Mapping the emotional journey of the doctoral ‘hero’: Challenges faced and breakthroughs made by creative arts and humanities candidates

Abstract

This article discusses how doctoral candidates identify and navigate personal learning challenges on their journey to becoming researchers. Our study asked creative arts and humanities candidates to think beyond the research project itself and reflect on emotional hurdles they were facing or had overcome. The findings point to a great deal of ‘invisible’ work that underpins doctoral study, and show that such hidden work can have a major influence not only on the research project, but also on progress and satisfaction with the learning journey. In this article, we outline the key themes that emerged from the study: on the emotional and transformational dimensions of the doctoral journey. Using these themes and the candidate stories surrounding them, we align the doctoral journey with Joseph Campbell’s journeying ‘hero’ and Mezirow’s concept of transformation, and suggest how making such invisible aspects of candidature more visible might enhance research training.

Keywords

Doctorate doctoral journey human dimension research training invisible work transformation

Introduction

How to best support doctoral candidates for success is a critical focus for universities and an ongoing area of research (Brien, 2006; Evans, 2011; Golovushkina and Milligan, 2012; Kroll and Brien, 2006; McAllister and Rowe, 2003). This is especially important in disciplines such as the creative arts and humanities, where candidates enter research degrees with different academic, personal and/or career profiles than – and therefore have different expectations to – those from more traditional research disciplines such as health, and the hard and social sciences; and where the desired outcomes may be more personal in nature, such as the development of a creative practice and/or the achievement of a life-long ambition (see Ravelli et al., 2014; Wilson, 2018). Focussing on the candidate experience, in particular their ability to make the cognitive leap from practitioner to practitioner-researcher (see Simmons and Holbrook, 2013), is arguably more pronounced in the creative arts and humanities and, as such, warrants further investigation.

It is thus useful to consider the importance of encouraging doctoral candidates (and supervisors) to be aware of, and address, the invisible, human experience of research training. This ‘invisible work’ of a doctorate recognises the emotional as well as the intellectual, psychological and physical components of an individual’s lived experience of a (typically) four-year degree. Emotional intelligence has been found to moderate academic self-efficacy and achievement, and the argument to integrate emotional intelligence into undergraduate curriculum has been made (Adeyemo, 2007). The strongly emotional aspects of adult learning have also been identified, for example in the work of William Perry and Jack Mezirow, who identify disorientation (Mezirow, 2000) and possible responses to the questioning of deeply held assumptions, such as temporising, delay and retreat (Perry, 1975), as common experiences for learners working in cognitively complex, contingent and contested spaces where doctoral study is performed. Recent studies have identified problematic mental health outcomes for doctoral candidates (Hyun et al., 2006; Barry et al., 2018), and have advocated benefits through formal support (such as counselling), informal support (such as self-care strategies) and team-based support (especially in doctoral writing) (Barry et al., 2018). Through a process of action learning research, and collaborative story sharing and writing, this study sought to identify emotional as well as cognitive hurdles and breakthroughs for doctoral candidates in the creative arts and humanities, in order to generate useful reflections that can be used to guide other candidates

This article reports on this research, undertaken at Central Queensland University, Australia, which uncovered some of the emotional dimensions of undertaking a doctorate in the creative arts and humanities. As will be described, key areas of struggle for candidates were identified to relate to the broad areas of resilience, establishing and maintaining good relationships and developing productive peer communities. The concept of transformation also emerged as a key aspect of the doctoral journey, particularly in recognition of the breakthroughs that had taken place. This transformation had both learning (cognitive) and emotional (personal) qualities in our study, which can be aligned to both educational theory (e.g., Mezirow, 2000) and – particularly relevant for these candidates – theories of storytelling (e.g., Campbell, 1993 [1949]). While many of these points of struggle are not unknown for the supervisory community, the idea of transformation – individually and collectively – was particularly relevant in this context, and the analogy of the journey emerged strongly over the course of the study. It is possible to consider these findings within the framework of Campbell’s concept of the Hero’s Journey, in which candidates become the protagonists of their own doctoral trajectory. In this article, we first outline the background and context that underpinned the study; then describe the methodology employed to gather the data, which we argue is in itself a model of good practice for research training, and finally, in examining the data using a thematic style of analysis, we present what candidates themselves determined to be core emotional aspects of the transformative, ‘heroic’ doctoral journey.

Background and context

As we have reported in another project (Brien et al., 2019), currently in Australia (as elsewhere), research training is predominantly delivered at institutional level, and sometimes at the level of faculties, schools or discipline areas. This utilises a variety of modes, including formal training programs and research focused-events and bootcamps, mentoring schemes, peer-to-peer groups and internships, and is delivered at considerable cost and with a lack of consistency and quality assurance. Locally funded projects on research training over the past decade have focussed on supervision practices (Blass et al., 2014; Bruce et al., 2009; Hamilton et al., 2014; Hammond et al., 2010; Harrison, 2014; Yarlagadda et al., 2013; Homewood et al., 2010); examining doctoral candidates’ academic history (Boud et al., 2014; Kiley, 2011; 2013; Kiley et al., 2013); specific discipline support (Colbran and Tynan, 2008; Webb and Brien, 2008); support appropriate to cross-cultural contexts (Homewood et al., 2010); and thesis examination (Phillips et al., 2009; Webb et al., 2012). These, and other, studies point to the problems with generic doctoral training and recommend enhanced provision of such training, including set-up support mechanisms for those responsible for such training.

While there may be agreement on the essential content areas required in research training, the question of what constitutes the best pedagogic approach to training, especially when considering the different histories and traditions of disciplines, remains contested. It is generally accepted that the type of generic skills-based training regularly offered in stand-alone sessions, while useful, is not adequate on its own. This is for a number of reasons: as it emphasises the separation between academic practices and skills and the world of work (Lia, 2011; Porter and Phelps, 2014); fails to acknowledge the interdependence of research problem and research methodology so critical to the validity of a study (Trochim et al., 2015); and, pertinent for us here, often overlooks the dramatic emotions candidates experience during their research degree, as they transform from candidate to researcher – and in the case of creative artists, practitioner to practitioner-researcher.

