AUR 54 01
Australian Universities' Review, vol. 54, no. 1, February 2012.
vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Published by NTEU ISSN 0818�8068 Special Issue Contemporary issues in doctoral education AUR Australian Universities'Review Editorial Policy The Australian Universities' Review (AUR, formerly Vestes) is published by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) to encourage debate and discussion about issues in higher education and its contribution to Australian public life, with an emphasis on those matters of concern to NTEU members. Editorial decisions are made by the Editor, assisted by the AUR Editorial Board. The views expressed in articles in this publication, unless otherwise stated, are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Editor, the Editorial Board or the publisher. Although some contributions are solicited by the Editor or the Editorial Board, AUR is anxious to receive contributions independently from staff and students in the higher education sector and other readers. AUR publishes both articles and other contributions, including short commentary and satire. Articles will be assessed by independent referees before publication. Priority is given to contributions which are substantial, lively, original and have a broad appeal. Responses to previously published contributions are encouraged. AUR is listed on the DIISR (formerly DEEWR and DEST) register of refereed journals. Book Reviews Books for review should be sent to the Editor. Our policy is to review books dealing either with tertiary education or with matters pertinent to issues in tertiary education. Book reviews should be between 200 and 1200 words; review essays may be longer. AUR Editor Dr Ian R Dobson, University of Helsinki Satire Do you have something satirical to say about the Australian higher education sector? Send it in! Special Issue Editors Dr Anita Devos, Monash University Dr Catherine Manathunga, Victoria University, Aotearoa NZ Replies and letters AUR welcomes letters of response to articles published in the journal. Longer responses to articles are also encouraged. Responses should be a maximum of 1,000 words, and should be received within a month after the publication of the journal so that they can be properly considered by the Editor and the Editorial Board for the following issue. AUR Editorial Board Dr Jeannie Rea, NTEU National President Dr Timo Aarrevaara, University of Helsinki Professor Walter Bloom, Murdoch University Dr Anita Devos, Monash University Dr Jamie Doughney, Victoria University Dr Leo Goedegebuure, University of Melbourne Professor Ralph Hall, University of New South Wales Professor Dr Simon Marginson, University of Melbourne Mr Grahame McCulloch, NTEU General Secretary Dr Alex Millmow, University of Ballarat Dr Neil Mudford, UNSW@ADFA Professor Paul Rodan, Swinburne University of Technology Dr Leesa Wheelahan, University of Melbourne Subscriptions AUR is free to NTEU members on an opt-in basis. Full details at www.aur.org.au/subscription.html. Annual subscription rates (inclusive of GST where applicable): Australia and NZ $60 AUD Overseas airmail $80 AUD Overseas payments should be made by credit card or bank draft in Australian currency. Contributions Please adhere to the style notes outlined on this page. Contributors should send digital manuscripts in Word format, preferably by email to email@example.com. Contributions on CD or PC disk will also be accepted. Contributions should normally be between 1,000 and 5,000 words, although longer articles will be considered. All articles should be accompanied by an abstract that would not usually be longer than 150 words. The author's full contact details should be provided, including email address, telephone and fax. Contributions are sent to a minimum of two referees, in accordance with DIISR requirements for blind peer review. Advertising AUR is published twice a year, in February and September. The current hard copy circulation is approximately 8,000 per issue. Rates are available on application to National Publications Coordinator, NTEU (email firstname.lastname@example.org). Production Design & layout: Paul Clifton Editorial support: Anastasia Kotaidis Cover photograph: Graduation Ceremony 2011, Charles Sturt University. � Dirk HR Spennemann 2011. Used with permission. Archive This issue and previous issues of AUR can be viewed online at www.aur.org.au. Contact Details Australian Universities' Review, c/- NTEU National Office, PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC Australia 3205 Phone: +613 9254 1910 Fax: +613 9254 1915 Email: email@example.com For a web reference: Website www.aur.org.au Style Style should follow the APA Referencing Guide, 6th edition. Style sheet available at www.aur.org.au/submissions References in the text should be given in the author-date style: King (2004) argues... or as various authors argue (King 2004; Markwell 2007). Page references should be thus: (King 2004, p. 314). Page references should be used for direct quotations. The reference list should be placed in alphabetical order at the end of the paper, utilising the author-date system. For a reference to a book: Markwell, D. (2007). The challenge of student engagement. http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/95565/Student_ engagement_-_Don_Markwell_-_30_Jan_2007.pdf For URLs, do not include retrieval dates unless the source material may change over time (e.g. wikis). Sub-headings should be typed in lower case, ranged left, with relative importance indicated by A, B etc. Single quotation marks only should be used, except for quotes within quotes. All quotes of more than 50 words should be indented and placed in a separate paragraph. Dates thus: 30 June 2010. `ise' should be used rather than `ize', e.g. organise not organize. `per cent' should be used rather than `%' in the text. Abbreviations should be avoided, but if their use is necessary, they should be explained at their first use. Neither male nor female pronouns should be used to refer to groups containing persons of both sexes. Figures, photographs and illustrations should be provided in high resolution (300dpi) EPS, PDF, JPEG or TIFF format, numbered consecutively in the order in which they appear (or are cited). Figures should be drawn precisely and boldly. In accordance with NTEU policy to reduce our impact on the natural environment, this journal is printed on a 30% recycled stock, manufactured by a PEFC Certified mill, which is ECF Certified Chlorine Free. AUR is also available online as an e-book and PDF. Visit www.aur.org.au for details. NTEU members may opt for `soft delivery' (email notification rather than printed copy) for all NTEU magazines. To access your membership details, login to the members' area at www.nteu.org.au. Gall, M., Gall, J. & Borg, W. (2003). Education Research: An introduction (7th ed.), Allyn and Bacon, New York For a journal reference: King, D.A. (2004). What different countries get for their research spending. Nature 430, pp. 311-316. For a reference to a chapter in a collection: McCollow, J. & Knight, J. (2005). Higher Education in Australia: An Historical Overview, in Bella, M., McCollow, J. & Knight, J. (eds), Higher Education in Transition, University of Queensland, Brisbane. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Published by NTEU ISSN 0818�8068 Special Issue Contemporary issues in doctoral education Australian Universities' Review 2 5 Letter from the editors Anita Devos & Catherine Manathunga 72 Assessing international (post)graduate education: A research agenda Tami Blumenfield & Maresi Nerad On doctoral education: How to supervise a PhD, 1985-2011 Raewyn Connell & Catherine Manathunga 10 Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education Bill Green Despite the rapid expansion of international campuses and programmes, and the increasing acceptance and encouragement of international experiences for [post]graduate students, little comprehensive evaluative work has been done to assess their efficacy on a broad scale and to determine what types and models of international work can be most effective. 83 A new era for research education in Australia? Helene Marsh, Bradley Smith, Max King & Terry Evans In this paper, the author reflects on the 1995 Special Issue of AUR on postgraduate supervision/pedagogy, bringing a contemporary set of perspectives to bear in thinking about the contested idea of `curriculum' in doctoral education. 19 Researching doctoral pedagogy close up: Design and action in two doctoral programmes Susan Danby & Alison Lee In this article the authors argue that the use of the Australian research assessment exercise, Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA), to influence the policy and practice of research education is inappropriate and with potentially negative consequences, as ERA is a retrospective measure of research quality while research education is prospective. 94 PhDs in Australia, from the beginning Ian R Dobson In this paper, we present two cases of doctoral pedagogical work being undertaken within different disciplinary and institutional settings to describe how learning opportunities were designed and to theorise what it means to be engaged in doing doctoral pedagogy. 29 Supervisors watching supervisors Catherine Manathunga The Australian PhD is a relatively recent phenomenon, the first three being awarded in 1948. The aim of this research note is to provide a brief statistical history of the Australian PhD, noting changes over time between study fields, universities, genders and citizenship groups. REVIEWS 102 Thanks to the Yanks! A Cohort of Pioneers: Australian postgraduate students and American postgraduate degrees 1949-1964 by Sally Ninham Review by Paul Rodan This paper focuses on one particular aspect of the operations of power within team supervision � the issue of how power circulates between supervisors. 38 Identity-trajectories Lynn McAlpine This paper draws on evidence from a five-year research programme into doctoral experience to argue for a view of identity, identity-trajectory, that attends particularly to individual agency, interweaving the academic within the personal, and incorporating students' pasts and imagined futures. 47 What constitutes doctoral knowledge? Anita Devos & Margaret Somerville 103 Gender, power, management... and higher education Gender, Power and Management � A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Higher Education, by Barbara Bagilhole & Kate White (eds). Review by Michelle Wallace This paper explores a recent contested doctoral thesis examination process, focusing in particular on the implications for innovation and difference in doctoral work. 55 Internationalisation of doctoral education Janette Ryan 105 It's one for the money, two for the show Australian Higher Education Research Policies and Performance 1987-2010 by Frank Larkins Review by Pam Herman With a rapid increase in the number of international students undertaking doctorates in Australia and the UK, the postgraduate research student cohort has radically changed as these students have brought with them different academic cultures and intellectual traditions. 64 Up and coming? Doctoral education in China Rui Yang 107 Us and them: multiculturalism in the classroom Negotiating Political Identities: Multiethnic Schools and Youth in Europe by Daniel Faas Review by Neil Mudford In view of a lack of literature in English on Chinese doctoral education, this article attempts to provide an analytical review of China's current practices as well as some issues and challenges faced by the system in meeting societal needs and future development. 109 South-east of the border, down Asia way Education in South-East Asia, by Colin Brock & Lorraine Pe Symaco (eds). Review by Andrys Onsman A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Letter from the editors Anita Devos Monash University, Victoria Catherine Manathunga Victoria University, Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand This Special Issue on doctoral education emerged out of an Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) symposium in 2009 that brought together a small number of Australian researchers, sharing a common interest in the ongoing development of the theoretical foundations of research into doctoral education. Entitled `Doctoral education, new pedagogies and the possibilities of new knowledges', the symposium aimed to `explore what happens when we start to think and theorise about doctoral education differently'. Our interest was in `the generative possibilities of re-theorising the space of doctoral education...'. Many of the questions that concerned the presenters centred on issues of knowledge, power and identity in doctoral education and pedagogy. Following this symposium, we approached the Board of the Australian Universities' Review (AUR), which agreed to a Special Issue of the journal on doctoral education. We felt that this journal was a particularly appropriate forum through which to disseminate our calls for a review of doctoral education research. Not only is AUR a long standing academic journal and source of commentary on higher education in Australia and internationally, but it also has a long track record of publishing groundbreaking articles on doctoral education. It was in AUR's predecessor journal, Vestes, that R W Connell's piece `How to supervise a PhD' first appeared in 1985. This article generated considerable discussion over the following decade and prompted a Special Issue of AUR in 1995 on `Postgraduate Studies/ Postgraduate Pedagogy', edited by Alison Lee & Bill Green. The 1995 Special Issue has been one of the most popular in AUR's history, reflecting a pressing need at the time to energetically take up Connell's call to reframe postgraduate supervision as teaching, interpreted later by Lee and Green as a `call to pedagogy'. In our view, it is timely now to devote another issue of AUR to this topic. The field has grown considerably in the intervening years, and shifts in the policy and global environments of higher education foreground the importance of maintaining a critical and engaged commentary. In this Special Issue, we have sought to reflect on the 1985 article, and 1995 issue and its goals, and to consider current directions and questions in the field of what we now refer to as doctoral education. This shift in nomenclature from postgraduate supervision and pedagogy to doctoral education � now widely referred to in policy circles as research training � reflects a greater harnessing of this form of higher education to the knowledge economy, and a sharper focus on the doctorate in its various forms as opposed to Masters by Research degrees. The question of what's in a name is taken up in some of the articles in this present issue, and in other recent publications (Boud & Lee 2009 for example). This Special Issue sits within a lively field of scholarship and commentary, in Australasia and globally. Doctoral education has emerged since the seminal 1995 AUR issue as a burgeoning international sub-field of higher education research. Just a few of the recent and emerging contributions to this field include a Special Issue of Innovations in Education and Teaching International on `Supervision and Cultural Difference' guest edited by Barbara Grant and Catherine Manathunga (2011); an edited book by Boud and Lee (2009); and a forthcoming edited book by Lee and Danby (in press, 2012). vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 2 Letter from the editors, Anita Devos & Catherine Manathunga A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W There have also been a number of dedicated international conference series on doctoral education such as the Quality in Postgraduate Education Conference, held biennially in Adelaide since 1994; and the Global Forces and Forms of Doctoral Education conference series developed by the Center for Innovations and Research in Graduate Education, University of Washington, Seattle that has produced a number of edited books since 2005. Another international grouping of scholars investigating doctoral education is the International Doctoral Education Research Network (IDERN), which held its first conference in Canada in 2007. IDERN's most recent conference was held in Malaysia in 2010 and produced a Special Issue of the Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (2011) and an edited book (Kumar & Lee 2011). This reflects attempts to shift away from an Anglo-American orientation to the field, to engage with scholars and scholarly traditions from Malaysia and other parts of Asia. Two of the papers in this present Special Issue also focus on doctoral education in China and Hong Kong. This Special Issue does not aim to be comprehensive but rather to draw out some interesting research from the field that might contribute to attempts to rethink doctoral education pedagogies and the impacts of contexts on this field. We have sought an international spread of authors from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, the UK, the US and Hong Kong. We have grouped the papers into three broad sections. In the introductory section, we build a bridge from Connell's 1985 article and the 1995 Special Issue, with an article based on an edited interview with Raewyn Connell, conducted by Catherine Manathunga. In this article, Connell reflects on what prompted her to write the 1985 paper, and how doctoral education pedagogies and contexts have changed since that time. This piece is followed by an article by one of the editors of the 1995 Special Issue, Bill Green, where he reflects on the arguments he and Alison Lee made in 1995 about `supervision as pedagogy' based upon the `educational orientation' of Connell's piece. His current contribution focuses attention on the question of curriculum in doctoral education. The second section represents a group of papers exploring aspects of pedagogy that were less well covered in the 1995 Special Issue. These shifts reflect changes in the ways in which supervision and doctoral education are conducted in the present era. This section commences with an article by Susan Danby and Alison Lee where they extend Lee's earlier work on supervision as pedagogy by writing about pedagogy as social action within the broader doctoral programme. Catherine Manvol. 