Margaret Kiley

Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates

In this article I argue that doctoral candidates undertake a form of rite of passage, generally incorporating several shorter rites of passage, during their candidature of three to five years. Furthermore, there are times during their research education when many candidates demonstrate through their writing, presentation, discussion, and even demeanour, that they have undergone a change in the way they understand their learning and themselves as learners. These changes, it is suggested, indicate that the candidate has encountered a threshold concept and has crossed that threshold. Encountering these concepts can be a challenging experience for candidates as they transform their ways of viewing knowledge and themselves. For many doctoral candidates there is at least one stage during candidature when they could be described as being ‘stuck’ as they encounter a particular threshold concept which challenges them. The experience of being ‘stuck’ can manifest as depression, a sense of hopelessness, ‘going round in circles’ and so on. This sense of being ‘stuck’ occurs at the time when a candidate can be described as being in a liminal state, the state prior to the crossing of a threshold. Having established this context I then discuss the role of communities of learners and research culture as ways to assist candidates in recognising this ‘stuckness’ and to assist them to become ‘unstuck’ and move on with a new sense of confidence and appreciation of themselves as learners and researchers.

Promoting and recognising excellence in the supervision of research students: an evidence‐based framework

One issue universities face is the need to demonstrate excellence in postgraduate research supervision at the individual, faculty and university level. While poor supervision might become obvious over time, with grievances, withdrawals and poor completion times and rates, this paper focuses specifically on identifying and demonstrating supervisory excellence. Currently, the amount and range of evidence used to support claims of supervisory excellence tends to be limited, leaving supervisors, faculties and institutions in a position where demonstrating excellence remains difficult. This paper proposes two inter‐dependent ideas which, considered together, help to redress this problem. The first is a ‘map’ for the collection and use of evidence of supervisory excellence. The second is a ‘template’ for a ‘supervisory excellence report’. The ‘map’ details the organisational elements, uses of data, and data types which can be considered. The ‘report’ explains one simple and potent way to organise and present these data for multiple purposes. Together they constitute a much‐needed framework for promoting and recognising excellence in the supervision of research students.

‘You don’t want a smart Alec’: selecting examiners to assess doctoral dissertations

The use of external examiners in the doctoral assessment process is seen as a quality assurance process in most higher education systems. This article suggests that the selection of examiners is a critical aspect of that process. Interview analysis highlights the professional/academic considerations involved in selecting suitable examiners, as well as the somewhat more difficult to determine personality issues. Most of the findings lead to an appreciation that experienced supervisors see one of their roles in selecting examiners as protecting their doctoral students from the ‘bad and mad’, and looking for those examiners who have empathy and understanding, while at the same time maintaining high standards and integrity. A particular concern raised in the article is that of inexperienced supervisors selecting examiners, given the finding that most experienced supervisors ensure that they know, or at the very least know of, the personality traits of potential examiners.

From knowledge acquisition to knowledge production: issues with Australian honours curricula

Although there have been increasing attempts to involve undergraduate students in conducting research, a pivotal moment when students engage in knowledge production is during honours programmes. Honours programmes, particularly those in Australia, seek to develop students’ capacity to engage in higher order thinking that may lead to knowledge production. This transition is facilitated through advanced disciplinary knowledge, research training and a research project. However, there is a pedagogical tension between requiring students to engage in this deeper level of inquiry at the same time as they complete a heavy knowledge acquisition load. This paper explores how a number of disciplines in Australia balance these elements of the honours curricula. It argues that the combination of these curriculum goals can make it difficult for students to apply the knowledge they have gained in advanced disciplinary and research training courses to their research project work. This has serious implications for honours programmes.

‘To develop research skills’: Honours programmes for the changing research agenda in Australian universities

Within Australian universities the results of Honours have traditionally been used as the main entry requirement for a research degree and as a means of ranking for research scholarships. But despite the critical role of Honours, there has been little research about Honours. There is an untested assumption that universities offering Honours programmes, staff teaching them, and students undertaking them share common assumptions about their purpose. To test this assumption the researchers undertook an initial study across five Australian universities in two different disciplines, to identify the extent to which staff and students in different disciplines and different universities held varying views about the purpose of the Honours. Honours coordinators and students in the sample universities were interviewed and Honours information for the universities examined. Results indicate that indeed the aims of an Honours programme and the reasons for enrolling in Honours do vary. However, more significantly, there have been identifiable changes in the structure and nature of Honours programmes over recent years that may not support some of the traditionally held views of Honours, particularly as a selection mechanism for enrolment in, and scholarship ranking for, higher degrees by research.