It is important to note that supervisors are already strongly participating in supportive pastoral care practices for their research candidates. Research into supporting candidates is prevalent, including regarding the experience of female candidates (Brown and Watson, 2010; Carter et al., 2013), culturally and linguistically diverse candidates (Carter, 2009; Yarlagadda et al., 2013) and targeted support for successful academic writing (Aitchison and Geurin, 2014; Cantwell, 2006). However, there is still a gap in knowledge about the transformational experience (cognitive and emotional) of undertaking a doctorate, and the role of shifting identities from candidate to researcher. Our study thus contributes further insights to prior studies focusing on the human dimensions of doctoral study, which include aspects such as social isolation (Ali and Kohun, 2007), gender (Brown and Watson, 2010), threshold breakthroughs related to supervisor support (Carter, 2016) and mental health (Barry et.al., 2018).

While supervisors conventionally demonstrate a duty of care for their candidates, making the emotional hurdles visible – as emotional milestones for self-development that are to be expected – allows better preparedness for candidates and supervisors as the journey develops. Supervisors can, for example, prepare questions that seek to receive feedback on these patterned emotional hurdles and thereby improve the support they offer. Further, while the struggles of doctoral study are often wide-reaching and similar across candidates from all disciplines, there are some specific traits of candidates, supervisors and research training programs in the creative arts and humanities that offer their own challenges. Considering the demographics of our research participants, it is important to identify and explore these in detail.

Regarding research training in creative disciplines, while some academic supervisors appreciate the insights into university processes and guidelines that institution-wide training offers, many are ambivalent, and some are unaware of their existence. In their study, Hamilton et al. (2014: 41) noted that supervisors often expressed ‘a clear aversion to “didactic” delivery’. Often such supervisors saw this training having little bearing on the realities of supervising creative practice projects, where the methodologies are often specialised and even the nature of research contribution is contested (see Batty and Holbrook, 2017). There is a clear preference for localised training at faculty (or equivalent) level in creative disciplines, or perhaps even at the level of disciplines (with the proviso that many projects are interdisciplinary), as such training is seen as being able to address the unique contexts, particularities and complexities of supervising creative practice candidates. Indeed, the preference of supervisors in Hamilton et al.’s study (2014: 49) was for:

workshops with peers that look beyond matters of process, and rather consider a range of issues such as the complexities of supervision, the academic and intellectual relationship between supervisor and candidate, academic writing and the exegesis, ethical issues pertaining to creative practice, and managing ‘risk’.

These workshops should, the supervisors reported, leverage the expertise of experienced supervisors and encourage the formalisation of mentoring for emerging supervisors, also recognising the emotional relationships that occur in newer research disciplines (Hamilton et al., 2014: 49). Such training workshops may take place locally, but are more prevalent in programs supplied by the Australian national peak bodies that champion those disciplines, such as art and design (Australian Council of University Art and Design Schools), creative writing (Australasian Association for Writing Programs), drama and performance (Australasian Association for Theatre, Drama and Performance Studies) and screen production (Australian Screen Production Education and Research Association).

As recognised by these peak bodies, doctoral candidates in the creative arts and humanities present a challenge to ‘generic’ research training initiatives. This is because they often re-enter the academy after a number of years working as practitioners and/or educators in industry and/or teaching settings, sometimes without Honours or Masters qualifications – at least those completed recently – and thus enter a doctoral program with less of a research identity than those in more traditional research disciplines (see Finlayson, 2012; Masson, 2016; Wilson, 2018). A core part of the research training context in these disciplines, then, is the formation of a new identity, that of the ‘practitioner-researcher’, which can – at first – be a struggle for doctoral candidates before such training, hopefully, then becoming liberating and generating a new approach to practice (Batty, 2016; Batty and Sinclair, 2014). Central to this successful experience of research training is the skillset of the supervisory team, who, as Kroll outlines, must perform a myriad of (perhaps impossible) roles in the creative practice space:

Like an earth mother, she nurtures her children, managing to give each one enough attention. She specialises in pastoral care. Like Doctor Who, she troubleshoots, negotiating with all forms of academic life. In fact, she can transform at will into whatever she needs to be: academic, artist, mentor, disciplinarian, cheerleader. And of course, as a creative scholar who embodies all of these bodies from diverse traditions, she obviously understands cross-disciplinarity. (Kroll, 2009: 3)

Kroll’s work built on early work co-authored by supervisor and candidate investigating the nature of the relationship (Dibble and van Loon, 2004), a thread which was developed further by others (see Bourke and Nielsen, 2004; Brien and Williamson, 2009). Another factor influencing candidature in creative disciplines is the worry that many candidates experience in stepping away from their artform or other creative practice in order to re-train or up-skill in research. Acknowledging that they are undertaking a research degree, not merely advancing their creative/professional practice, it is not unusual for doctoral candidates to struggle with the shift in gear from intuitive doing/making to research-based planning, doing/making and reflecting (Carter, 2004). This can be both a cognitive and emotional battle for candidates.

In order to better explain the ‘emotional’ battle of the candidate’s journey, which is in some ways a rather intangible concept, it is useful to turn to narrative theory such as the Hero’s Journey (Campbell, 1993 [1949]). For many candidates, this intangible transformation process is one of the most powerful experiences of their journey, and it is this aspect that our study sought to explore. Craig Batty’s (2010) work on the character journey integrates the work of Joseph Campbell (1993 [1949]) with that of screenwriting author Christopher Vogler (1999), to understand the transformational arc of a protagonist as combining both a literal, physical journey (the plot), and a more internal, emotional character journey (the story); the two elements are brought together by the writer to create the complete journey narrative.