54, no. 1, 2012 athunga then explores team supervision pedagogy using a Foucauldian lens, highlighting how team supervision opens up new pedagogical possibilities and challenging tensions. Lynn McAlpine's paper investigates instances of student agency and identity trajectories during their doctoral studies. Anita Devos and Margaret Somerville's article concludes this section, with a contribution that interrogates the challenges to knowledge domains and academic identities confronted at the point of thesis examination by the incorporation of new, non-Western knowledge and methodologies in contemporary scholarship. The final section of this Special Issue explores some of the key contextual changes that have increasingly come to frame doctoral education since 1995. In particular, this section includes a suite of papers that investigate various aspects of internationalisation that have come to dominate the educational environment within which doctoral education takes place. Janette Ryan's article on Western and Confucian scholarship demonstrates the similarities and differences between these two knowledge systems and the ways in which these are also changing in the face of attempts to engage during doctoral education in intercultural dialogue and mutual learning. Rui Yang then explores the recent exponential development of doctoral education in China, tracing the issues and challenges emerging from China's current doctoral education practices and the role doctoral education is likely to play in China's rising global power. Tami Blumenfeld and Maresi Nerad investigate US international (post)graduate education and collaboration in the sciences and engineering, proposing a model for evaluating the effectiveness of these doctoral education programmes and making a series of recommendations about how they might be improved. The penultimate paper by Helene Marsh, Bradley Smith, Max King and Terry Evans shifts the focus to the policy context of Australian doctoral education and research, investigating the potentially negative implications of linking the funding of research education places to institutions which score at `world standard or above' in particular fields of research in the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) research assessment exercise. The Special Issue concludes with a research note by Ian Dobson, which provides an historical, statistical snapshot of the changes in the study fields, universities, gender and citizenship groups of doctorates in Australia since the late 1940s. In this Special Issue, we have sought to challenge some of the normative assumptions about doctoral supervision and pedagogy that persist in current discourses and scholLetter from the editors, Anita Devos & Catherine Manathunga 3 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W arship, and to foreground theoretically informed work about the pedagogies and contexts of doctoral education. We frame this issue through a reflection on earlier scholarship in AUR and its predecessor Vestes, and build from that to reflect the changed and changing landscapes of doctoral education scholarship today. It is our hope the articles published here will stimulate further discussion and debate, and promote doctoral education and scholarship as a space of imagination and possibility. References Boud, D. & Lee, A. (eds) (2009). Changing practices of doctoral education. Abingdon UK: Routledge. Connell, R. (1985). How to supervise a PhD. Vestes, 28(2), 38-42. Lee, A. & Danby, S. (eds) (in press, 2012). Reshaping Doctoral Education: Changing programs and pedagogies. Abingdon UK: Routledge Grant, B. & Manathunga, C. (2011). Supervision and cultural difference: institutional rethinking institutional pedagogies. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 48:4, 351-354. Lee, A. & Green, B. (1995). Introduction: Postgraduate studies/postgraduate pedagogy? Australian Universities' Review, 38(2) 1-4. Kumar, V. & Lee, A. (eds) (2011). Doctoral education in international context. Serdang: Penerbit Universiti Putra Malaysia. Kumar, V. & Lee, A. (eds) (2011). Special Issue. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. 19:2. Acknowledgments We would especially like to highlight the high levels of commitment by the authors of this Special Issue and the generosity of the reviewers of these papers. Our reviewers were drawn from the UK, Europe, North America, China, Hong Kong, South Africa, Sweden, Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand and we extend our sincere thanks for your excellent feedback and responsiveness to our timetable. Anita Devos is Senior Lecturer and Graduate Coordinator Research Degrees in the Faculty of Education, Monash University, and Editorial Board member of AUR. Dr Catherine Manathunga is an Associate Professor in Education, Victoria University Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand. 4 Letter from the editors, Anita Devos & Catherine Manathunga vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W On doctoral education How to supervise a PhD, 1985�2011 Raewyn Connell University of Sydney, NSW Catherine Manathunga Victoria University, Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand It's more than 25 years ago now since I wrote that piece on postgraduate supervision for Vestes (Connell 1985)1. I wrote it about 15 years after I'd finished my own PhD. I believe I was the first person to be awarded a PhD in my department at the end of the 1960s. So I came into the system at the time Australian universities were just building up a research capability, and particularly a higher degree capability. Prior to the late 1940s, Australian universities, which had first been founded in the Gold Rush days of the 1850s, had basically been undergraduate institutions and finishing schools for the children of the local bourgeoisie, training places for lawyers and doctors, and some teachers.They'd set up the Australian National University at the end of the 1940s in order to have a graduate element in the Australian university system. That arrangement didn't last long because other Australian universities introduced graduate education as well. Because Australian universities were basically a colonial outpost for the British universities, they took the model of higher degree study from Britain, not from Germany or the United States. Therefore, the PhD was an independent piece of research, with a supervisor who was supposed to be a learned scholar in the field giving you guidance. No one really thought very much about what this involved as a form of education. And the result was a lot of very poor supervision, a lot of really badly planned PhD projects, and a very high dropout rate. You had departments that enrolled quite significant numbers of PhD students and vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 basically gave them nothing, just expected them to get on with it and a few years later produce this magnificent thesis. So there was a lot of really bad practice because departments got kudos for having graduate students and invested very little in return. They didn't count PhD supervision as any part of an academic's workload either. It was as if you did this by a kind of divine aura around you as a scholar, and the student would stand close and get warmed by this. This approach was all very well if the student already knew how to do it, which a few did. I was lucky in that respect because I did know how to do it more or less. I had a good honours undergraduate programme and I had role models within my family and so forth. My relationship with my supervisor was very benign, and he was very supportive, but it was largely me kicking on and doing it, without any interaction with the other students in the department about our theses. Also, when I was a doctoral student, I was involved in the student protest movement of the 1960s, which had a pretty sharp critique of universities, and quite rightly so, as degree factories and tired bureaucratic institutions. When I wrote the paper in 1985, I'd become a head of department. I was the professor of sociology at Macquarie at the time. I was supervising a number of graduate students, so I'd had to work this out from the other side. I also had a commitment to a democratic notion of education, an interactive notion of how you did education at this level, rather than a top-down one. And that certainly On doctoral education, Raewyn Connell and Catherine Manathunga 5 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W was one of the things that stimulated me to think about supervision as important and as a quite difficult piece of educational work. So I sat down one day and thought about my discussions with my PhD students. They seemed to like my practice reasonably well; and here's this whole university system that's now putting through increasing numbers of PhD students, but doesn't actually have a thought-out way of doing it. It wasn't a piece of research; it was really just a reflection on practice.As an active unionist, I thought that Vestes (now the Australian Universities' Review) would be a good forum for this piece. In the article, I was trying to think about supervision as a human relationship, not as a technical exercise. There's a tendency now to talk about supervision as if it's a technical process you need to learn the rules of. I was really urging my academic colleagues to think about this as a human educational relationship, which has all the ups and downs that any human relationship does. There are times when you get cross with your student, there are times when you have to be incredibly patient, and there are times when it's very upsetting. I mean I've had some harrowing stories told to me by my students. (One of the nastiest was the doctoral student who'd been working for several years, split up with her husband, and the husband sneaked in one day when she was out of the house and destroyed her drafts and her notes, the whole works, as an act of revenge. She very impressively did it again, got the PhD and went on to establish an academic career.) In the essay I used slightly jokey, humorous language, even quoting from Shakespeare (`lending an ear'), to try to get people to think in a rounded way about supervision. It's not just a technical matter. I wanted people to be reflective about what they were doing in supervision. I also wanted graduate students to be thinking about the nature of this relationship, to see the supervisor not just as the authority figure or the bureaucratic figure, but as someone who is engaged in an educational interchange. Some of the people who had influenced my thinking about supervision are listed in my acknowledgements. Meredith Burgmann and Carol O'Donnell were doctoral students of mine at the time. I was fairly up front about my thoughts about supervision with my students, and talked about these issues, and in effect got their advice from a student point of view. I can't now remember but I might have shown them the 1998 paper and asked for their reaction to the paper. Bill Connell, my father, also influenced my thinking about supervision a great deal. Bill had been a school teacher and then became an academic and a professor of education. He was a very good teacher, a gentle person, who was really interested in students as people, not just as bums on seats or figures on a printout. I never had a supervision relationship with him of course, but I did give him drafts to look at, and he did the same for me, so we exchanged papers and he could always be counted on for thoughtful and constructive comments. I guess that was something I needed to learn about: how as a supervisor, you need to read your student's work closely, and not just say `this bit is wrong', but give them constructive comments showing how they could make it right. Sheila Shaver was a colleague of mine � in fact the first person appointed in sociology at Macquarie. I had also talked with her about supervision, not that I ever supervised her work, but she was completing her PhD at the time and talked with me about the experience of being supervised. Later we talked about her beginning to be a supervisor, so seeing it from both sides. Sheila is still a good friend of mine, and I learnt a lot from her conversations. So those are the people that I acknowledged. And I also acknowledged the typists, Hilary Lewis and Val Bennett � how things have changed! Those jobs have practically all gone. I think that my article generated conversations about supervision, which was very much what I wanted to happen. The initial reaction wasn't critical and it wasn't agreeing or disagreeing particularly with my line. It was more a reaction of surprise and recognition that supervision was something people could have a conversation about. Quite soon after that, something else happened that really did surprise me. People began using my article in graduate induction programmes. And graduate student groups began reprinting it in the handbooks that they produced for new graduate students. So the students picked it up, not just my academic colleagues. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised as there were a lot of disgruntled graduate students around. I think some picked it up as a statement about the attitudes or practices of a supervisor vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 There's a tendency now to talk about supervision as if it's a technical process you need to learn the rules of. I was really urging my academic colleagues to think about this as a human educational relationship, which has all the ups and downs that any human relationship does. 6 On doctoral education, Raewyn Connell and Catherine Manathunga A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W that they would like to see in their departments. So my article became a statement about a standard of supervision that you might want to see in Australian universities. Although Bill Green and Alison Lee (1995, p. 40) called my piece a `call to action', that's not quite the way I thought of it. I wanted it to be a call to conversation. I certainly wasn't proposing an organisational agenda about supervision. I was calling for a more thoughtful and more supportive use of the resources we had. I even suggested a few ways supervisors could help students after they'd finished their PhDs � such as stealing some paper from the departmental stationery cupboard or sneaking a bit of clerical support so that they could disseminate their work. By 1995, when the special issue on doctoral education was published, things hadn't shifted yet very far. Indeed, you might say that the ethos of universities was beginning to change away from the direction in which I encouraged people to move. It was becoming more difficult to invest a lot of time and human energy in a supervisory relationship because everyone was becoming more pressured, more scrutinised and surveilled. In 1995, as it happened, I was teaching in the United States so I wasn't actually here in Australia. I wrote the article in a somewhat informal style, trying to put my money where my mouth was, because I was suggesting this was a human relationship and you don't want to treat it as a technical thing. So I didn't want to use education jargon, like `pedagogy'. In any case, many people in universities didn't like thinking about themselves as educators, because that meant being a school teacher. I'm very happy to compare myself to a school teacher! I work a lot with school teachers and admire them and learn from them. But many people in universities do draw a fairly sharp distinction. There's also a mystique about research. It was prevalent then and I think it is still prevalent, and may even be encouraged by all the bullshit about `excellence' in research. The researcher is portrayed as a great mind, greater than other mortals, and you are privileged to have anything to do with him [it is usually a him]. And so what you do as an academic is carry on with your great thoughts and do your great laboratory work, or your marvellous field work, or your deep literary thinking; and any graduate students in the neighbourhood will just be inspired by your example, and go on and do it themselves. So you don't do anything that would distract yourself from your own marvellous research. Now I'm caricaturing of course, but I think this easily provides a rationale for not committing real resources and time and thought to supervising graduate students. