is. Zembylas (2003) argued that identity formation involves issues about how the social operation of power and agency influences the discourses about emotion and identity and vice versa. Bakhtin (1981) argued that the notion of dialogicality also helps to make the point that identity is linked to the recognition of identity by others. Table 3, adapted from Gee (2000), suggests four identity types: N – Nature, I – Institution, D – Discourse and A – Affinity.

Table 3.

Identity types*

Process		Power	Source of power
Nature Identity: a state	Developed from →	Forces →	In nature
Institution Identity: a position	Authorised by →	Authorities →	Within institutions
Discourse Identity: an individual trait	Recognised in →	The discourse/dialogue →	Of/with rational individuals
Affinity Identity: experiences	Shared in →	The practice →	Of affinity groups

*Adapted from Gee (2000).

Gee also reminds us that, ‘it is crucial to realize that these four perspectives are not separate from each other. Both in theory and in practice, they interrelate in complex and important ways’ (Gee, 2000: 101). Gee also suggested that learners in a peer group, by means of a community of practice, can establish an A identity and that this can be institutionally sanctioned, or not.

All of a student’s prior experiences feed into their identity, and thus it is important, when beginning with a new cohort, that the professional doctorate management team pays close attention to the students’ own perceptions of themselves as professionals and as new researchers in their field.

Socialisation can be broadly defined as the process through which an individual learns to adopt the values, skills, attitudes, norms and knowledge needed for membership in a given society, group, or organization (Golde, 1998). In particular, Bragg (1976) discussed socialisation in higher education settings as encompassing three major elements: (a) the interaction of students with the structures of the educational setting; (b) the interaction between students and faculty members; and (c) the interaction among students in the same educational programme. Socialisation for part-time students can be lacking, however. According to Boud et al. (1999), peer learning has many definitions; for example, ‘the use of teaching and learning strategies in which students learn with and from each other without the immediate intervention of the teacher’ (Boud et al., 1999: 413). This may exist naturally in many full-time doctoral courses, but may not occur naturally for the part-time student. This is illustrated by Interviewee C’s observation: ‘Just by being in the university I see other people just by being around, for example someone taught me how to use EndNote properly today but if I was part-time I would never have bumped into them’.

Identity, then, is an issue for students on professional doctorate programmes, as they grapple with both changing and contested identities within the socio-cultural learning setting (Gee, 2000). However, how this socio-cultural learning setting is devised may also have significant effects on completion and student satisfaction. Where this discursive process is left to chance it is possible to become lost in isolation, as reported by many. However, if forced, the discursive process can become negative. Pilbeam et al. (2013) claimed that engagement in networks cannot be mandated, only facilitated: in agreement, Interviewee D commented: ‘Community of practice would be useful but not if it is forced. I’d like it to be available but not compulsory as everyone works in different ways.’

A balance must therefore be struck: there are pragmatic issues with part-time study that need to be taken into consideration in order not to reduce the benefits that socialisation brings. Boud and Lee (2005) suggested that a new emphasis on pedagogy is required in research education, with a focus on peer learning and the wider research environment. This social peer learning could alleviate some of the identity issues that exist for part-time students when a discursive process is not easily achieved through social contact.

Supervision models

Questions posed by Golde (1998) – ‘Can I do this?’, ‘Is this the right choice?’ and ‘Do I belong here?’ – can appear even more pressing for the professional doctorate student. When such a student exists outside of their professional institution and inside the researching institution they can lose their own sense of competence and confidence, and this in turn affects self-esteem. Students require support to underwrite their new identity and this can be achieved through peer support and supervision. As Taylor noted, ‘Negotiate it through dialogue, partly overt, partly internal, with others.…My own identity crucially depends on my dialogical relations with others’ (Taylor, 1994: 34). There is a need to support students with dialogue; however, it becomes challenging to find time for this task for supervisors who have other duties and for part-time doctoral students, even when those students are planning to continue in an academic capacity beyond degree completion (Teeuwsen et al., 2014).