Implicitly, Batty’s work also relates to Mezirow’s theory of learning as transformational (Mezirow and Taylor, 2009), in his observation that protagonists undergo a journey of emotional development alongside one of physical action to generate transformation. If ‘[d]ream is the personalized myth, myth the depersonalized dream’ (Campbell, 1993 [1949]: 19), then dream is the physical journey – the story-specific plot followed; and myth is the emotional journey – the underlying, universal story with thematic resonance. As we will go on to discuss, the stages of cognitive and emotional challenge and breakthrough experienced by doctoral candidates can be mapped against these narrative- and creative arts-based theories to better understand and respond to the human dimensions of undertaking a doctorate.

Methodology

Using an action-learning model, a workshop-style focus group was designed and implemented over a two-day period. Eighteen research candidates from three universities, all of whom were studying, or had recently completed, their doctorates in the creative arts or humanities (including one from the medical humanities), collaborated with four research supervisors, from three universities, who functioned as workshop facilitator-researchers. The aim of the workshop was to uncover some of the key cognitive and emotional challenges experienced by candidates during their research degree, and the breakthroughs they had discovered, or were in the process of developing, to overcome those challenges. Drawing on a previous study that explored possibilities for enhanced research training in the creative arts and nursing (Brien et al., 2019), this study was explicit in its focus on the human dimensions (cognitive and emotional) of undertaking a research degree, with candidates being asked to prepare a brief description of, and then consider throughout the two days, examples of their lived experience. The ultimate aim of the workshop was to collect this experience for a future edited book that would document, through an action-solution methodology, candidates’ issues, challenges and subsequent (or imagined) resolves. This was understood as substantiating the academic agency of each participant, while simultaneously acknowledging and supporting their individual learning journeys.

Candidates were personally approached and invited to take part based on knowledge of their discipline areas, creative and critical projects, challenges and breakthroughs during candidature, and potential willingness to share experiences – positive and negative – in a collective setting, with the idea of reflecting on these and producing a version for publication in a future edited book. All of the candidates approached wanted to be involved in the study, including those who had to travel considerable distances in order to do so. The workshop was developed as an action learning event in recognition of the fact that collaborative learning through cyclic processes of questioning and reflecting is appropriate to a group of cognitively advanced, adult learners with developing research experience and expertise.

Action learning is one form of action research, which also includes critical action research, participatory action research and collaborative inquiry (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2005; McTaggart et al., 2017). Action learning entails ‘real people resolving and taking action on real problems in real time, and learning through questioning and reflection while doing so’ (Marquardt and Waddill, 2004: 186). The workshop was envisaged as a tool to support candidates develop both an individual and collaborative capacity to identify, recognise and negotiate problems that are frequently encountered in the research journey; to empower these candidates through collaborative problem solving; and to generate research outcomes and reporting that could be used to assist research degree candidates and supervisors to anticipate, navigate and resolve cognitive and emotional challenges.

Prior to the workshop, candidates who had indicated their desire to participate were asked to consider examples of challenges and breakthroughs they had experienced (or were experiencing) during their doctoral journey, and to be prepared to discuss them openly during the two days of the workshop. It was the intention that the researchers would moderate these discussions on the first day and draw them together thematically, all the while pulling out the key ‘human dimension’ concepts that arose. These co-created data could then be theorised and, where possible, put into action through a consideration of potential research training activities, while the knowledge collected during the process could be turned into a collaboratively-authored book.

As candidates spoke of their challenges and breakthroughs throughout Day 1, the facilitator-researchers used large whiteboards in the room to record the key themes that emerged. These qualitative themes were arrived at in two main ways: first, the facilitators’ impressions of the underlying concepts within the relayed stories and experiences; and second, verification of these concepts by the candidates, who were asked to comment throughout the process upon what was being interpreted and captured in this way, and invited to contribute their own ideas and refinements. In this way, the data were co-created in an organic and authentic way, even if led by the facilitators (as more experienced researchers and supervisors). This thematic analysis, performed in-situ, was grounded in the principle of Attride-Stirling’s (2001: 388) thematic network analysis. The facilitator-researchers used the three levels of extraction: Basic Themes, Organising Themes (which we termed ‘meta-themes’) and a Global Theme, and these are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Eleven basic and organising (meta) themes of challenges collaboratively identified by candidates and facilitators.

1. Relationships

Power; authority (transformative arrangement?); expectations; peer support; communication; choice; agency; knowledge gaps; partnerships; flexibility; mutual respect; growth; academic tribe; rituals; resilience.

2. Roles and responsibilities

Ethical conduct; boundaries; whose research is it?; interest and engagement levels; contingency planning; advocacy; role of associate supervisors; transparency; investment; reputation; MoU between supervisors and candidate?

3. The research project

Interdisciplinary research; why are you doing it?; methodology; is this for you?; thinking like a researcher; dealing with complexity; the fear of contribution?; being brave

4. Dissemination

Planning ahead; outlets, outputs and formats; discipline and form; examination; your place in a discipline; re-calibrating; subjectivity.

5. Who are you?

Why are you doing this: opportunity or need? Professional and/or personal objectives; what can you do/bring (approach and methodology)?; wearing two hats; careers; identity: what is it [the doctorate] for?; learner; defender.

6. Perspective

Journey; development; growth; knowing this is the fabric (nature?) of the academic ‘industry’.

7. Feedback

Managing; filtering; fear (more labour); verbal vs. written; timely feedback.

8. Emotion

Stakes (high); anxiety; expectation; stress; confidence; enjoyment.

9. Institutional regulations and bureaucracy

Battles; language; apology?; a different mind-set; gatekeepers; fear; a person in a machine.

10. Personalities

Clashes; hostilities; disempowerment; boundaries; courage; supervisor vs. student AND supervisor vs. supervisor; emotions; pressure on the self; originality; confidence; balance.

11. Skills

Managing your candidature; expanding research literacies; rigour.

Table 2.

Eight basic and organising (meta) themes of breakthroughs collaboratively identified by facilitators and candidates.

1. Letting go

Acceptance; grief; re-scoping; recalibration; folding back into the new research question; recycling; lateral thinking; letting others help you.