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 You can't predict the outcomes of research. So there is always a certain tension, uncertainty, risk in research. This cult of the great mind is perhaps one of the ways researchers deal with that uncertainty and likelihood of failure, given that most good research does fail one way or another, or gets imperfect results. The students can be innocent bystanders of the drama that happens among researchers who are meant to be their teachers, but who can become so caught up in the rest of their academic work. My attitude is that higher degree supervision is teaching, but it's a very distinctive kind of teaching, and it's quite a complex and difficult kind of teaching. It necessarily extends over a number of years before there are any results at all. It's got a high rate of effective failure, a lot of students drop out or the projects don't turn out well. It's highly individualised, extremely difficult to do in a team. It's high stakes for students because if the student's relationship with the supervisor goes sour, for any reason, then several years of the student's life are down the drain. So it's a tricky, difficult kind of educational enterprise to bring off, and therefore it needs thought and attention. If supervisors as a group don't give supervision thought and attention, then what happens is that many of the students will fall by the wayside.The ones who will keep going are usually those who have some kind of privilege to start with. And that's not a good outcome. In my forty years as a university teacher I have witnessed plenty of bad practice, ranging from laziness, to sexual exploitation, to appropriation of students' work. My original article, however, was not intended to document the trouble; it was to show how to do better. Bad practice should be criticised, of course, and I have tried to prevent it when I could. But the main enemy of bad practice is good practice. I don't mind codes of ethics but I don't think they have very much impact. What does have an impact, I think, is democratisation of the institution in which supervision occurs, so that people know what is happening around them, people in less powerful positions have organised encouragement to assert their own interests, and practices of respect and support become normative. Student organisations are important for this; so are staff unions. I worry that the drift towards managerialism, producing new forms of hierarchy in the university and new pressures for `success' and output, has already reversed the limited democratisation that was achieved a generation ago. By the time I returned from the US, the neoliberal shift in Australian universities was in full blast. Like everything else in the universities, higher degrees began to be treated as a market exercise, so fees for higher degrees went up On doctoral education, Raewyn Connell and Catherine Manathunga 7 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W and, in the case of overseas students, to appalling levels. The only people who could come to Australia from overseas were students who were either rich people, children of rich people, or people who won scholarships where an organisation would pay for it. And that really did change the culture. It was no longer something that more or less anyone with a yearning to do research could come and do. It was now a major investment, and that necessarily produced a more calculative approach by many students, including those paying high fees, who wanted a guaranteed return for their money, and the return in minimum time. However, there are many positive effects of increasing the numbers of international PhD students in Australia. There is great excitement in introducing a student from another culture to the research culture I know, and I'm willing to spend a lot of effort to do so. The result isn't always happy. My pedagogy sometimes fails, and not all students manage to understand what I'm asking them to do. But sometimes it works very well, and that is a great experience. There are a lot of debates about where the boundaries are when providing feedback on students' writing for students whose first language is not English. When I am working with a student on a draft that they have written in my language, I am willing to correct their work in a lot of detail � at first. My limits are: (a) I am trying to help them express their ideas in good academic English, not my ideas, so I don't re-cast their argument, only their prose. I will separately point out problems in the argument, that's my job as supervisor, but I won't rewrite the text to solve the problems; (b) I will do this for some of their text, to show them how it is done; but not for all the text. They have to become autonomous writers at some stage, and this is when it should happen. Unfortunately, universities and the Federal Government now focus on international higher degree students as fee-generating. One good part of this was that higher degree supervision was now treated as part of the teaching workload. I think that's an excellent move, and should have been the case all along. So there was a recognition that this took time and resources and should count for part of the teaching load. But because it happened within the corporate logic that the universities increasingly followed, higher degree work was subject to the same kind of rationalisation and managerial intervention as other areas of the university. Whereas once Australian universities were very free floating about supervision and people could wander across disciplinary boundaries and do publishable work, now we have moved significantly towards the North American model of disciplinary silos. Students are increasingly scrutinised at the start as to whether they are properly in this discipline, or that discipline. There's now pressure on students to design their project practically before they begin their enrolment.They're certainly under pressure to get on with it quickly, because the government, having agreed that the higher degree work is part of what they're funding universities for, have put on the screws to try and make it more efficient. So now they fund 3.5 years for a higher degree student, and if you're not done by then, the government doesn't fund the university for you anymore. So departments are under pressure to push everyone through in quick time, and supervisors in turn are under pressure, and put pressure on the students. Because students are being asked to commit to a research design very early, and are under pressure to finish in minimum time, under financial pressure as well as social pressure, there has to be an impact on the character and quality of PhD projects.What the new managerialist pressures on supervision amount to is an attempt to standardise and downgrade the PhD. The immediate effects are to de-skill the supervisors, institute fake accountability, and make the students' work more hasty and formulaic, in the name of faster `completions', more control and greater output. It is much more difficult for someone to take the time and do the deep thinking and make mistakes, and work out new directions, and bring off a genuinely innovative project, under the current PhD regimen. I think this is, to be blunt, stupid policy, whose long-term effect is to undermine the quality of intellectual life in Australia. It is so stupid, its effect so predictable, that one wonders if this consequence is intended. Other attacks on universities suggest our government and corporate elite want a tamer, more predictable and more controllable intelligentsia The main effect on my supervision practice, therefore, is to reinforce the idea that a supervisor's role is to protect the student from the institution, as far as one can, and encourage originality and radical thinking. I will help students to publish their work during their candidature but I will never pressure them to do so. As far as I can, I vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Whereas once Australian universities were very free floating about supervision and people could wander across disciplinary boundaries and do publishable work, now we have moved significantly towards the North American model of disciplinary silos. 8 On doctoral education, Raewyn Connell and Catherine Manathunga A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W will support their taking the time they need to do a really good job of research, rather than cutting the project short to meet an organisational deadline. Of course this faces practical limits, especially those of cost, now that higher degrees cost so much. So there are contradictory trends here. The fact that higher degree supervision takes time and energy and resources is now recognised. That has to be a good thing, as it creates a little institutional space for supervision. However, there is also a counter-tendency pushing academics to teach more students, get more grants, publish more papers. There is a performance/productivity drive in the neoliberal university, which very much worries me because I think it's fundamentally an anti-intellectual trend, something that must undermine the quality of education in universities. So where you've got two contradictory trends how do they balance out, or what new things will come out of them? One result is an increasing tendency to organise higher degree supervision through formal programmes, to introduce training programmes for supervisors, and to convey the idea that there are best practices for doing this, which have to be discovered, and then implemented.There is an attempt to rationalise and routinise higher degree supervision. Again, there are pluses and minuses to this. The big plus is that supervision is getting attention now at a policy level and a programme level, where beforehand it could be incredibly slack. The downside is that when you implement programme rules and formalise things, you may get a routinised result that is not particularly exciting for anyone involved. You can create a lot of unnecessary work, and unnecessary anxiety among the students, by setting up formal `accountability' mechanisms that don't do much for real accountability. Our contemporary `ethics' procedures are a case in point, a classic example of badly designed bureaucracy. Making space for creativity is a crucial problem, as we develop higher degree systems. The safest and quickest, but also the most deadening, form of PhD work is where students effectively reproduce the methods of their supervisor. Indeed students should learn their supervisor's attitudes and methods. But this should be critical learning, and the supervisor's methods should be a base for the students to be doing something genuinely their own. The more that students get support to do original and unconventional, unexpected work, the more exciting it will be for the academics involved too. I still have terrific doctoral students and have really fascinating and interesting relationships with them. I get frustrated with them and cross with them, but I also learn from them and get excited by conversations with them. I think it's a great privilege to be involved in supervision. It is a tough form of teaching, but it's also a wonderfully inspiring teaching experience. Raewyn Connell is University Professor at the University of Sydney, Faculty of Education & Social Work. Dr Catherine Manathunga is an Associate Professor in Education, Victoria University Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand. Endnote 1. This piece is the edited product of a conversation between Raewyn Connell and Catherine Manathunga. References Connell, R. (1985). How to supervise a PhD. Vestes, 28(2), 38-42. Green, B. & Lee, A. (1995). Theorising postgraduate pedagogy. Australian Universities' Review, 38(2), 40-45. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 On doctoral education, Raewyn Connell and Catherine Manathunga 9 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education Bill Green Charles Sturt University, NSW How best to understand the curriculum problem in doctoral research education: that is the question that this paper engages. It begins by noting that curriculum as such is little referenced and inadequately theorised in higher education and certainly in doctoral education, and indeed has been described as a `missing term'. The paper then reviews a now longstanding research programme in the latter field addressed specifically to research supervision, focusing on notions of pedagogy, textuality, subjectivity and knowledge. Over more than a decade and a half, a body of work has been produced in this regard, informed by literary and cultural studies, feminism and poststructuralist theory and philosophy, thereby opening up the field to new theoretical resources and perspectives. Following this, the paper goes on to draw more directly on contemporary curriculum thought and on what is called post-Reconceptualist curriculum inquiry to outline a curriculum-theoretical perspective on doctoral studies and research education, bringing together notions of representation, emergence, practice and futurity. It does so here with reference to both the PhD and the professional doctorate, but arguably has relevance for doctoral education more generally. When Alison Lee and I put together the Australian Universities' Review Special Issue on `Postgraduate Studies/ Postgraduate Pedagogy' in 1995, it was the formal inauguration of a collaborative research programme that we have now been working on for over 15 years. Of course that work has been rather more spasmodic and even opportunistic than we would have liked, for all sorts of reasons. Even so, a considerable record of publications in the area exists, and there have been presentations of various kinds in a range of forums � a substantive contribution, in terms of its principal focus on the assertion of supervision as pedagogy, that is, doctoral research supervision as a distinctive form of pedagogy.A key stepping-off point for the work was Connell's article a decade earlier in the then current manifestation of this very journal, entitled `How to Supervise a PhD?' Connell (1985, p. 38) aptly described higher degree research supervision as `the most advanced level of teaching in our education system', and further, as `a genuinely complex teaching task'. In our 1995 Special Issue and subsequently, we have argued that understanding supervision as pedagogy is far from straightforward, or uncontroversial. Indeed, a deep-seated prejudice exists in the modern university, which systematically privileges research over teaching, disciplinarity over pedagogy (Lee & Green 1997). In this regard, Connell's early intervention was and remains particularly important, because it put on the agenda a distinctively educational orientation, that is, a language and a perspective drawn specifically from the disciplinary discourse of educational research, as a significant form of inquiry in its own right. I see this paper as an opportunity to continue that work. I've recently re-read Connell's article. It remains as arresting and engaging as ever, and as useful, even though times have certainly changed. The Australian university in vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 10 Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education, Bill Green A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W the early 21st century is highly corporatised and strikingly performative in its orientation and conduct, and desperately underfunded. Even though teaching has been revalued, research has become more and more central to institutional identity, mission statements and the like, and a fraught matter of high status combined with ever-scarce opportunity. Relatedly, there has been a proliferation of doctorates over the period in question, here and elsewhere (Park 2005). In research management terms, we are more likely to refer to doctoral education these days, accordingly, than to simply assume that higher degree work equals the PhD. Even so, old habits linger... A crucial issue in higher education is the distinctive nature of its characteristic forms of curriculum, pedagogy and literacy. These can be considered in an integrated fashion, as an exemplary expression of what can be called the academic-dominant, a term I am adapting from Jameson's (1984) celebrated account of postmodernism as a `cultural dominant'.This `academic dominant' refers to the organised, hegemonic form of how the university operates in terms of, respectively, what to teach, how to teach, and which textual practices constitute appropriate and authorised forms of learning, study and research. Broadly, and all too briefly, the first engages the whole question of disciplinarity; the second involves what can be described as the time-honoured traditional practices of transmission and charisma (the `lecture'); while the third privileges commentary and what has been called the `(print-)essayistic' mode � exposition, or the `essay'. The focus in this paper is on the first of these � that is, curriculum. Properly speaking, however, they should be considered together, as I believe they are profoundly related. My particular concern here is what all this means for doctoral education. absence has contributed to a history of disjointed and untheorised activity in higher education. There are signs, in fact, of a new interest in notions of `curriculum renewal' and the like, although much of this is technically oriented, and quite narrow. Such work is, however, most commonly and characteristically addressed to undergraduate education; it hardly ever touches on postgraduate research studies, or more particularly doctoral education. Re-reading Connell (1985), and vaguely recalling in it some sort of reference to curriculum, I was especially attuned to how it was being addressed. It was in fact much more limited than I had recalled, although suggestive all the same. Having described `[PhD supervision]' as `a form of teaching', it went on to assert that `[l]ike other forms, it raises questions about curriculum, method, teacher/student interaction, and educational environment' (Connell 1985, p. 38). Doctoral research is described as characteristically sui generis: [O]ne of the problems of being a supervisor is that each [i.e. PhD project] has to be worked out separately. It seems as if one is always starting from scratch. And the students usually have little idea what is in store for them (Connell 1985, p. 38-39). That is, there is no