Current supervisory practices involve a range of activities such as dealing with deficits in students’ conceptual and academic backgrounds, deliberate interventions to ensure completion, mindful provision of tutorial and research assistance, and the deployment of personal networks to facilitate completion and ensure post-graduation employment (Halse and Malfroy, 2009). Despite various ‘quick guides’ to becoming a supervisor, postgraduate supervision has no prescribed or formal preparation, and there may be as many different approaches to supervision as there are supervisors: hence supervisors’ claim that the pedagogical essence of postgraduate supervision is poorly articulated and under-theorised.

Luca et al. (2013) created a toolkit to enhance the support and development of academic staff in their supervisory role. They surveyed experienced supervisors and found there was a clear need for additional support materials to aid their supervision practice. Their emphasis was on the development of a research supervisor toolkit. Petrie et al. (2015), in their conference proceedings, discussed a participatory framework: the document has many interesting features. Lee (1997) argued that the emergence of the professional doctorate provides opportunities for innovative and more negotiated practices of supervision.

Malfroy (2005) discussed work by Evans (1997: 178) who suggested that ‘more flexible and productive’ relationships may emerge, while Brennan went further, suggesting a ‘much more equal relationship, recognising the different expertise and interests of both parties in the supervisor–student relationship’ (Brennan, 1998: 74). It is clear that the changing environment for doctoral education provides opportunities for traditional practices to be reassessed and for new practices to emerge (Pearson, 1996). Despite this, Pifer and Baker (2016), in their work on student support, did not find literature reporting on, or evidence of, non-traditional part-time learners or non-traditional programmes – such as professional programmes – having altered their supervision processes.

There have been several studies looking at various theoretical and methodological approaches to supervision and suggesting various typologies of supervisory styles (Gatfield, 2005; Grover and Malhotra, 2003; Mainhard et al., 2009; Murphy, 2009; Murphy et al., 2007; Wright et al., 2007). However, according to Boehe (2016) these all converge into two underlying supervisory styles of product and process. The relevance of these two dimensions in doctoral supervision was emphasised by Maxwell and Smyth:

…doctoral education results in two kinds of objects derived from the teaching: the embodiment of the research process and the research product…The examination answers the questions: is the knowledge produced significant and was the research process carried out adequately? Ultimately, was new knowledge produced? (Maxwell and Smyth, 2011)

Process and progress are of course valuable dimensions, but it appears that for the professional doctorate student something more than process and progress is of value; that is, the development of identity, socialisation and discourse. Professional doctorates have been described as practitioner doctorates, in that they are concerned more with practice development and change than with pure research (Lester, 2004). The focus on process and progress may not then suitably cover the range of needs of the professional doctoral student. According to Lee,

Whilst many aspects of professional doctorates are acknowledged in the literature; collegiality, collaboration, facilitation and partnership, there are no emerging frameworks or exemplars of good professional doctorate supervision practices. (Lee, 2009: 644)

Boehe suggested that, ‘we could argue that capable, independent self-learners should also be able to organise the process-related part of their research project’ (Boehe, 2016: 401). Thus when many supervisors meet a professional doctorate student who presents as a confident, competent professional, these supervisors believe no particular help is needed with the processes. However, during our interviews many comments were made alluding to the fact that, despite multiple competencies, the self-doubt and significant disadvantage of lack of familiarity felt by a part-time researcher in the early stages of their career prevents successful completion. Interviewee F commented: ‘I’m not sure that they appreciate how out of my depth I feel sometimes’; and Interviewee D said, ‘I’m professionally capable but I don’t always know what I’m doing here’.

Fenge (2012) suggested that group supervision is a possible antidote to the usual doctoral arrangement in which the supervisory relationship is with a team of supervisors who have been through the doctoral process themselves. However, there is very little published research exploring mechanisms which might prove successful on a personal level through professional doctorate programmes.

It may be, then, that whilst the supervisor role is essential to aligning with QAA codes of practice² there could be benefit to be gained both for the student and the supervisor by including supervisory meetings of peers, facilitated by the supervisor, in order to guide not only learning but also identity formation. Group supervision can also provide a pedagogical basis which supports participative learning and reflexivity (Forbes, 2008).

A student quoted in Fenge (2012: 407) described how, ‘The cohort became and remains an integral part of this experience, and I see my fellow students as essential travelling companions’. The concept of travelling companions, on the journey from the periphery to the centre, sharing narrative and overcoming identity issues together, whilst also acting as a forum for discourse on their new identity, could alleviate many of the issues professional doctorate students report. It is also possible that supervision from peers or professional colleagues could add a level of support required for the identity development for the professional doctorate student and improve leadership and management of the programme.