2. Peer networks

Academic; professional; career plans; targeted headspace; mentoring; discipline groups; finding academic peers and mentors; small conferences and workshops (to start with?); sharing resources.

3. Research culture building: agency

Present and future scenarios; supervisors to assist?; engagement plans; university-wide initiatives; creating new opportunities.

4. Thinking and organisation time

Tasks and outcomes vs. thought and processing; ‘research journey’ diary/blog to evaluate transformation; reflection as a researcher; guilt-tripping/chain of work (motivation); expecting the unexpected.

5. Publishing/presenting

Peer review; new ideas; feedback; branding; self-set milestones.

6. Fit/flexible/models

Practice-based/led opportunities; coherency; alignment; transformation (transgression?); triangulated confidence; mutuality; the thesis (pulling it together).

7. Peer review

Responding; examiners and contesting.

8. Permission

Tools and techniques; control; agency; ownership (correct supervision?); signposting.

Unlike Attride-Stirling, the analysis did not identify visual network maps or spend too long on specific coding as this was too limiting for the time-specific, in-the-moment analysis. However, the iterative feedback process of performing this analysis with the research participants helped maintain the validity of the analysis as participants were able to voice their additions or suggestions to the interpreted meaning of their comments. This also generated ‘hotspots’ or themes that resonated strongly with participants, and these were underlined on the whiteboard. One of the research-facilitators also took extensive notes throughout the process, and these were available to the researchers post-event to enable another form of validity checking on the analysis.

Finally, following the conclusion of Day 1, the candidates were asked to map their research journey, identifying cognitive and emotional obstacles or milestones. All candidates completed this task and provided this in written format to the researcher-facilitators. These responses were then analysed using a similar thematic process, which again identified ‘meta-themes’ that could be roughly ordered chronologically to match the doctoral journey (see Table 3). It was through this analysis and synthesis that the Hero’s Journey analogy and the importance of the transformational experience defined so powerfully by education theorist Jack Mezirow (2000) really emerged. Transformation and the Hero’s Journey became the Global Theme, our overarching concept.

Table 3.

Physical and emotional doctoral journey map.

Physical journey (learning hurdles)	Emotional journey (human responses)	Transformation of the Doctoral ‘Hero’
Getting the proposal together and shopping it around	Excitement and enthusiasm	1. Ordinary World/Limited Awareness of a Problem
Proposal questioned and altered on supervisor’s recommendation – didn’t understand implications but trusted supervisor	Deflation and confusion	2. Call to Adventure/Increased Awareness
Accept your dream is not very sophisticated after all and move on. First harsh lesson you are a beginner in this project	Stubbornness and perseveranceFrustration despair depression	2. Call to Adventure/Increased Awareness3. Refusal of the Call/Reluctance to Change
Don’t know if I want to go on in this direction but keep working on it as it seems like the best option. Research skills don’t quite match the task yet	Frustration/overwhelmed	3. Refusal of the Call/Reluctance to Change
Brain started to make connectionsEpiphanies/resilience	Affirmed, confident	4. Meeting with the Mentor/Overcoming Reluctance
Acceptance of proposal and enrolment. You finally get the project and realise you have made quite a lot of progress cognitively	Relief and enthusiasm	4. Meeting with the Mentor/Overcoming Reluctance5. Crossing the First Threshold/Committing to Change
Ability to see room for improvement and that you have improved	Fear of failure/criticismSense of achievement and energized	5. Crossing the First Threshold/Committing to Change
Start working on research and gathering ideas. Every new paper you read stretches your mind and your skill as a researcher and thinker starts to make some forward progress	Excitement	6. Tests, Allies, Enemies/Experimenting with First Change
Develop networking, presenting and writing skills. Recognise your tribe	Resistance/stubbornness	6. Tests, Allies, Enemies/Experimenting with First Change
CoC feedback is savage and lots of re-writing	Worry – I am not good enough to do a PhD. All confidence gone	6. Tests, Allies, Enemies/Experimenting with First Change
Rewrite. Forced to think more clearly as you recognise you have weak arguments	Stressful, felt like last chance	6. Tests, Allies, Enemies/Experimenting with First Change
Project accepted and move into research and writing. Every day, skills and experience increase – conferences, speaking to peers, writing papers. Slow but sure progress as a researcher	Peaceful, confident, excited, pride, acceptance	6. Tests, Allies, Enemies/Experimenting with First Change
Ability and confidence to review others’ work		6. Tests, Allies, Enemies/Experimenting with First Change
First draft	Overjoyed	6. Tests, Allies, Enemies/Experimenting with First Change
Working through first draft with supervisors. Whoops, some things are not working! You don’t know as much as you thought and find your research skills are useless if you cannot analyse well or form good conclusions about the evidence.	Anxiety, loss of confidence, overwhelmedPanic, wounded, gutted, anger	7. Approach to the Inmost Cave/Preparing for Big Change8. Ordeal/Attempting Big Change
Develop time management skills and identify propensity for procrastination	Worry	8. Ordeal/Attempting Big Change
Realised method needed to change. Got brave enough to change it and suddenly everything fell into place. Suddenly discover you did not know what you did not know but now, you get it!	Empowered and felt I had found my voice. Excited. Racehorse seeing the final turn.	8. Ordeal/Attempting Big Change9. Reward/Consequences of the Attempt (Improvements and Setbacks)
Started to doubt conclusions. My cognitive skills took a leap and I could see flaws in the argument better and figure out how to overcome them. The PhD process had worked! Developing expertise/becoming an expert	Panic, low confidence, compromise and acceptance	8. Ordeal/Attempting Big Change9. Reward/Consequences of the Attempt (Improvements and Setbacks)
Meticulous corrections, editing, more corrections. Realised far more work than I thought. Now understanding why the supervisor suggested changes.	Dig deep into stores of resilience and patience and focus on the end	10. The Road Back/Rededication to Change
Recognising negative sequelae (anxiety, negative thoughts, emotional growth)	Acceptance	10. The Road Back/Rededication to Change
Thesis off to examiner	Overwhelming relief	11. Resurrection/Final Attempt at Big Change
Process drags on	Depressing, frustrating, anger sets in	11. Resurrection/Final Attempt at Big Change
Minor corrections. I had developed the sophistication to know what was useful in the comments and to amend the work accordingly	Elated, happy, relieved. What do I do now? I might have a PhD but I don’t really belong to this tribe.Empowered, negativity, isolation	12. Return with Elixir/Final Mastery of the Problem

The content was paraphrased from candidate responses and then arranged and analysed by the facilitator-researchers.