set curriculum, no established course of study. Hence, as Connell (1985, p. 39) continues, `... there can be no formula for PhD supervision, no fixed course of events. The `curriculum' cannot be planned in the way it is for undergraduate courses'. This is a particular way of talking and thinking about curriculum, as a `course', something to be followed or to run, a `track'. It is usually understood as a course of study, that is, a set sequence of engagements and experiences with ... knowledge, on the part of students, under the guidance of their teacher(s). Two points are worth noting here. First, somewhere lurking behind the notion of `course' is the Latin currere, which the North American curriculum theorist Bill Pinar (2004) has proposed as a central concept for curriculum scholarship. In Pinar's work, this is understood in part as pertaining to the experience of the course, that is, the student's experience, or that of whoever experiences the course in question, and this is often associated with autobiography. Second, the question of knowledge is foregrounded, or what is being studied. This is usually linked to what has been described as the key curriculum question What knowledge is of most worth? In conventional educational contexts, that in turn becomes, What should the schools teach? which is clearly inappropriate for doctoral education. Or is it? It is worth asking indeed what is it that doctoral education does � what is it for? A `missing term'? On knowledge, curriculum, and doctoral education A burgeoning field has emerged, addressed specifically to doctoral education, and to a reconceptualised view of research supervision, among much else. Something that is quite striking however is how little reference there is to curriculum, both as a distinctively educational phenomenon and as a field of scholarship in its own right. This is the case in higher education more generally, of course. Indeed, curriculum has been described as the `missing term' in higher education reform discourse (Barnett & Coates 2005). It has been asserted that `[c]urriculum is, or should be, one of the major terms in the language of higher education' (Barnett & Coates 2005, p. 25), and its vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education, Bill Green 11 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W The answer is two-fold. On the one hand, it is about knowledge generation: producing (new) knowledge, as a result or outcome of systematic inquiry made public. It has in fact been widely noted, of late, how much of Australia's research output is associated with doctoral work. On the other hand, the emphasis is on research training, as it is still commonly described: producing researchers � particular kinds of personnel, or appropriately skilled, capable research subjects, docile and disciplined, productive bodies.This knowledge/identity coupling is indeed crucial to an informed view of curriculum, which might be succinctly defined as the pedagogic structuring of knowledge and identity.This means, in short, mapping knowledge and identity onto teaching and learning, as follows: futurity, becoming, and the New. Something similar is happening with other forms of doctoral education, although there is also an increasing secularisation to be observed, across the doctoral field more generally, which perhaps goes hand-in-hand with a new democratisation, a growing massification. But that immediately presents a problem, however. Firstly, to point to `knowledge' as a focus for the professional doctorate in this fashion is immediately to run up against what has often been posed to date as its more appropriate and proper focus on `practice'. A perhaps fatal binary comes into play, then: knowledge/practice. This links up programmatically with other formulations, with `knowledge' seen as congruent with notions such as `research', `theory' and even `scholarship' � all set up, equally problematically, against the only quite recently privileged category of `practice'. Secondly, however, the problem we are confronted with is one of fundamental conceptualisation (or, perhaps more precisely, `reconceptualisation'). How then is doctoral curriculum to be (re) conceptualised? Is it, as implied in our brief account of the academic-dominant, to be equated with knowledge, or (at its simplest) the `what' of teaching? There is a long tradition in the fields of educational research and curriculum Figure 1 knowledge teaching learning identity That is, curriculum can be understood as the field outlined here. One value of this formulation is that it brings pedagogy, or teaching for learning, within the ambit of curriculum, properly conceived.The larger point however is that knowledge is to be acknowledged as crucial in adequately thinking of curriculum. What kind of knowledge project is the doctorate, whether it be in the form of the PhD or any other higher research degree at this level? We are accustomed to seeing the PhD as constituting a distinctive form of knowledge work, indeed the highest and most prestigious in the university.This is partly where the traditional `mystique' associated with the PhD, which Connell noted, surely comes from. There is something special about the knowledge produced in and by a PhD, or there should be. Something happens in the work of a PhD that is distinctive and significant, with regard to its knowledge project. Ideally, perhaps impossibly, something is changed in the world, and in the doctoral scholar him- or herself; s/he becomes, in effect, the Subject of Knowledge. Connell rightly seeks to play down the mystique. The point remains, however: an extraordinary promise is arguably at issue in doctoral work � the promise of natality (Arendt 1958), itself related in important ways to the notion of studies that does just that, especially that which is shaped and influenced by Anglo-American scholarship (Reid 1999), although it is also a feature of Bernstein's (1971) account of educational knowledge. Or is curriculum also to be understood as the organised expression of teachinglearning experience, thus incorporating and generating particular understandings of knowledge, identity and textuality? Bringing these views all together is precisely what I aim to do here. The professional doctorate has still only relatively recently emerged as an alternative form of doctoral study in Australian universities, not uncontroversially (Lee, Brennan & Green 2009). To date, however, this phenomenon has been largely policy and market-driven, and consequently there is considerable range in terms of the quality both of educational provision and of academic-scholarly understanding as well as rigour. Further to this, its development and consolidation has been inseparable from mounting concerns about the PhD and about postgraduate research education more generally, and accordingly there continues to be widespread confusion and controversy in this regard. Much of this concern focuses on the role and status of the professional doctorate. What research there is, however, still tends to be more or less instrumental and/or bureaucratic in nature, although there are signs of growing sophistication, and hence the professional vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 12 Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education, Bill Green A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W doctorate remains seriously under-theorised, in terms both of curriculum and pedagogy, research and teaching. Hence, in the long-term programme I have been engaged in, with Alison Lee, we have been principally concerned to explore various issues of research and theory, with a view to informing both policy and practice. This requires, among other things, a specific engagement � what I want to describe here as the curriculum problem � that is, I ask about how curriculum is to be conceptualised here in relation to doctoral research education. To begin with, however, it is appropriate to consider something of the history of doctoral study and the modern university. & Brennan 2000), in continuing to explore such themes. Regarding the former concern, Barnett (2009, pp. 431432) rightly observes that knowledge needs to be understood far more widely and flexibly than it usually is in such circumstances and debates. Originally our reference was to distinctive `disciplinary' and `professional' orientations in the doctorate. At the time we were thinking of the PhD as more or less a `disciplinary' doctorate, set against the (then) new professional doctorate, which seemed to involve a rather different knowledge project. That original formulation soon became recognisably inadequate, and misleading. After all, PhD work, at least potentially, can be interdisciplinary in nature, or multi-disciplinary, as much as anything else. Disciplinarity itself is a dynamic concept (Messer-Davidow, Shumway & Sylvan 1993). Somewhat ironically, Hodge's (1995) typically iconoclastic account of doctoral education, the new humanities, and what he called `monstrous knowledge', had provided the basis for the distinction in question here. As he wrote, apropos of the `PhD': The single term refers to theses in all disciplines, including sciences as well as social sciences and humanities, proclaiming an abstract unity of all knowledge, `sophia', which seemingly is loved equally in different ways by all people who receive their doctorate. Until recently in the Australian University system, that unity was carefully parcelled out into various `disciplines', so that people graduated with a PhD in Sociology, History, etc., relatively autonomous fields or provinces in a single, hierarchically organised system of knowledges. This is the system of what can be called disciplinary doctorates (Hodge 1995, p. 35). His concern was with research and supervision in the context of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, where `disciplinarity' itself becomes problematised. Further, his focus was on work in Cultural Studies and the New Humanities, as a specific manifestation of postmodernity in higher education. Such work remains typically highly theoretical and often abstract and `difficult', and indeed some (e.g. Culler 1983) have seen it as an emergent and distinctive `(anti-)discipline' in its own right (`Theory'). From the perspective of the traditional, modern(ist) university, however, organised as it is in terms of the meta-principle of disciplinarity, such work's productions are literally `monstrous', outside the norm, and in recent decades accordingly there has been much debate and indeed conflict in higher education as a result. In this light, the professional doctorate might well similarly be seen as `monstrous' or at least aberrant, and as a manifestation of danger and difference. But it is differently so, which is an important point, because these doctorates Addressing the curriculum problem In our 1995 introductory paper, we posited a distinction between `professional' knowledge and `disciplinary' knowledge. This distinction was made in specific relation to `the appearance on the Australian scene of new kinds of doctoral research and accreditation', a development we suggested was `fuelled and generated by, on the one hand, the emergence of different kinds of universities [...]', and on the other, what we described as `an increasing secularisation of university work' (Lee & Green 1995, p. 3). What we were referring to in the latter formulation was what we saw as `the increased emphasis on professional studies of one kind or another, and what might be called the vocationalising of higher education' in Australia. Our reference to `secularisation' was intended (albeit ironically) to set in train a binary play, with the key terms in opposition here being `sacred' and `secular' (or `profane'...). In regard to this, we pointed to the implications of this `seemingly inexorable push ... towards vocational education' for `universities, traditionally oriented more towards knowledge and inquiry in its own right, as an end in itself' (Lee & Green 1995, p. 3). In one sense, this was seen as a matter of the `high' knowledge of the Academy set against the `low' culture of the Popular � or rather, the sacredness of the `inside' and the profanity of the `outside'. Here, though, there was another difference-relation in effect, with the world of Study (or `Learning') set against the world of Work. What was conceived as secular, then, in this instance, was the worldly realm of production, commerce and employment: at once the object and the very end of academic-scholarly endeavour and its more or less radical antithesis � the `worldliness' of the one, that is, and the `unworldliness' of the other. Later, specifically apropos the professional doctorate, we drew in work on the new production of knowledge, `Mode 1/Mode 2', and the (potential) displacement of the University (Lee, Green vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education, Bill Green 13 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W involve quite different and distinctive intellectual and textual undertakings. Nonetheless, there is something in the new knowledge projects associated with such doctoral work, across the range, that makes them seem often counter-normative, or perhaps simply unintelligible, or at least `eccentric'. Elsewhere (Lee & Green 1997) we sought to describe the complex, contradictory relationship between pedagogy and disciplinarity in the (post)modern university. Up until quite recently, what seemed the unassailable norm in university research and advanced graduate education was the disciplinary structure of knowledge (re)production. Yet, as we argued, that needed to be re-assessed historically, and understood therefore as arising out of quite specific and delimited historical conditions and configurations. At issue, accordingly, was the need to re-think `a set of taken-for-granted assumptions concerning the relations between disciplinarity and pedagogy' in the university, and more specifically `the primacy of the former over the latter and the relegation of pedagogy � matters of teaching and learning, and education more broadly � to the margins' (Lee & Green 1997, p. 3). Our particular concern, following important work by Hoskin (1993), was to draw attention to `the historical nexus of modernity and disciplinarity' (Lee & Green 1997, p. 9), and to assert and affirm the significance of educational practice in this regard. More recently we returned to such historical inquiry with specific regard this time to doctoral supervision and the research university (Lee & Green 2009). However, having emphasised pedagogy over disciplinarity in this previous work, it would now seem appropriate and timely to shift the focus back, as it were. This means addressing more specifically and explicitly what I am calling here the curriculum problem. As Gilbert (2009, p. 56) has put it,`there is value in considering doctoral training as a matter of curriculum as well as pedagogy'. This is particularly important if, as seems to be the case, more explicit account needs to be made of what has been described as the knowledge question, in seeking to address doctoral curriculum. As Gilbert observed,`... studies of supervision and pedagogy have not directly addressed what might be called the doctoral curriculum � what it is that students learn in their courses of study, as distinct from how they learn or issues of programme delivery' (Gilbert 2009, p. 56). He was working with a particular view of curriculum, it must be said, as indicated in the following:`Viewing the doctorate as curriculum directs attention to the forms of knowledge in which it is grounded, and how these are articulated in the documentation of the degree' (Gilbert 2009, p. 54; my added emphasis).That is, this is a view oriented more to the material or `written' curriculum. Moreover, the focus of his account, as he made clear, was on the so-called `intended curriculum' (Gilbert 2009, p. 59). The link between knowledge and curriculum has been noted elsewhere, with specific reference to higher education (e.g. Barnett, Parry & Coate 2001/2004). How best to understand the knowledge project of doctoral education is precisely what I mean by the curriculum problem. I have discussed elsewhere how curriculum is to be (re)conceptualised with reference to notions of representation, conceived within a poststructuralist frame (Green 2010). It is at this point, then, expressly from the point of view of curriculum theory, that questions can be asked about the forms of selection and abstraction, and also the processes of de- and recontextualisation, that are involved in doctoral work. An important early account in this regard, Lundgren (1983, 1991) proposed that the curriculum problem par excellence was what he called `the representation problem'. As he wrote, curriculum becomes problematic `when production processes and reproduction processes are divided from each other': The moment production processes are separated from reproduction processes, the representation problem arises, that is the problem of how to represent production processes so that they can be reproduced. The representation problem is the object for educational discourse, and is the eternal problem of pedagogy as a field of study (Lundgren 1983, p. 11). (I pass over, here, the reference in this instance to `pedagogy', save simply to note that he is using the term in its European sense.) What needs to be identified and isolated in the formulation above is precisely the problematic of representation. As various commentators such as Lundgren (1991, p. 293) and Hindess (1995) observe, representation is in fact foundational with regard to disciplinarity, social theory and the modern university. In Hindess's (1995, p. 42) terms: [O]nce a `relationship to truth' (or whatever) is seen as involving more than an isolated individual (and perhaps even then), it will be caught up in the problem of vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Up until quite recently, what seemed the unassailable norm in university research and advanced graduate education was the disciplinary structure of knowledge (re) production. Yet, as we argued, that needed to be re-assessed historically... 