Teeuwsen et al. (2014) discussed the journey of becoming an academic as being rarely finished. By beginning a professional doctorate, students are embarking on the journey of becoming an academic. As such they situate themselves as migrants and learners in a strange world with its unique institutional systems, power relations, rites of passage and gatekeepers. As Interviewee F commented, ‘[lack of knowledge about process] wouldn’t happen if you were in the learning community full-time where hints and tips were shared. It’s like a secret world that no one wants to give you the key to’. Facilitated peer supervision groups could be the ideal place in which to allow professional doctorate students to begin their transformation and engage in socialisation.

Conclusions: implications for management and leadership

All of a student’s prior experiences feed into their identity and it is important, then, when beginning with a new cohort, that the professional doctorate management team pays close attention to students’ own perceptions of themselves as researchers in this new field. Nias (1996) asserted that many teachers invest their personal identity in their work, erasing boundaries between their personal and their professional lives. Pifer and Baker (2016) suggested that students should conduct a needs assessment, to identify the areas in which they require support as well as the types of relationships that can provide that support. It may therefore be the case that by engaging effectively with the early-career researcher on the professional doctorate programme, and discussing openly the issue of identity, supervisors and managers would be able to gather evidence to inform effective changes to the supervisory arrangements.

We suggest that in the first two years of a part-time professional doctorate significant steps are taken to provide a supervisory contact whose sole aim is to guide students from the periphery of a research community towards the centre. These individuals should understand the challenges many part-time students face, and can unlock some of the insider knowledge and scaffold the student’s transition of identity from educator to researcher. After two years – or more, depending on development – the student could then take on this role for new entrants to the programme. There would have to be an understanding that this new identity for students is never a final destination: as Bhabha claimed,

Identification is never the affirmation of a pre-given identity, never a self-fulfilling prophecy – it is always the production of an image of identity and the transformation of the subject in assuming that image. (Bhabha, 1994)

The use of some supervisory meetings to facilitate this transformation through the early stages appears to have merit. Following on from, or alongside the peer supervisor supporting identity development, a thesis supervisor with knowledge of the field in which the student is researching could then be appointed to provide subject-specific support, appearing at a time when the student has developed an amount of researcher identity in order to feel competent. The doctoral student experience is still seen to hang largely on the quality of the relationship between the student and the supervisory team. The nature of the supervisory role in the professional doctorate could then change, from a one-to-one relationship based on progress and process to that of a team approach which facilitates the dvelopment of a competent researcher identity.

The professional doctorate programme could also develop to include specific taught modules pertaining particularly to identity, and activities led by peers – such as collaborative article writing and joint conference presentations, both of which can develop the insider knowledge required for the student to feel confident and competent in this new environment. Much of this could be achieved before completion of a thesis product.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

References

Atkinson-Baldwyn

(2009) An other identify: a view of myself, Qualitative Inquiry 15(5):806–819.

Bakhtin

(1981) The dialogic imagination. In: Holquist

(ed) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bhabha

(1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.

Boehe

(2016) Supervisory styles: A contingency framework. Studies in Higher Education 41(3):399–414.

Boud

Lee

(2005) ‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education Studies in Higher Education 30:501–516.

Boud

Cohen

Sampson

(1999) Peer learning and assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 24(4):413–426

Bourner

Bowden

Laing

(2001) Professional doctorates in England, Studies in Higher Education 26:65–83.

Bragg

(1976) The Socialization Process in Higher Education. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Brennan

(1998) Struggles over the definition and practice of the educational doctorate in Australia. Australian Educational Researcher 25(1): 71–89.

10.

Danby

McWilliam

(2005) Respecting and challenging the candidate: Some developments in program design. In: Maxwell

Hickey

Evans

(eds.) 5th International Professional Doctorates Conference. Deakin University

11.

Deem

Brehony

(2000) Doctoral students’ access for research cultures – are some more unequal than others? Studies in Higher Education 25(2):149–165.

12.