Conserver, Strategist or Transformer: The experiences of postgraduate student sojourners

A longitudinal study of Indonesian postgraduate students studying in an Australian university indicates that in terms of change the students clustered into three main groups: Transformers, Strategists and Conservers. Transformers (25% of the group) reported having undergone significant change in the way that they viewed the world and their learning compared with when they started. Strategists (approximately 50%) realised that there were certain skills and attitudes required of them if they were to be successful in their new learning environment. These students also reported that they were aware of the need to revert to other, more culturally appropriate, ways of interacting on their return home. Conservers (approximately 25%) reported that they were keen to increase their knowledge and skill, but at the same time they did not want to change who they were and the way they viewed the world. The characteristics of each of these clusters of students and the critical factors are reported.

Professional learning: lessons for supervision from doctoral examining

Most research into research supervision practice focuses on functional, collegial or problematic power-related experiences. Work developing the supervisory role concentrates on new supervisors, and on taught development and support programmes. Most literature on academics’ professional learning concentrates on learning to be a university teacher and, latterly, a researcher. However, the research supervisor’s role is constantly evolving in response to experiences with students, and reflection on this can contribute to professional learning. Initial research suggests examiners learn from examining experiences feeding back into supervisory roles. We argue that being a thesis examiner provides academic staff with opportunities to learn about their own supervisory practices, enhancing their professional learning. Our research reports on examiner perceptions of learning from examining doctoral theses, which can be taken back into supervisory practice, and translated into advice for other supervisors and doctoral students.

Australian postgraduate research students still prefer to ‘stay at home’: reasons and implications

Work in 1997 on Australian research postgraduate student mobility indicated that most students chose to remain at their current institution to undertake a research degree rather than move elsewhere, and that they were unlikely to seek widely for information. The present study aimed to determine, 7 years later, if there had been changes in student mobility or the way in which students sought information. The results show that student mobility is virtually the same with only 12 per cent of respondents indicating they were planning to accept a scholarship to undertake a research masters or doctorate at a different university in a different State following completion of their previous degree; 18 per cent were moving to a different university but in the same State, and 61 per cent were remaining at the same university. As with the previous study, it was clear that students preferred to seek advice on future study from their existing supervisor or their departmental colleagues, and that accessing information via the Internet and print media was undertaken relatively rarely. These results are discussed within the context of the higher degree by research (HDR) environment in Australia, the likely benefits of student mobility, and possible strategies for emulating the benefits of mobility with these ‘stay at home’ students.

I Didn't Have a Clue What They Were Talking About: PhD Candidates and Theory.

Existing literature suggests that a particular learning challenge for some doctoral candidates is coming to an understanding the concept of theory, that is the use of theory to frame research as well as theorising findings. The concept of theory has been identified as a Threshold Concept taking into account the characteristics of these concepts outlined by Meyer and Land. However, there has been little work that has focused on strategies that supervisors and candidates adopt to help them move from the liminal ‘stuck’ space of not understanding, to crossing the conceptual threshold following insight and the ‘Aha!’ moment. This paper draws on a Threshold Concepts framework, particularly liminality and being ‘stuck’, in the analysis of interviews and discussions with 21 experienced supervisors and 10 doctoral candidates. It focuses on how participants witnessed and experienced ‘stuckness’ regarding theory and theorising and strategies adopted to assist with understanding and becoming ‘unstuck’.

The coordination role in research education: emerging understandings and dilemmas for leadership

Changes in expectations of research education worldwide have seen the rise of new demands beyond supervision and have highlighted the need for academic leadership in research education at a local level. Based on an interview study of those who have taken up local leadership roles in four Australian universities, this paper maps and analyses different dimensions of the emerging leadership role of research education coordination. It argues that while there is increasing clarity of what is required, there are considerable tensions in the nature of the coordination role and how coordination is to be executed. In particular, what leadership roles are appropriate and how can they be positioned effectively within universities? The paper draws on the Integrated Competing Values Framework to focus on the activities of coordination and on ideas of distributed leadership to discuss the leadership that characterises coordination. It is argued that without acknowledgement of the influences that coordinators need to exert and the positioning and support needed to achieve this, the contemporary agenda for research education will not be realised.