Regarding the demographics of participants, we acknowledge that there are limitations in this study. For example, it was a predominantly female, older demographic, with only one younger male participant (in addition to one male researcher-facilitator). This is reflective of candidate demographics in the broad Field of Education areas of Society and Culture and Creative Arts (Department of Education and Training, 2018), which indicates significant numbers of female candidates. While candidate age is not a readily available statistic from the Department of Education, it is worth considering that government financial aid in the form of the Australian Government’s Research Training Program is extremely competitive and, without it, many candidates are unable to support themselves through their study without other secure sources of income. This might account for the large number of part-time and mid- or post-career candidates in our project group.

There was also limited cultural and linguistic diversity: all candidates were enrolled as domestic students, which requires Australian or New Zealand citizenship or permanent residency. This is not, however, dissimilar to the demographic of the creative arts and humanities cohort nationally. Participants represented a number of institutions, although predominantly they were enrolled in research degrees at Central Queensland University, the host organisation for this research. It is important to note that Central Queensland University is a regional university in Australia, with a widely distributed campus footprint. As such, it is unsurprising that this cohort is more likely to feature regional candidates studying externally in comparison to a metropolitan university. Within this group, candidates were a combination of on-campus and distance, and a mixture of full-time and part-time study mode. These factors may influence the findings although, as noted, this demographic is (anecdotally) not so dissimilar to the national ‘average’ demographic of such a cohort, especially in the creative arts.

Findings 1: Basic and organising themes

The following transcription (see Table 1) represents the key challenges of candidature that were discussed, workshopped by the group, and synthesised on the whiteboard during the workshop. The order is not indicative of when during the day the themes arose; however, it is indicative of where the group felt the themes resided, within and alongside other themes and concepts that came to the fore. As can be seen, eleven ‘meta themes’ emerged from this part of the workshop, under which a series of related themes and concepts were brought together. These meta themes, as noted above, were initially identified by the facilitators and then amended, consolidated or modified in conjunction with the candidates. While there was a strong sense of collaborative agreement about these themes by the end of the session, it is notable that some phrases and words were accompanied with question marks, showcasing the occasional ambiguity or alternative wordings. Within these related themes and concepts, some chimed more strongly with candidates and were felt to be more central to their research degree experience. These are bolded in Table 1.

Following this part of the workshop, wherein each candidate discussed the challenges they had faced, the focus turned to breakthroughs. The intention of this aspect of the process was to share key learnings where, in one way or another, each of the candidate had overcome a hurdle. This part of the workshop asked candidates to consider how they would describe these successful moments to others, sharing positive moments of their journey in order to not only educate, but also motivate their peers to achieve what they felt they had achieved. Eight meta themes emerged from this task (see Table 2), and as can be seen, are a combination of personal, emotional and cognitive themes, and practical/scaffolding ideas. While individual candidates identified their own breakthroughs, these were added to by others who had experienced similar breakthroughs. Again, the bolded words and phrases represent those that resonated most with the group.

Findings 2: Candidate reflections

At the end of Day 1, the candidates were asked to consider the following question and task and complete these overnight in writing, so that these could be used as the basis for what would take place during Day 2:

Question: What resonated most with you from today, and why?

Task: Map your own research journey using learning (cognitive) vs. emotional (human) milestones.

All completed this request. In their responses to the question, candidates identified a range of broad concepts and specific points of resonance throughout the first day of the workshop. A sample of some of their (paraphrased) responses include:

The importance of flexibility and resilience.

Finding one’s agency as a student: taking responsibility for the journey. One student suggested that ‘we have chosen this and we have to fight for it sometimes, and we have to own it’.

The importance of sharing stories across disciplines; even those from dissimilar disciplines allow for sharing ideas.

The expectations and challenges around specific creative practice methods.

Communication as a key component of the journey: with self, with others.

Remembering that students are not trained before they begin and are not expected to have all the answers in the beginning.

Finishing a research degree ideally brings cultural competency and the ability to ‘join the conversation’ of the academy.

Frustrations seem to stem from uncertainty.

What is the role of philosophising, and why it is important to remember to think.

The importance of bias: understanding it, seeing it, addressing it.

Importantly, as one candidate noted, no one suggested the process of undertaking a doctorate was without challenges. This process of realisation, which happened during the sharing of challenges and breakthroughs, was cathartic for some of our participants. A sense of collegial moral support developed across the group, regardless of any previous knowledge of each other. This aspect also reinforced the shared nature of the emergent themes as identified above (Findings 1), and is highly relevant to the aims of action learning, as described above.

In their responses to the task of mapping their own learning journey, candidates provided varied responses arranged as either cognitive or emotional moments and milestones. These were shared in feedback forms and, again, on the large whiteboards in the seminar room. Following the second day of the workshop, the facilitators were able to collate these responses into the table (see Table 3), again using a similar process of thematic analysis. Notably, this map happened in isolation from the candidates, unlike the activities from Day 1. As the map formed, it became clear that the terminology initially used to prompt candidate reflection – learning (cognitive) and emotional (human) – resonated with other writing on character and educational journeys, as well as with the aims of action learning.

The concept of the physical journey in relation to the emotional journey emerged from the data and framed the organisation and analysis of candidates’ accounts of their journey, which they reported in Day 2 of the workshop. Combining the narrative models of Campbell and Vogler, the following structure of the Hero’s Journey, emphasising the relationship between physicality and emotionality, is mapped by Batty (2010: 300–306).