14 Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education, Bill Green A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W representation: what is known has also to be shown to others, and it must therefore be represented, in speech, writing, or other kinds of sign, or in some appropriate reaction on the part of those who perceive it. That is to say, representation becomes an issue when the full force of the social is recognised. Moreover: [R]epresentation, of whatever kind, can always be seen as, on the one hand, capturing (or at least as representing) the essentials of what is to be represented and, on the other hand, as artifice. Representation, however successful it appears to be in part, is always misrepresentation (Hindess 1995, p. 42). Hence, for Lundgren and others working in this tradition (e.g. Kemmis 1993), curriculum transformations of knowledge and identity are always problematic, precisely because they must introduce due and unavoidable consideration of matters of textuality, rhetoric and representation � the Symbolic. As such, I have argued that theoretical work of this kind is transitional with regard to what has been called the `modernism-postmodernism' debate, and that, further, curriculum theory in this regard needs to take more explicit account of poststructuralist theory and philosophy, particularly concerning what has been identified here as a key organising relationship between curriculum and representation. What this enables, in turn, is a better understanding of matters such as hybridity and undecidability. To my way of thinking, such concepts are necessary concepts in developing a richer, more adequate account of the specific curriculum issues and challenges associated with contemporary doctoral education, both generally and with specific regard to the professional doctorate as it has been developed in Australia. At the same time, I argue that this argument serves usefully to problematise doctoral research education more generally, and hence also the institution of the PhD, and thereby contribute to their ongoing critique and renewal. What kind of knowledge work is at issue in doctoral education? How is research to be understood in this context? How is knowledge work structured pedagogically, or educationally? How does one learn to engage in knowledge work, in the very course of doing so? What kinds of (subject-)formation are involved? These are just some of the questions that arise. Among matters still needing to be explored are: the relationships between `subjects' and `objects' of research and knowledge � the latter touched on elsewhere (Green 2009a) � and between `knowledge objects' and `epistemic practices' (Knorr-Cetina 2001), which are usefully addressed with reference to recent work in practice theory and philosophy, appropriately supplemented.All this remains still to be fully worked out. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Representation, emergence and (the) doctoral curriculum Here, however, I want to present what may be a far too schematic account, a sketch perhaps, of a potential curriculum-theoretical framework for doctoral research education. I have already suggested that a reconceptualised concept of representation is a key feature of such a formulation. How this view of curriculum and representation is to be understood has been laid out elsewhere, introducing notions of `impossibility' and `in(ter)vention' (Green 2010). Briefly, I have argued that rethinking representation as itself a form of practice, as at once `invention and `intervention', is useful in that it allows a properly (material-)semiotic view of curriculum. That argument involved an engagement not only with deconstruction, and poststructuralism more generally, but also with complexity theory. On the one hand, this means asking what gets represented in and through (the) curriculum � what gets included, and thus made available for pedagogy and study � bearing in mind always the thesis of the impossibility of representation. On the other hand, a crucial consideration becomes the concept of emergence, a fundamental category in the discourse of complexity (Osberg, Biesta & Cilliers 2008). Of particular interest is the notion of an `emergentist' curriculum, or an `emergentist' view of curriculum (Osberg & Biesta 2008). Curriculum is posited as `a space of emergence' (Osberg & Biesta 2008, p. 324). While this is contrasted with a `representationalist' perspective, I argue that a reconceptualised, post-critical view of representation remains productive, and powerfully so. (That is, a distinction is to be posited between `representationalism' and `representation' per se.) Indeed, representation and emergence might consequently be seen as integral, reciprocating aspects of a reconceptualised view of curriculum (Figure 2). Figure 2 representation emergence Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education, Bill Green 15 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W This formulation has particular implications, it seems to me, for doctoral research education. It is to be differently understood with regard to different forms of doctoral work � the PhD, for instance, and the professional doctorate, or any of the other doctoral forms now appearing on the scene (Park 2005). Each, however, involves a particular and distinctive kind of knowledge work, a research project, conceived both in terms of candidature, or apprenticeship into an epistemic community, and as productive in its own right, as a formalised and authoritative contribution to knowledge. Here I will focus on the PhD and the professional doctorate. As Connell (1985) noted, the PhD characteristically and certainly traditionally seems to operate without (a) curriculum. Indeed, it may be difficult even to think of it in curriculum terms.There is clearly no established pathway, no course of `instruction' or `study'. Rather, each work in this regard unfolds within a more or less loosely defined space. Connell (1985) evoked the notion of a `dialectic' in what was identified as a `creative research project', observing that this dialectic (`an argument between the general conception and particular investigations, a backand-forth between data and theory, and between formulation and critique') had `to follow its own logic. If we knew its course in advance, the research would not be worth doing. A good research project opens up new questions as much as it answers questions already posed' (Connell 1985, p. 39). That is, doctoral work has a crucial aspect of `discovery' about it, an orientation to and indeed an investment in the `new' � it is always-already emergent. Nonetheless, Connell suggests, there are `moments' one can discern, or look for, various characteristic `tasks', a certain `rhythm' � a temporality. The project unfolds, the dissertation builds, knowledge emerges. It is only retrospectively, in real terms, that one can trace the journey that has been made, much like the explorer narratives that Paul Carter (1992) sees as exemplifying what he calls spatial history. This is curriculum, but thought differently. What is foregrounded, lived through, is the passage (Green 2009b). Meaning emerges, in the writing, in the pedagogic exchanges of supervision, and elsewhere and when something new is produced, something different, distinctive. `One does not know, cannot know, what will happen, only that something will happen' (Osberg & Biesta 2008, p. 325; my added emphasis). Importantly, this `space of emergence' pertains to both knowledge and subjectivity � the object of research and the researcher as subject. Regarding this `object', an exemplary `knowledge object', as Knorr-Cetina's (2001) describes it, she writes: `Objects of knowledge are characteristically open, question-generating and complex. They are processes and projections rather than definitive things' (Knorr-Cetina 2001, p. 181). They are unfinished, partial, imaginary (`an imagined object'), future-oriented, virtual. `From a theoretical point of view, the defining characteristic of an epistemic object is this changing, unfolding character � or its lack of `objectivity' and completeness of being, and its non-identity with itself' (Knorr-Cetina 2001, p. 182). In the case of the professional doctorate, the aim from the outset was precisely to provide more structure, more guidance. If the PhD tended to be constituted as intense work in isolation, over a long stretch of time, an extended duration, the professional doctorate ideally would be at least initially more communal, undertaken in the company of like others, with more articulated and explicit forms of induction and preparation, and less abrupt sink-or-swim liminality. Moreover, the professional doctorate tended to realise this process in the form of a more explicit, tangible curriculum. It was typically organised in the form of a staged course structure, including preliminary coursework, with the `project' delayed, and often prescribed in some fashion (e.g. `three small-scale studies plus an exegesis'). The curriculum seemed clearer, as such. (There are of course moves currently underway towards a more structured programme for the PhD.) In this way, and expressly from a curriculum-theoretical point of view, it becomes immediately pertinent to think of it in terms of the representation problem (Green 2010). If professional practice is at the very heart of the professional doctorate, as an advanced research degree, how is it to be represented? How to bring it, in all its complexity and mystery, within a curriculum, a structure of knowledge, identity and pedagogy? What to include, for instance? What is possible to take account of, to seek to draw in, to (re)contextualise? What cannot be represented? What must be left out, omitted, jettisoned? What happens when this becomes that, when it is moved from here to there, and inescapably transformed in its passage? Much work is now available theorising and researching (professional) practice as such. The practice turn in contemporary theory is well documented (Schatzki, KnorrCetina & Savigny 2001; Green 2009). The representation problem is the curriculum problem par excellence. The task and the challenge of attending to the curriculum problem is, therefore, particularly pertinent to something like the professional doctorate. However, the point is that this kind of argument can be seen as applying to the PhD as well, and that, conversely, the notion of an emergent curriculum may not vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 16 Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education, Bill Green A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W be at all inappropriate for the professional doctorate. There is a crucial sense in which a PhD has long been understood as a dialogue with disciplinarity, or at least with a particular discipline or disciplinary complex. It has been well documented how the PhD emerged out of the history of the modern research university, the history of disciplinarity, as the degree of preference, and the one with the highest status, the greatest prestige, even as it became the key marker of academicity, of licensed academic identity. The recent work of the Carnegie Foundation in the United States has introduced the notion of `stewardship' into the debate (Golde & Walker 2006), arguing that the award of a PhD brings with it a responsibility to operate henceforth as a `steward' for the discipline, a `custodian' � a designated, delegated representative. The same might be said for the professional doctorate. Indeed, this seems to be built into its very concept, given that it is often marketed as being for established, experienced practitioners, who might see it as providing a scholarly basis for professional leadership. This is surely a matter of stewardship for the profession, and for the field at large. At the same time, the hallmark of genuine research, genuine inquiry, whether it be in the context of the PhD or that of the professional doctorate, is that it results in the production of new knowledge. Something emerges, something different, new, which is more than the sum of the elements making up the total process and the various aspects of doctoral study. This is in line with Osberg and Biesta's (2008, p. 315) view of what they describe as `a strict interpretation of emergence' � that is,`what emerges is more than the sum of its parts and therefore not predictable from the `ground' it emerges from'. Here it is appropriate to evoke Grosz's (1999a, 1999b) sense of futurity, of the production of the New, `the endless unfolding of the new' (p. 5), and `the joyous open-endedness of the future' (pp. 21-22). She is concerned too with notions of emergence, time and becoming, and with Deleuzian concepts of difference and actualisation, all of which seem at least consistent with the discussion earlier, drawing from Knorr-Cetina and others, about research and knowledge as unfolding and emergent. In this way, it is always structured by desire, open-ended, future-oriented, and ontologically, radically virtual. In closing, then, I want to reiterate that these are curriculum issues and insights, and fundamentally so. Curriculum inquiry is, as Pinar (2004, p. 2) writes, `the interdisciplinary study of educational experience' � for him, informed significantly by the arts and humanities, theory and philosophy.This is, above all, educational expevol. 54, no. 1, 2012 rience profoundly invested in and organised by the nature and pursuit of knowledge. In the case of doctoral research studies, this includes, at a minimum, what is involved in `becoming-researcher', or what it means to become, as it were, the putative Subject of Knowledge, to say nothing for the moment about knowledge per se. If doctoral education does indeed have its own distinctive curriculum problem, along the lines outlined here, then much remains open to investigation if we are to understand what it really means to engage in doctoral work, in both its practice and its pedagogy. Bill Green is Professor of Education and Strategic Research Professor at Charles Sturt University. References Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Barnett, R. (2009). Knowing and Becoming in the Higher Education Curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 429-440. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Barnett, R., Parry, G., & Coate, K. (2001). Conceptualising Curriculum Change. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 435-449. Reprinted in M. Tight (ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Higher Education (2004, pp. 141-54). London & New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Bernstein, B. (1971). On the Classification and Framing of Educational Knowledge. (In M. F. D. Young (ed.), Knowledge and Control: New Directions for the Sociology of Education (pp. 47-69). London: Macmillan. Carter, P. (1992). Making Contact: History and Performance. Living in a New Country: History, Travelling and Language. London & Boston: Faber & Faber. Connell, R. F. (1985). How to Supervise a PhD? Vestes, 2, 38-41. Culler, J. (1983). On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Gilbert, R. (2009). The Doctorate as Curriculum: A Perspective on Goals and Outcomes of Doctoral Education. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds), Changing Practices of Doctoral Education (pp. 54-68). London & New York: Routledge. Golde, C., & Walker, G. E. (eds). (2006). Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline. San Francisco: Jossey-Brass. Green, B. (ed.). (2009). Understanding and Researching Professional Practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Green, B. (2009a). Challenging Perspectives, Changing Practices: Doctoral Education in Transition. In D. Boud & A. Lee (eds), Changing Practices of Doctoral Education (pp. 239-48). London & New York: Routledge. Green, B. (2009b). From Communication Theory to Curriculum Inquiry. Curriculum Perspectives, 29(3), 14-23. Green, B. (2010). Rethinking the Representation Problem in Curriculum Inquiry. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(4), 451-69. Grosz, E. (1999a). Becoming... An Introduction. In Elisabeth Grosz (ed.), Becoming: Explorations in Time, Memory, and Futures (pp. 1-11). Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press. Grosz, E. (1999b). Thinking the New: Of Futures Yet Unthought. In E. Grosz (ed.), Becoming: Explorations in Time, Memory, and Futures (pp. 15-28). Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press. Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education, Bill Green 17 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Hindess, B. (1995). Great Expectations: Freedom and Authority in the Idea of a Modern University. Oxford Literary Review, 17(1-2), 29-49. Hodge, B. (1995). Monstrous Knowledge: Doing PhDs in the New Humanities. Australian Universities' Review, 38(2), 35-9. Hoskin, K. (1993). Education and the Genesis of Disciplinarity: The Unexpected Reversal. In E. Messer-Davidow, D. R. Shumway & D. S. Sylvan (eds), Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity (pp. 271-304). Charlottesville & London: University Press of Virginia. Jameson, F. (1984). Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. New Left Review, 146, 59-92. Kemmis, S. (1993). Curriculum as Text. In B. Green (ed.), Curriculum, Technology and Textual Practice (pp. 35-52). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University. Knorr-Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual Practice. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina & E. von Savigny (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (pp. 175-88). London & New York: Routledge. Lee, A. & Green, B. (1995). Introduction: Postgraduate Studies/Postgraduate Pedagogy. Australian Universities' Review, 38(2), 2-4. Lee, A. & Green, B. (1997). Pedagogy and Disciplinarity in the `New University', UTS Review, 3(1), 1-25. Lee, A. & Green, B. (2009). Metaphor as Supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 34(6), 615-30. Lee, A., Brennan, M., & Green, B. (2009). Re-imagining Doctoral Education: professional doctorates and Beyond. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(3), 275-287. Lee, A., Green, B., & Brennan, M. (2000). Organisational Knowledge, Professional Practice and the professional doctorate at Work. In J. Garrick & C. Rhodes (eds), Legitimations of Knowledge and the New Production of Meaning (pp 117-36). London & New York: Routledge. Lundgren, U. (1991). Between Education and Schooling: Outlines of a Diachronic Curriculum Theory. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University. Lundgren, U. (1983). Between Hope and Happening: Text and Context in Curriculum. Geelong Victoria: Deakin University. Messer-Davidow, E., Shumway, D. R., & Sylvan, D. J. (eds). (1993). Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity. Charlottesville & London: University of Virgina Press. Osberg, D. & Biesta, G. (2008). The Emergent Curriculum: Navigating a Complex Course between Unguided Learning and Planned Enculturation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(3), 313-28. Osberg, D., Biesta, G. & Cilliers, P. (2008). From Representation to Emergence: Complexity's Challenge to the Epistemology of Schooling. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 213-227. Park, C. (2005). New Variant PhDs: The Changing Nature of the Doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 189-207. Pinar, W. F. (2004). What is Curriculum Theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reid, W. (1999). Curriculum as Institution and Practice: Essays in the Deliberative Tradition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (eds). (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London & New York: Routledge. 18 Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education, Bill Green vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Researching doctoral pedagogy close up Design and action in two doctoral programmes Susan Danby Queensland University of Technology, Queensland Alison Lee University of Technology, Sydney, NSW With growing international interest in diversifying sites for pedagogical work within the doctorate, doctoral programmes of different kinds are being developed in different disciplinary, institutional and national settings. However, little is known about how the pedagogical work of these programmes is designed and enacted, and with what effects. In this paper, we present two cases of doctoral pedagogical work being undertaken within different disciplinary and institutional settings to describe how learning opportunities were designed and to theorise what it means to be engaged in doing doctoral pedagogy. Starting from the position that working from a design model supports systematic and rigorous documentation and development of pedagogy, we employ the twin concepts of design and action, drawing broadly on rhetorical and ethnomethodological understandings of pedagogy as social action. Of particular interest within the concept of design itself is the concept of enactment, the translation of designs into the practices of doctoral work. Together, the two cases become a resource for `slowing down' and making visible the practices of doctoral pedagogy that often go unrecognised because they appear so ordinary and everyday. This call for examining close-up existing doctoral education practices and relationships is attending to the `next challenge for doctoral education' (Green 2009). work in this paper. Closely observing and `slowing down' Introduction I would play 33 rpm records at 45 rpm and hear the bass parts revealed, rescued from the bowels of the arrangement an octave higher, and the fast sections of the upper octaves on forty-fives so that they could be learned at a slower speed. I realised from these experiments that anything, no matter how complex, could be deconstructed and learned if you slowed it down enough to really hear it. (Sting, Broken Music, 2003, p. 17) In his 2003 autobiography, Broken Music, Sting's description of how he went about learning music offers a way to understand a key methodological principle at vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 the process of studying a phenomenon offers opportunities to see what is happening in the `doing' of the practice in ways that are not readily available in the flow of real-time events, particularly if these appear ordinary, unexceptional, already brought together and present in a seemingly self-evident way. Our purpose in taking a close look at the work of doctoral pedagogy is to contribute new knowledge and insight to a field undergoing rapid change and reshaping of policy and practice. In the Australian doctoral policy and practice environment, in line with economically driven pressures internationally, we are seeing a growing demand for the development of doctoral programmes that Researching doctoral pedagogy close up, Susan Danby & Alison Lee 19 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W meet a diverse and increasingly complex array of requirements.These include preparation of doctoral graduates to research in environments within and outside the university that are increasingly entrepreneurial (Adkins 2012); building capacities to research in interdisciplinary teams and to form researching partnerships across sectors (Willetts 2012); and more recently, a rather belated realisation, within the USA at least, that success in a global knowledge economy for advanced nations involves attending carefully to the `pipeline' of potential doctoral students; hence the need to attend afresh to teaching at undergraduate levels (Austin 2011). This latter move connects doctoral education back to academic preparation in the fullest sense, not just to facilitate individual career paths but to replenish a sector where the academic workforce is aging and the field of higher education is undergoing major shifts internationally. In Australia, these changes translate into increasing interest and focus upon expanding and diversifying sites for pedagogical work within the doctorate (e.g. Boud & Lee 2009, Aitchison, Kamler & Lee 2010). By `pedagogical work,' we are referring both to explicit programmes of structured activity such as courses and workshops, and to the more incidental and everyday educational work embedded in research activities.The term pedagogy draws attention to how learning and teaching are often embedded in activities and relationships not always explicitly designated as educational. We are interested in turning a more explicitly pedagogical gaze upon these activities to see how they develop the experiences and capabilities in doctoral students to become the kind of future research workforce described above, and supplement the formal supervisor-student relationship. In our recent work we have been investigating doctoral programmes across a range of disciplines and sites in a number of countries around the world, seeking to tease out principles and frameworks, as well as specifying sets of activity that engage doctoral students and researchers in modelling and developing the target experiences, practices and capabilities (Lee & Danby 2012). We have undertaken this investigation of pedagogical practices in an environment where the close-up focus on what goes on `in the swamp' of the daily life of doctoral work is still remarkably undocumented.While there is a growing body of work attending to students' and supervisors' accounts of their experiences of doctoral programmes of one kind or another, little is known of how such programmes are played out in situ. Yet, as Green (2009) points out, an examination of these practices and relationships is the `next challenge for doctoral education'. This paper takes up the challenge of contributing to a documentation of some of the practices and dynamics of doctoral pedagogies, understood and framed as forms of social practice. We have drawn on and extrapolated from our recent work a set of principles that constitute a conceptual frame for engaging with pedagogical work in doctoral education. This frame is constituted through the twin concepts of design and action, drawing broadly on rhetorical and ethnomethodological understandings of pedagogy as social action (Danby & Lee 2012). The focus on doctoral pedagogy attends to the work of bringing together, and enacting, practices of doing doctoral research and doing doctoral education. Some sets of activities within the bundle of activities recognisable as doctoral education are specifically educational, focusing on the learning or training of doctoral students, such as seminars and workshops. Other sets of activities are more recognisable as related to the core activity of participating in research, through labwork, fieldwork, datawork, information work, textwork, and so on, and what happens is that the pedagogic work of those activities often remains invisible or is treated as incidental. In the following sections we first outline some conceptual resources for considering pedagogy in terms of two related concepts: design and action. We then present two cases of pedagogical work being undertaken within different disciplinary and institutional settings. Each case is elaborated elsewhere (Abrandt Dahlgren et al. 2012; Harris et al. 2012); each is deeply embedded in research activity and demonstrates how educational work can be explicitly designed and foregrounded. Both sites illustrate the pedagogic work of configuring and enacting doctoral practices, knowledge, skills and understandings. The discussion in the final section draws through the implications for research and scholarly inquiry into doctoral pedagogy that enable opening up the growing complexity of the field and its potential for change. `If you slowed it down enough to really hear it': understanding pedagogy as design and action Starting from the position that working from a design model supports systematic and rigorous documentation and development of pedagogy, we look `up close' to explore what happens between a design plan and a practice, in order to better understand what it means to be engaged in doing doctoral pedagogy. The case studies in the following two sections are, first, of Doctoralnet, an international network of doctoral vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 20 Researching doctoral pedagogy close up, Susan Danby & Alison Lee A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W students and researchers engaging in online and face-toface interactions and, second, a transcript analysis group where a group of researchers � including supervisors and research students � meet regularly to discuss a selected transcript of an audio or video recording. Each case demonstrates, in different ways, key features of how doctoral pedagogies are designed, brought together and accomplished. We deploy two inter-related conceptual framings: the first conceptualises pedagogy as design, and the second as practice-in-action. According to Kamler and Thomson (2006, p. 18), doctoral pedagogy is above all a question of design: The pedagogue deliberately designs experiences, tasks, events, conversations which create the opportunity for the student to ... move both identity and knowledge simultaneously. We take up and develop Kamler and Thomson's (2006) point that design is a multi-faceted and orderly action. In order to do this, we focus on three salient elements that, we argue, articulate the concept of design in relation to doctoral pedagogy. First, the arrangement of form and appearance make visible the pedagogical work of setting up the circumstances and conditions under which students may engage in activities conducive to advanced doctoral research learning. Doctoral educators `enable' learning through setting up opportunities for critical exchange and action relevant to disciplines and research fields. Decisions about pedagogical design in doctoral education involve reconciling competing demands: this rather than that, this before that, and so on. Such considerations attend to the craft of designing pedagogical spaces that afford such possibilities. Second, the concept of design draws attention to the social and collective nature of the endeavour of doing doctoral work, making visible regularities, patterns, freedoms and constraints that are produced as the accomplishment of ongoing actions. Design has no meaning in a social vacuum; it invokes particular, intelligible patterns of relationships among elements. These patterns are neither overly determined, in the sense that they do not dictate action in a closed or deterministic manner; nor are they arbitrary; rather, in the case of doctoral pedagogy, they are shaped with reference to the actual practices of the research environments of the disciplines and fields in which they are embedded. The elements of the design entail relationships among human participants that are institutionally prefigured yet supple enough to be inventively re-configured and remade. They also entail different kinds of relationships of time, duration, proximity, distance and the material artefacts of doctoral work: vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 offices, books, information and social media, and so on. This feature of design recognises that the particular social and institutional orders are made and remade through participation in these relationships. Third, design entails within it the associated concept of enactment � the translation of ideas into the practices and products of doctoral work. These enactments occur within particular scholarly contexts, shaped by and shape the research and knowledge domains of which they are a part. In doctoral pedagogy, these enactments involve certain recognisable performances � of being a student, a scholar, a supervisor, a peer reviewer etc, as well as a re-invention of familiar modes of action such as seminars as more explicitly pedagogical modes, and the invention of new ones, such as posting live to YouTube, videoconferencing or the production of different kinds of knowledge objects (Green 2009) as the outcomes of doctoral work. These enactments draw attention to the key feature of all designs: that they are co-configured through the enactments of participants within particular disciplinary and institutional environments. Here the non-deterministic characteristic of design is made visible through a kind of moving forward in time, through process, sequencing and co-production of the activities and events. Developing the element of enactment to an articulation of our concern with pedagogical work is our use of the concept of `pedagogy-in-action'. This term is closely tied to the conceptualisation of culture in action (Baker 2000; Danby 2005) in that `members use culture to do things, but that culture is constituted in, and only exists in, action' (Hester & Eglin 1997, p. 20-21). In the case of doctoral pedagogy, the idea of pedagogy-in-action suggests and allows an investigation of how pedagogical design is enacted and how doctoral work is `done' � how doctoral practices happen moment by moment, and across contexts and relationships. Because these practices are so much part of the everyday mundane work of `doing' doctoral work, they can be overlooked as a set of actions and events that constitute what have been termed, more generally, `doctoral practices' (Lee & Boud 2009). A focus on the practices of everyday life shows the social, professional and institutional interactions as they unfold among participants. By close looking at these practices, we can show the embedded local work of social actions to produce identities (Hester & Eglin 1997), such as that of being a doctoral supervisor and a doctoral candidate, or a laboratory research team leader, or a member of an ethnographic fieldwork team or a data analysis group. In working from a standpoint that recognises pedagogy in action, we can also conceptualise pedagogy as action in Researching doctoral pedagogy close up, Susan Danby & Alison Lee 21 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W that our discussion of pedagogy begins with a description of what is going on in the doctoral activity being examined, whether a data analysis group or a virtual research network meeting, as our two cases show, or other forms of doctoral activity, such as supervisor-student interactions, research and doctoral seminars, or laboratory talk. The description of these practices captures what happens in these interactions as they unfold, involving a close observation of those practices to show how the participants themselves co-configure and enact doctoral pedagogy. After identifying `what's going on', the next step is to make sense of those activities and relationships through examining them within the contexts of local and embedded cultures of doctoral practices. An investigation of these practices can show how those involved in doctoral education, such as doctoral students and supervisors, orient to the local practices and, through this orientation, constantly make and remake these local practices of