Evans

(1997) Flexible doctoral research: Emerging issues in professional doctorate programs. Continuing Education 19(2):174–182.

13.

Fenge

L-A

(2012) Enhancing the doctoral journey: The role of group supervision in supporting collaborative learning and creativity. Studies in Higher Education 37(4):401–414.

14.

Forbes

(2008) Reflective Practice 9(4): 449.

15.

Gatfield

(2005) An investigation into PhD Supervisory Management Styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27(3):311–325.

16.

Gee

(2000) Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education 25(1):99–125.

17.

Golde

(1998) Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. New Directions for Higher Education. 101:55–64

18.

Grover

Malhotra

(2003) Interaction Between a Doctoral Student and Advisor: Making it Work Decision Line 34(1):16–18.

19.

Halse

Malfroy

(2009) Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education 35(1):79–92.

20.

Lee

(1997) Research and knowledge in the professional doctorate. Professional Doctorates in New Times for the Australian University. Brisbane: Australian Association for Research in Education.

21.

Lee

(2009) Professional doctorate supervision: exploring student and supervisor experiences. Nurse Education Today 29(6):641–648.

22.

Lester

(2004) Conceptualizing the practitioner doctorate. Studies in Higher Education 29(6):757–770.

23.

Lewis

Ritchie

(2003) Generalising from qualitative research. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers 2:347–362.

24.

Luca

Standing

Adams

Borland

Erwee

Jasman

(2013) Developing a toolkit and framework to support new postgraduate research supervisors in emerging research areas: Final report. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching.

25.

Mainhard

Van Der Rijst

Van Tartwijk

Wubbels

(2009) A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. Higher Education 58(3):359–373.

26.

Malfroy

(2005) Doctoral supervision, workplace research and changing pedagogic practices. Higher Education Research & Development 24(2):165–178.

27.

Maxwell

Smyth

(2011) Higher Education Research and Development 30(2):219.

28.

Murphy

(2009) Research supervision: matches and mismatches, International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 46(3):295–306.

29.

Murphy

Bain

Conrad

(2007) Orientation to research higher degree supervision, Higher Education 53:209–234.

30.

Nettles

Millett

(2006) Three Magic Letters: Getting to PhD. John Hopkins University Press.

31.

Nias

(1996) Thinking about feeling: the emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education 26: 293–306.

32.

Pearson

(1996) Professionalising the PhD education to enhance the quality of the student experience. Higher Education 32(3):303–320.

33.

Pearson

Brew

(2002) Studies in Higher Education 27(2):135–150.

34.

Petersen

(2014) Re-signifying subjectivity? A narrative exploration of ‘non-traditional’ doctoral students’ lived experience of subject formation through two Australian cases. Studies in Higher Education 39(5):823.

35.

Petrie

Lemke

Williams

Mitchell

Northcote

Anderson

De Waal

(2015) Professional Development of Research Supervisors: A Capacity-Building, Participatory Framework. Avondale College Faculty of Education.

36.

Pifer

Baker

(2016) Stage-based challenges and strategies for support in doctoral education: A practical guide for students, faculty members, and program administrators. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 11(1):15–34.

37.

Pilbeam

Lloyd-Jones

Denyer

(2013) Leveraging value in doctoral student networks through social capital. Studies in Higher Education 38(10):1472–1489.

38.

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.

39.

Taylor

(1994) The politics of recognition. In Taylor

Appiah

Rockefeller

Waltzer

& Wolf

(Eds.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

40.

Teeuwsen

Ratlovic

Tilley

(2014) Becoming academics: Experiencing legitimate peripheral participation in part-time doctoral studies. Studies in Higher Education 39(4):680–694.

41.

Trinh

(1992) Minh-ha: Framer Framed. New York: Routledge.

42.

Watts

(2010) Supervising part-time doctoral students. In: Walker

Thomson

(eds) The Routledge Doctoral Supervisor’s Companion: Supporting Effective Research in Education and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.

43.

Watts

(2008) Challenges of supervising part-time PhD students: Towards student-centred practice. Teaching in Higher Education 13(3):369–373.

44.

Wright

Murray

Geale

(2007) Academy of Management Learning and Education 6(4): 458.

45.

Zembylas

(2003) Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 9(3):213–238.