Ordinary World/Limited Awareness of a Problem

Call to Adventure/Increased Awareness

Refusal of the Call/Reluctance to Change

Meeting with the Mentor/Overcoming Reluctance

Crossing the First Threshold/Committing to Change

Tests, Allies, Enemies/Experimenting with First Change

Approach to the Inmost Cave/Preparing for Big Change

Ordeal/Attempting Big Change

Reward/Consequences of the Attempt (Improvements and Setbacks)

The Road Back/Rededication to Change

Resurrection/Final Attempt at Big Change

Return with Elixir/Final Mastery of the Problem

Table 3 integrates these stages with mapping the research journey provided by candidates.

Discussion

Over the course of the two days, a wealth of information and reflection on the doctoral candidate experience emerged. This combined information and reflection, which was itself a combination of pre-considered ideas prior to attending the workshop; in-situ responses to facilitated conversation and discussion; and a result of post-workshop reflection. As facilitator-researchers, we engaged in ongoing thematic analysis both throughout the two-day workshop and in the months following, resulting in the four sets of data presented above.

From the two days, it was clear that the metaphor of the journey had emerged from the group. As facilitators, we had already discussed that the notional idea of a shared journey was something that could be used to discuss our own PhDs and subsequent supervisory experiences, but we did not wish to provide this as a template by which to run the workshop, or to direct candidates’ thinking. However, the journey metaphor emerged organically and became a way for candidates to discuss their research experiences, especially when considering their motivations, learning transformations, and the importance of process. For instance, candidates discussed the importance of ‘taking others on the journey with you’ (allies and enemies) rather than alienating their support networks when deep in their studies, and also the importance of understanding research and research skill development as a ‘process’ rather than a ‘problem’ with an immediately available solution. The group felt this was particularly relevant to them in the creative arts and humanities disciplines, where process is an integral and explicit part of any project.

These conversation points, and the cognitive/human journey task, allowed the researcher-facilitators to consolidate these maps and identify an overarching dual journey of the candidate experience during the research degree. The human – or emotional – response was seen as a crucial component to the journey, and sometimes one that took candidates by surprise. Participants described emotions ranging from frustration, deflation and despair (resonating with Mezirow’s ‘disorientation’, Campbell’s ‘ordeal’ and Perry’s ‘panic’) to the highs of enthusiasm, affirmation and empowerment. Considering the breadth of candidate experience in the workshop, it was telling that the emotional journey – as mapped above – appeared convergent for most participants, ultimately culminating in a realisation of being on a path towards transformation.

An important component of doctoral study is developing a researcher identity. Mantai recently identified that ‘candidates gain validation of their growing identity as a researcher, through a variety of activities and from a range of people’ (2017: 644). In particular, she notes that these practices of research identity are often influenced by a ‘melding of personal, social, informal, and formal learning instances’ (2017: 646). However, while research training focuses on many of these formal and informal activities (for example, encouraging candidates to present their research at internal seminars and external conferences and submit their findings for publication), there is little focus on the human, or ‘invisible’, experience of doctoral study. Considering the ongoing conversation in academic communities around excessive workloads (Krause, 2018), casualisation of the workforce (Allmer, 2017) and potential ‘burnout’ (Malesic, 2016), it seems imprudent to ignore the significant emotional labour candidates (and their supervisors) are experiencing in what is often the first step in the candidate’s academic journey.

While supervisors are undoubtedly already engaging in positive, supportive pastoral care practices for their candidates, framing this pastoral care specifically through a lens of transformation may be useful. Identifying emotional milestones within the journey, alongside the type of learning hurdles from which they typically emerge, could be a crucial factor in enhancing research training – for candidates and supervisors – which would respond to, and include, such invisible dimensions of doctoral study. By mapping the emotional path within the model of the Hero’s Journey (Campbell, Batty), and emphasising the transformational process of learning and its concomitant discomforts (Mezirow and Perry), we suggest a contextualising, cognitive-emotional guide for candidates and supervisors as they navigate (sometimes unsuccessfully) the challenges of doctoral research.

Conclusion

The doctorate represents the most advanced form of adult education and qualification. As a result, it is not surprising to see doctoral candidates demonstrating sophisticated levels of conceptual, procedural, declarative and metacognitive knowledge, as defined by Bloom’s taxonomy (see Anderson et al., 2001). The more human and emotional dimensions that progressively challenge candidates as they undertake the research journey, however, are invisible and may be overlooked, by candidates themselves as well as supervisors and their institutions. This study, which through its methodology encourages candidates and their supervisors to engage collaboratively to better identify and manage the complexity of doctoral study, offers a potentially useful model for research candidate support and training that addresses supervisor aversion to process-focused options (Hamilton et al., 2014). It also contributes to a more in-depth understanding of the emotional as well as the cognitive complexity of transformational learning that occurs in doctoral candidates, particularly those in the Creative Arts and Humanities who are challenged to reconfigure their identity as a researcher while still maintaining their creative and professional practice.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Craig Batty is a Professor and Head of Creative Writing at the University of Technology Sydney. He is the author, co-author and editor of eleven books, including Writing for the Screen: Creative and Critical Approaches (2nd ed.) (2019), Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry (2018) and Screenwriters and Screenwriting: Putting Practice into Context (2014). He has also published over 50 book chapters and journals articles on the topics of screenwriting practice, screenwriting theory, creative practice research and doctoral supervision.

Elizabeth Ellison is a Senior Lecturer of Creative Industries at Central Queensland University, Australia. She researches Australian writing, film and television, with a special interest in the Australian beach. She has been involved in two Australian Office of Learning and Teaching grants in postgraduate supervision of creative arts research degrees, and supervises research students in creative arts and creative industries.

Alison Owens is a Senior Lecturer in the Learning and Teaching Centre at the Australian Catholic University, and an adjunct Associate Professor (Education) at Central Queensland University. She holds dual PhDs (Education and also Creative Arts) and has over twenty-five years' university teaching experience. Alison regularly researches and publishes on topics relevant to higher education practice.