doctoral pedagogy. We can see this orientation by close looking at what members say and do to show that the practices constantly make and remake who they are as members within these practices. Interaction does not construct a static set of roles or relationships, such as supervisor and student, but these are constantly being remade through the already underway action, and are always `in flux' (Danby 2000). Looking closely at `live performances' of the work of doctoral pedagogy makes visible the dynamics of this remaking. A close examination of the practices of doctoral engagement brings to the fore ways to look at the identity work happening through the everyday, ordinary activities of doing doctoral work, such as Danby's (2005) analysis of a chain of email exchanges as the shaping and reshaping of identity between a student and her supervisors over the course of the doctoral study. The traditional image of `an essentially privatised and personalised' (Lee & Green 1997, p. 5) doctoral student can be recast now to present alternative identities of doctoral student, supervisor or researcher. In the two cases presented in this paper, we call attention to the everyday work of members as they make connections, build relationships and do activities, as they engage in the work of doctoral pedagogy. who are engaged in research in one extended, multi-disciplinary field: education in post- and non-school settings. Doctoralnet (www.doctoralnet.net) includes researchers and doctoral students engaged in research in workplace and organisational learning and higher, professional and vocational education, including online and e-learning research.The common themes connecting these research fields are the critical importance of learning within contemporary social and organisational life and the need to theorise learning in socially situated ways. The network was established in order to address a problem of geographical dispersal and isolation, where sites and circumstances of learning are changing rapidly and where renewal through international networking and through linking doctoral research to larger programmes of collaborative research is considered necessary for the field to thrive. Universities in all nine countries were originally involved in the design and development of the network, the stated goal and purpose of which was to build opportunities for collaboration across the geographical, linguistic, cultural, institutional and disciplinary borders that shape the field. Doctoralnet operates largely as an online network, linked through a virtual research environment with a range of Web 2 affordances: online discussion, chat, videoconferencing, blogs, linked homepages and collaborative writing spaces such as wikis. Audio and video materials are linked through home university websites and through YouTube. Supplementing the online work is a commitment to face-toface meetings at key international conferences. A key design feature of the network was the aim to build links between research and pedagogy that would inform all of the network's activities. That is, in contrast to undergraduate or Masters-level educational networks, Doctoralnet activities were designed to involve students and established researchers working together in activities that would build research collaborations among network members. At the same time, explicitly pedagogical activities were developed aiming to build capacities and knowledge among doctoral students in collaborative international exchange. It is this dual focus that shaped the particular activities and pedagogical principles underpinning the network. This focus also led to the aspiration of Doctoralnet becoming a network of member universities' graduate schools, populated by doctoral students and researchers, each of whom would also be networked through their respective research communities. Two examples of how Doctoralnet has worked in action are detailed briefly here. The first is an explicitly pedagogical event. In 2009, a dedicated Doctoralnet miniconference was held in conjunction with an international vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Case 1: Doctoralnet: an international doctoral education network The first case study is an account of a network bringing together students and experienced researchers from nine countries around the world (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Korea, Norway, Poland, Sweden, South Africa and Scotland) 22 Researching doctoral pedagogy close up, Susan Danby & Alison Lee A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W research conference on `Researching Work and Learning' (RWL6) at Roskilde, Denmark, which attracted many of the original senior members of the network. Eleven students from five member institutions in five countries presented papers and acted as discussants to student research presentations. Three months before the conference, an online workshop was held for all students planning to present at the mini-conference. Two late-stage doctoral students from UTS posted a clip on YouTube and moderated the discussion (see http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=91iMn54S0CY).At the mini-conference, a group of first-semester doctoral students from Link�ping University, Sweden, acted as discussants for papers presented by doctoral students from other universities in the network. Each presentation received a response from two discussants: a senior researcher in the network and a student member. The Link�ping students had engaged closely with the paper they were to respond to prior to travelling to Denmark and had prepared written responses, as part of their early research training. A meeting on `being a discussant' was held in a caf� in Copenhagen the day before the conference to rehearse strategies the students could utilise in their first experience of responding publicly to a research paper. During this meeting, these students asked if they could present their responses first as they were concerned that, if they went as second respondent, they would run out of questions and comments. A number of explicit pedagogical purposes were served: in addition to providing explicit scaffolding and role modelling through senior researchers and student members undertaking parallel tasks, there were opportunities to manage the interactions so that the pedagogical role of senior researchers was foregrounded. This offered particular support for those students whose first language was other than English and who were presenting their discussions in English. These activities were in one sense prefigured and enabled through the explicit design of Doctoralnet. At the same time, they exceeded the imaginings of the original designers. The network's practices were made in action, with elaboration and redesign becoming hallmarks of the enactments in particular instances. The second example illustrates how international research collaborations began to develop through the affordances of the network, thus demonstrating the unintended effects of the cumulative experiences and enactments over time. One of the first outcomes of the work within the international network was the recognition of the opportunity to engage external examiners and examination committee members among the member universities. These links have developed further through vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 the development of joint programmes of funded research that exploit the international links, enhance the strategic positioning of research initiatives, and tap into wider international research networks to secure funding and build sustainability. One such programme is a developing collaboration between Link�ping University and University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), in the area of interprofessional education and collaborative practice in health. This collaboration has built in opportunities for doctoral students within the larger programme of research, through co-tutelle enrolment, joint supervision, shared resources, jointly developed theoretical and methodological framings and, in one case at least, joint fieldwork.A network member from one university has developed a methodological framework for undertaking collaborative cross-national ethnographic fieldwork in health service settings and is working with doctoral student members from the other university in the joint trialling of the methods. Student members are thus simultaneously being trained in ethnographic methods and co-researching on the joint project, involving both face-to-face work and online support, building strong international and methodological networks. Most recently, students are travelling to partner universities for a period of immersion in fieldwork and on-campus research activity, as part of their doctoral study.At the same time, further cross-international research training opportunities are being pursued by linking Doctoralnet members to EU and other professional learning research networks such as ProPEL at the University of Stirling (www.propel. stir.ac.uk), an original member of Doctoralnet. One key aim in the original design of the network has been to generate a `distributed' pedagogy � where the emphasis is not always, or only, `vertical': students to supervisors or senior researchers. In practice, the network has offered a set of opportunities for doctoral students to undertake a range of activities with each other � in the more `horizontal' relationships associated with peer learning and research collaboration (e.g. Boud & Lee 2005, Pilbeam & Denyer 2009). Some of these were pre-planned � part of the original design � and some were not and have emerged in the accumulated interactions associated with the history of the management of the network. For example, the online interactions through Skype and other social media have made visible many more opportunities for transnational knowledge exchange than originally imagined. The possibilities for innovative contributions to knowledge made possible through national boundary crossing and access to wider communities and resources (MacGregor 2011; Singh & Cui 2011) were somewhat unpredictable and remain emergent. There are many challenges to these attempts to Researching doctoral pedagogy close up, Susan Danby & Alison Lee 23 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W bring research and pedagogy together, which are explored further in Abrandt Dahlgren et al. (2012). These attempts warrant close documentation, to build practical understandings of what is required to achieve aspirational goals such as networked doctoral education. doctoral students and their supervisors doing doctoral work in these methodologies. By looking at the data analysis practices of the group through the lens of pedagogy, we make several observations about pedagogic design, and pedagogy-in-action. It is through close looking, by audio-recording the group's practices and making available for examination and reexamination these recorded practices, that we are able to show TAG as a site for pedagogic design and action. A key feature of the design is that there is a clear sense of the work of the group � doing collaborative data analysis. While the group can be described as having a relatively open and informal design framework, there is a clear orientation to the purpose of the group; there is order in how the meetings operate, beginning with one invited or self-nominated researcher each time leading the session. That person brings along an audio or video recording of data, such as an audio-recorded interview or a videorecording of, for example, classroom or meeting talk, or client/professional talk, and the transcript of that data, and introduces this to the group. The main activity of the group, then, is to listen to, and investigate the data by focusing on how the interactions are produced, in order to discuss how particular social meanings and orders are being constructed and maintained within that particular situation. Another key feature of the design is that there is a democratic process involved in that core members have a say in determining the activities of the group. While, initially, it was possible to make some assumptions about what was going on in the meetings in terms of who has the expert knowledge and who is a novice learner, a reflexive account that closely observes those interactions shows a far more complex set of relationships and activities underway. Harris et al. (2012) show that the relationships of supervisor-doctoral student, learner-teacher, or noviceexpert are not clear-cut. Rather, there is a blurring of these relationships as there is little or no orientation to the titles or authority of specific relationships, but rather an orientation to the unfolding interactions of the group members as they make sense of the data they are examining. For example, as discussed in Harris et al. (2012), a novice doctoral student can notice and identify within the data a phenomenon that brings new knowledge and understanding of that data, which the experienced researcher working with that data over several years acknowledges that he had not considered before. Being part of the transcript analysis group means being part of a scholarly community where everyone is exposed to, and participates in, doing noticing of interactional feavol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Case 2: Transcript Analysis Group The second case study presents an account of how one transcript analysis group (TAG), consisting of experienced and novice researchers and doctoral students, is a site for doctoral pedagogy. While undertaking data analysis is often part of learning how to be a scholar, there has been little showing how data analysis actually occurs in practice. Some guides are available that present detailed insights and guidelines into analysing data, such as Silverman's (2000, 2007, 2011) texts on analysing qualitative data. However, little is known about how data analysis sessions unfold over the course of a data analysis session, and hence how less experienced researchers, such as doctoral students, learn the `tools of the trade' through participation in the group with skilled and experienced members of the particular research community. The Transcript Analysis Group (TAG) was designed initially as a doctoral teaching resource by Carolyn Baker, from the University of Queensland, who initiated the group to bring together her current and graduated students to engage in shared collaborative data analysis. Following her death in 2003, the group continued, although the structure around the group has changed over time, circumstances, membership and personal and institutional agendas. The leadership is now distributed across the three Brisbane universities (Queensland University of Technology, University of Queensland, and Griffith University). The group currently has a membership of approximately 10-20 members, including expert and novice researchers, postgraduate research students and postgraduate research supervisors, who meet every two weeks within semester time to analyse transcripts using the methodologies of ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and membership categorisation analysis. Group members analyse data that have been audio or videorecorded and then transcribed using a method of transcription that takes into account what was said, how it was said, and accompanying features such as the silences, gaze and gestures of the participants.This group does not hold any `formal' university position within any of the universities, and often may be seen to be `under the radar' of what constitutes doctoral training. Nevertheless, it does hold an important position for many researchers, and for 24 Researching doctoral pedagogy close up, Susan Danby & Alison Lee A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W tures within the data.This is pedagogy-in-action. Everyone at various times is both novice and expert � such as expert at undertaking transcript analysis, and expert at `noticing.' All participants within the transcript analysis session are immersed into a scholarly context that we describe as a pedagogic practice. As Herzfeld suggests, the participants of the transcript group are doing what the `natives' (ie, researchers using conversation analysis) expect. Analytic expertise is one pedagogic factor, and so is learning how to behave within this discourse community. It is about `culture in action' (Baker 2000; Hester & Eglin 1997). It is also about making visible what is invisible; in this instance the pedagogic work, as it unfolds moment by moment, often going unrecognised as a forum for a `distributed' pedagogy in which the boundaries between novice and expert members are blurred, unless explicit attention is drawn to it. The design of TAG as a pedagogic site is one where the practices of the group have come about through collegial networking, and it has an organic ground-up design in that the core members, representatives from each university, regularly discuss how the group will be run and the focus of activity from semester to semester, year to year. At first glance, it appears that the person who most benefits from these sessions is the person whose data is being discussed. However, the design of the data sessions, with a focus on members' action, is such that the sessions offer all members the opportunity to participate in the discussion about the transcript and to be immersed in a pedagogic context where they are exposed to, and can participate in, talk about the methodology of doing conversation analysis. This approach shows a pedagogic device in action for developing analytic expertise in data analysis for all members, and not just for doctoral candidates. The pedagogic work can be shown