Donna Brien is a Professor of Creative Industries at Central Queensland University, Australia. Author and editor of over 30 books and exhibition catalogues, and author of over 200 scholarly book chapters and journal articles, Donna has completed major nationally-funded research projects on doctoral degrees in the creative arts, successfully supervised almost 50 research students to completion and examined over 100 Masters and Doctoral research theses. In 2014, she received the CQUniversity’s Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Research Higher Degree Supervision.

References

Adeyemo DA (2007) Moderating influence of emotional intelligence on the link between academic self-efficacy and achievement of university students. Psychology and developing societies 19(2): 199--213.

Aitchison C and Guerin C (2014) Writing groups, pedagogy, theory and practice: An introduction. In Claire Aitchison and Cally Guerin (eds.) Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond. London: Routledge, pp. 19--33.

Ali

Kohun

(2007) Dealing with social isolation to minimize doctoral attrition: A four stage framework. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 2: 33–49.

Allmer

(2017) Zero-hour contracts are turning university lecturers off the job. The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/zero-hour-contracts-are-turning-university-lecturers-off-the-job-74949 (accessed 19 June 2018).

Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (abridged edition). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Attride-Stirling

(2001) Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research 1(3): 385–405.

Barry

Woods

Warnecke

, et al. (2018) Psychological health of doctoral candidates: Study-related challenges and perceived performance. HERDSA 37(3): 468–483.

Batty

(2010) The physical and emotional threads of the archetypal hero’s journey: Proposing common terminology and re-examining the narrative model. Journal of Screenwriting 1(2): 291–308.

Batty

(2016) Collaboration, critique and a community of peers: The benefits of peer learning groups for screen production research degrees. Studies in Australasian Cinema 10(1): 65–78.

10.

Batty

Holbrook

(2017) Contributing to knowledge in creative writing research: What, where, how? TEXT: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses (special issue 44): 1–16.

11.

Batty

Sinclair

(2014) Peer-to-peer learning in the higher degree by research context: A creative writing case study. New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing 11(3): 335–346.

12.

Blass

Bertone

Luca

, et al. (2014) Developing a toolkit and framework to support new postgraduate research supervisors in emerging research areas. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/project-developing-toolkit-and-framework-support-new-postgraduate-research-supervisors-emerging-re-0 (accessed 19 March 2018).

13.

Boud

Brew

Dowling

, et al. (2014) Building local leadership for research education. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/project-building-local-leadership-research-education-2011 (accessed 19 June 2018).

14.

Bourke NA and Neilsen PM (2004) The problem of the exegesis in creative writing higher degrees. journal of writing and writing courses (3).

15.

Brien

(2006) Integrity in postgraduate curriculum: Developing research degrees that work. Paper presented at the APEIC 2005 Educational Integrity: Values in Teaching, Learning & Research, University of Newcastle.

16.

Brien

Williamson

(eds) (2009) Supervising the creative arts research higher degree. Special issue. TEXT (October). Available at: www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue6/content.htm (accessed 30 June 2018).

17.

Brien

McAllister

Owens

, et al. (2019) Researching, implementing and evaluating industry focused and cross-disciplinary doctoral training. International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 14: 651–673.

18.

Brown

Watson

(2010) Understanding the experience of female doctoral students. Journal of Further and Higher Education 34(3): 385–404.

19.

Bruce

Bell

Gasson

, et al. (2009) Towards a pedagogy of supervision in the technology disciplines. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/resource-towards-pedagogy-supervision-qut-2009 (accessed 19 March 2018).

20.

Campbell

(1993 [1949]) The Hero with a Thousand Faces. London: Fontana.

21.

Cantwell

(2006) Thinking and writing for your thesis. In: Denholm

Evans

(eds) Doctorates Downunder: Keys to Successful Doctoral Study. Camberwell: Acer Press, pp. 182–190.

22.

Carter

(2004) Material Thinking: The Theory and Practice of Creative Research. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

23.

Carter

(2009) Volunteer support of English as an Additional Language (EAL) Doctoral Students. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 4: 13–25.

24.

Carter

(2016) Supervision learning as threshold crossing: When supervision gets ‘medieval’. Higher Education Research and Development 35(6): 1139–1152.

25.

Carter

Blumenstein

Cook

(2013) Different for women? The challenges of doctoral study. Teaching in Higher Education 18(4): 339–351.

26.

Colbran

Tynan

(2008) Australian Law Postgraduate Network (ALPN). Available at: www.olt.gov.au/project-australian-law-postgraduate-network-une-2006 (accessed 19 March 2018).

27.

Department of Education and Training (2018) Higher Education Statistics Data Cube (uCube): Enrolment count by mode of attendance by type of attendance by gender by course level by field of education. Available at: http://highereducationstatistics.education.gov.au/ (accessed 19 June 2018).

28.

Dibble

van Loon

(2004) The higher degree research journey as a three-legged race. TEXT 8:2(October). Available at: www.gu.edu.au/school/art/text (accessed 30 June 2018).

29.

Evans

(2011) The scholarship of researcher development: Mapping the terrain and pushing back boundaries. International Journal for Researcher Development 2: 75–98.

30.

Finlayson

(2012) Encounters with future selves: Crafting an identity as a creative-writing academic. In: Encounters: Place, Situation, Context – The Refereed Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the Australasian Association of Writing Programs, Geelong, Australia, 2012, pp. 1–9.

31.

Golovushkina

Milligan

(2012) Developing early stage researchers. International Journal for Researcher Development 3: 64–78.

32.

Hamilton

Thomas

Carson

, et al. (2014) Good practice report: Postgraduate research and coursework degrees. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/resource-good-practice-report-postgraduate-research-and-coursework-degrees-2014 (accessed 19 March 2018).

33.

Hammond

Ryland

Tennant

, et al. (2010) Building research supervision and training across Australian universities. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/project-building-research-supervision-uts-2007 (accessed 19 March 2018).

34.

Harrison

(2014) Pro-active music higher degrees: Promoting, acting on and evaluating quality teaching and learning in music higher degrees. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/resource-pro-active-music-higher-degrees (accessed 19 March 2018).

35.

Homewood

Winchester-Seeto

Mackaway

, et al. (2010) Development and evaluation of resources to enhance skills in higher degree research supervision in a cross-cultural context. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/project-development-evaluation-resources-macquarie-2007 (accessed 19 March 2018).

36.

Hyun JK, Quinn BC, Madon T, et al. (2006) Graduate student mental health: Needs assessment and utilization of counseling services. Journal of College Student Development 47(3): 247--266

37.

Kemmis S and McTaggart R (2005) Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

38.

Kiley

(2011) Where are our doctoral candidates coming from and why? Available at: www.olt.gov.au/resources (accessed 19 March 2018).

39.

Kiley

(2013) I’ve done a coursework masters now I’d like to do a doctorate: Can I? Available at: www.olt.gov.au/resource-Ive-done-a-coursework-masters-now-Id-do-doctorate-can-I (accessed 19 March 2018).

40.

Kiley

Bell

Feng

(2013) Report of the online surveys related to OLT-funded project: ‘Coursework in Australian Doctoral Education: What’s happening, why, and future directions? Available at: http://chelt.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/20131113combined survey report final.pdf (accessed 19 June 2018).

41.

Krause

(2018) We must confront the culture of overwork to tackle academia’s mental health crisis. Times Higher Education. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/we-must-confront-culture-overwork-tackle-academias-mental-health-crisis (accessed 19 June 2018).

42.

Kroll

(2009) The supervisor as practice-led coach and trainer: Getting creative writing doctoral candidates across the finish line. TEXT: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses 6(Special issue): 1–21. Available at: www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue6/content.htm (accessed 21 May 2015).

43.

Kroll

Brien

(2006) Studying for the future: Training creative writing postgraduates for life after degrees. Australian Online Journal of Arts Education 2(1): 1–13.

44.

Lia

(2011) Skills versus pedagogy? Doctoral research training in the UK Arts and Humanities. Higher Education Research & Development 30(6): 11.

45.

Malesic

(2016) The 40-year-old burnout: Why I gave up tenure for a yet-to-be-determined career. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: www.chronicle.com/article/The-40-Year-Old-Burnout/237979 (accessed 19 June 2018).

46.

Mantai

(2017) Feeling like a researcher: experiences of early doctoral students in Australian. Studies in Higher Education 42(4): 636–650.

47.

Maor

Fraser

(2015) Design of a participatory supervision support platform for improving higher degree supervision: A feasibility study. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/project-design-participatory-super-vision-support-platform-improving-higher-degree-supervision-feasi (accessed 19 March 2018).

48.

Marquardt M and Waddill D (2004) The power of learning in action learning: a conceptual analysis of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the practice of action learning. Action learning: Research and practice 1(2): 185--202.

49.

Masson

(2016) Breaking the pattern: Established writers undertaking creative writing doctorates in Australia. TEXT: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses 20(2): 1–9.

50.

McAllister

Rowe

(2003) Blackbirds singing in the dead of night? Advancing dialogue on the craft of teaching qualitative health research. Journal of Nursing Education 42(7): 296–303.

51.

McTaggart R, Nixon R and Kemmis S (2017) Critical participatory action research. In: Lonnie L. Rowell, Joseph M. Shosh, Catherine D. Bruce and Margaret D. Riel (eds). The Palgrave international handbook of action research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21--35.

52.

McWilliam

Lawson

Taylor

(2005) Silly, soft and otherwise suspect: Doctoral education as risky business. Australian Journal of Education 49(2): 214–227.

53.

Mezirow

(2000) Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. .

54.

Mezirow

Taylor

(2009) Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace and Higher Education (EBook Central). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

55.

Perry

(1975) Intellectual and ethical development in the college years. In: Entwistle

Hounsell

(eds) How Students Learn. Lancaster: Institute for Research and Development in Post-Compulsory Education, University of Lancaster, UK, pp. 139–149.

56.

Phillips

Stock

Vincs

(2009) Dancing between diversity and consistency: Evaluating assessment in postgraduate studies in dance. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/project-dancing-between-diversity-ecu-2006 (accessed 19 March 2018).

57.

Porter

Phelps

(2014) Beyond skills: An integrative approach to doctoral student preparation for diverse careers. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 44(3): 13.

58.

Ravelli

Paltridge

Starfield

(eds) (2014) Doctoral Writing in the Visual and Performing Arts. Faringdon: Libri.

59.

Simmons

Holbrook

(2013) From rupture to resonance: Uncertainty and scholarship in Fine Art research degrees. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 12(2–3): 204–221.

60.

Trochim

Donnelly

Arora

(2015) Research Methods: The Essential Knowledge Base. 2nd ed. New York: Cengage Learning.

61.

Vogler

(1999) The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Storytellers and Screenwriters. 2nd ed. London: Pan Books.

62.

Walker

Campbell

Duff

, et al. (2016) Doctoral education for nurses today: The PhD or professional doctorate? Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 34(1): 60–69.

63.

Webb

Brien

(2008) Australian Writing Programs Network (CG642) Final Report prepared for the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/project-australian-writing-programs-network-uc-2006 (accessed 19 March 2018).

64.

Webb

Brien

Burr

(2012) Examining doctorates in the creative arts: A guide. Canberra: Australasian Association of Writing Programs. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/project-examination-doctoral-degrees-creative-arts-process-practice-and-standards-2010 (accessed 19 March 2018).

65.

Wilson

(2018) Artists in the University: Positioning Artistic Research in Higher Education. Singapore: Springer.

66.

Yarlagadda

Woodman

Silva

, et al. (2013) A model for research supervision of international students in engineering and information technology disciplines. Available at: www.olt.gov.au/project-holistic-model-research-supervision-international-students-engineering-and-information-techn (accessed 19 March 2018).