through how members interact to each other, introduce new ideas and display new understandings of how to undertake data analysis or display new understandings about what is observed in the data. Within this understanding, investigating how members participate in the work of doing data analysis is also investigating pedagogy in action, as the practices of doing data analysis can also be understood as doing pedagogic work (Harris et al. 2012). Researchers, both novice and expert, engage in pedagogic work by informing others of vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 new understandings about what is happening in the videorecorded and transcribed data as well as how to go about undertaking such analysis. A key feature of this group is that the practices have emerged from the members themselves seeing a need not just for doctoral students to learn how to do methodology but also for themselves as participants in a scholarly community of data analysts. It is now not possible to consider the practices of the group without considering this activity through a lens that sees these practices as pedagogic activities. Through writing about the group's practices as pedagogy, it is possible to rethink and reconstitute what counts in terms of pedagogic design and activity. These activities were in one sense prefigured and enabled through the explicit design of Doctoralnet. At the same time, they exceeded the imaginings of the original designers. The networks practices were made in action, with elaboration and redesign becoming hallmarks of the enactments in particular instances. Discussion: pedagogical designs and enactments There are difficulties associated with undertaking closeup work to understand doctoral practices. One difficulty is that close observation of practices means being able to have access to those practices. Being an insider, looking at one's own practices, can overcome some access issues but it also can be more difficult when observing upfront our own practices, or the practices of the institution and organisations of which we are part.As Woolgar (1988) and Atkinson (1981) point out, analysing close-up aspects of our practices means a suspension of commonsense and taken for granted practices. In many ways, an anthropologist in an alien cultural environment can more easily make observations of that culture because they have the capacity to see it as `exotic' and observe it without the burden of being an everyday member within that environment. (Woolgar 1988). Delaying acceptance of commonsense assumptions allows for a consideration of the context in new ways (Atkinson 1981).We call for a reflexive position that aims to recover and sustain the uncertainty of the enquiry, as we interrogate and find strange the practices, in order to engage in a study of those practices. In this section, we tease out some of the pedagogical principles informing the design of the work in the two case studies. While each case study has given varying degrees of emphasis to particular design elements, and enactment of those, there are three overarching principles underpinning both cases. The first is that doctoral Researching doctoral pedagogy close up, Susan Danby & Alison Lee 25 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W pedagogy is a set of everyday practices that enact a distributional, or `horizontalising,' intention, positioning the doctoral student alongside more knowledgeable and experienced colleagues, in research activities that orient to the work rather than to their respective institutional positionings. A second principle is that there is intention within design and flexibility of pedagogic practices that takes into account changing relationships and contexts, such as the nuanced work of scaffolding pedagogic moments through design and action. A third pedagogic principle is the recognition of the ineluctably social and collective nature of `doing' doctoral work. Such culturein-action requires an orientation to devising activities to make possible opportunities for dialogue within networks that span countries, senior researchers and doctoral students, and research fields. The pedagogical intentions for case study 1, Doctoralnet, were enacted out of three broad design principles, elaborated in more detail in Abrandt Dahlgren et al. (2012). First, activities are devised that facilitate the building of dialogue among senior researcher/doctoral student members; institutions, countries and research interests. Second, the activities seek to enact a horisontalising pedagogical design, positioning the doctoral student as a knowledgeable colleague-to-be, albeit with a different knowledge, experience, and intention from those of the more experienced researchers. The third, related principle involves fostering senior researchers' sensitivity to the incompleteness � or `becoming-ness' of the students' conceptualisations of their research, teasing out what kind of scaffolding the students need in order to be able to articulate their intention more clearly and coherently. These principles inform a range of the key strategies, of which the following are some examples. Many strategies enact a horisontalising, boundary-crossing principle along a number of different lines: institutional, national, linguistic, theoretical and methodological. The developing discussions about international research collaborations have rendered visible a range of challenges: communicating in English for students of different member countries; the different doctoral systems with different practices and cultural politics; the spatio-temporal and practical complexities of geographical and regional distances; the politics and practices of connecting students from diverse linguistic communities to the anglophone world of international scholarship. Increasingly, strategies have involved design multi-format modes of participating: online a-synchronous written discussion, conferencing, face-to-face meetings, and so on. One of the hallmarks of Web-2 technologies is the almost seamless move from writing-based to talk-based interactions across network members. A further set of design strategies involves the creation of opportunities for students early in their doctoral candidature to articulate their research intentions in an international setting of peer students and researchers in the field. Relatedly, doctoral students are brought into collegial working forms such as work-in-progress seminars with research peers, both senior and more junior, in respective member universities.These strategies provide opportunity for shifting positions, as experienced researchers present their working manuscripts and invite doctoral students to question and critique. When deliberately designed, these strategies have offered important role-modelling opportunities within an explicitly scaffolded environment, where students are coached in forms of elaborative and critical exchange with seniors as peers sharing their own developing writing. The pedagogic intentions for case study 2, the Transcript Analysis Group, are enacted out of three broad pedagogic design principles.The first is that pedagogic practices are made possible when there is immersion within everyday research contexts that make visible, through enactment, ways of doing analysis. A second design principle is that pedagogic practices are both systematic and opportunistic, in that there are both planned and serendipitous events that cannot be foreseen or anticipated, but which generate pedagogic moments. A third design principle, which encompasses the first two, is that doctoral design and enactment requires as an essential element the social and collective nature of `culture-in-action.' Knowledge production requires a set of social conditions, and valuing and designing a pedagogic order is not possible if done in isolation. The case of the transcript analysis group contributes one approach to understanding social practices associated with pedagogy-in-action. We show that, rather than being pre-determined by institutional roles or strict invocations of the roles of expert and learner, concepts of expertise and learning can be built through contributing to collaborative talk and analysis, and stances of learner and expert are enacted. Being a participant and engaging in analytic practice where participants' learning can be supported through their membership and participation is a form of doctoral pedagogic practice. In considering how the transcript analysis sessions were designed and enacted, there was a clear awareness that this type of activity represents a move away from more traditional assumptions of experts and learners, as the participation space becomes blurred between roles of participant and analyst, novice vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 26 Researching doctoral pedagogy close up, Susan Danby & Alison Lee A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W and expert, doctoral student and senior researcher. The two cases presented here deviate in certain respects from many of the doctoral training programmes currently being put into place in university contexts. One key difference is that the first case study opens up the affordances of digital media to facilitate an international doctoral network, still a rare and new environment for doctoral education well beyond the structures of supervision (see, for example, the discussion of the Africa-EU network; MacGregor 2011). Another key difference is that the second case represents an example of activity that might routinely be framed as located with the core business of doing research rather than doing education, training, or pedagogy. However, such practices are not solely the domain of a research enterprise, but legitimately can be reframed as having an educational agenda in terms of learning through participation. The types of activity discussed in the two cases presented in this paper, we believe, will be recognised increasingly as pedagogical within university postgraduate contexts, and no doubt the list of what counts as doctoral pedagogy will also encompass a broader definition and enactment. It has not been usual practice to give attention to documenting the pedagogic work that we do in doctoral education, perhaps because the everyday practices of `doing' a doctorate have both become so prevalent and yet still draw from older, more elite, forms of pedagogy that are taken for granted. There are difficulties in making current practices sufficiently `strange' to reflexively consider what is happening within them. We suggest becoming aware of what is already happening by close-up observations of the pedagogical work across universities and doctoral programmes that are meeting specific core needs of specific groups involved in doctoral education. We propose that the field is ready to attend to the `next challenge for doctoral education' (Green 2009), a closer empirical examination of these practices and relationships. Susan Danby is Professor of Education at the Queensland University of Technology. Alison Lee is Professor of Education and Director of the Centre for Research in Learning and Change at the University of Technology, Sydney. Pedagogical practice has to be sufficiently articulated to show how these practices can be named as examples of doctoral practices and, at the same time, be sufficiently flexible to manage emerging and sometimes competing issues and agendas, changing contexts, both local and globally, and a recognition that outcomes are not predetermined and set up as goals. Rather, while design is deliberate, the practices themselves offer multiple possibilities of enactment. Conclusion This paper contributes to an emerging body of work that present accounts of doctoral pedagogies beyond the supervision relationship. We have outlined conceptual resources for making visible aspects of doctoral practices that typically are invisible or given scant attention in guidelines for doctoral practices, and illustrated these through two brief case studies. Together, the two cases open up discussion by recognising and valuing that the doctoral practices we describe here are no longer `addons' to the doctoral experience for students but rather are being understood increasingly as the `new basics'. This shift brings growing credibility to practices that once were considered marginal or `extra-curricular' � sets of practices increasingly valued as fundamental and core doctoral experiences for all doctoral students. We began the paper by referring to Sting's account of close looking and `slowing it down enough ' to make a case for studying existing pedagogical practices (our own and others), as a strategy to find the pedagogy within everyday practices and to inform us how those practices work. Within the two case studies we presented, we took up some aspects of observing and understanding `live performance', such as the talk and interaction of research groups, which we had to gloss here for reasons of space. These descriptions showed the texture of relationships and how they were assembled out of, and within, doctoral practices. Both cases describe programmes that are built on strong conceptual underpinnings and we show that they have emerged through a reflexive examination of practices strongly grounded in theoretical and methodological research understandings. In this way, these programmes cannot be generic models dropped into place; rather, they have come about as a consequence of local doctoral practices designed to take up identified specific `gaps'. What can be taken from them is the articulation of the pedagogical principles and the broad set of relations between design and action in doctoral pedagogy. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 References Abrandt Dahlgren, M., Grosjean, G., Lee, A. & Nystr�m, S. (2012). The Graduate School in the Sky: Emerging pedagogies in an international network for doctoral education and research, in A. Lee & S. Danby (eds) Reshaping Doctoral Education: international perspectives and pedagogies, London. Routledge, pp 173-186. Researching doctoral pedagogy close up, Susan Danby & Alison Lee 27 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Adkins, B., Summerville, J., Danby, S., & Matthews, J. (2012/in press). In A. Lee & S. Danby (eds) Reshaping Doctoral Education: international perspectives and pedagogies, London. Routledge. Atkinson, P. (1981). Inspecting classroom talk. In C. Adelman (ed.), Uttering, Muttering (pp. 98-113). London: Grant McIntyre. Austin, A. E. (2011). Preparing doctoral students for promising careers in a changing context: implications for supervision, institutional planning, and cross-institutional opportunities, in V. Kumar & A. Lee (eds) Doctoral Education in International Context: Connecting local, regional and global perspectives, Serdang, Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press, pp 1-18. Baker, C. D. (2000). Locating culture in action: Membership categorisation in texts and talk. In A. Lee & C. Poynton (eds), Culture and text: Discourse and methodology in social research and cultural studies (pp. 99-113). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Bitusikova, S, (2009). New Challenges in Doctoral Education in Europe, in D. Boud & A. Lee (eds) Changing Practices of Doctoral Education, London, Routledge, pp 200-210. Boud, D. & Lee, A. (eds) (2009). Changing Practices of Doctoral Education, London, Routledge. Danby, S. (2005). The supervisory experience : Culture in action. In J. Yamanashi & I. Milojevic (eds), Researching Identity, Diversity and Education : Surpassing the Norm (pp. 1-16). Teneriffe, Qld: Post Pressed. Danby, S. & Baker, C. (2000). Unravelling the fabric of social order in block area. In S. Hester and D. Francis, Local educational order: Ethnomethodological Studies of Knowledge in Action (pp. 91-140). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Pragmatics and Beyond Series). Danby, S. & Lee, A. (2012). Framing doctoral pedagogy as design and action. In A. Lee & S. Danby (eds), Reshaping doctoral education: International Approaches and Pedagogies (pp. 3-11). London: Routledge. Gherardi, S. (2009). Community of Practice or Practices of a Community? In S. Armstrong, C. Fukami, The Sage Handbook of Management Learning, Education, and Development, London, Sage Green, B. (2009). Changing perspectives, changing practices: doctoral education in transition. In D. Boud & A. Lee (eds). (2009). Changing Practices of Doctoral Education (pp. 239-248), London: Routledge. Green, B. (2005). Unfinished business: subjectivity and supervision. Higher Education Research & Development 24(2), 151-163. Harris, J., Theobald, M., Danby, S., Reynolds, E., Rintell, E. S. & Transcript Analysis Group (TAG). (2012). `What's going on here?' The pedagogy of a data analysis session In A. Lee & S. Danby (eds), Reshaping doctoral education: International Approaches and Pedagogies. London, Routledge, pp 81-95. Herzfeld, M. (1983). Looking both ways: The ethnographer in the text. Semiotica, 2(4), 151-166. Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). Membership categorization analysis: An introduction. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (eds), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis (pp. 1-23). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America. Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. Oxon: Routledge. Lee, A. & Boud, D. (2009). Framing Doctoral Education as Practice, in D. Boud and A. Lee (eds) Changing Practices of Doctoral Education, Abingdon, Routledge, pp, 6-19. Lee, A. & Danby, S. (eds) (2012). Reshaping doctoral education: International Approaches and Pedagogies. Routledge. London. Lee, A & Green, B (1997). Pedagogy and Disciplinarity in the `New' University. UTS Review 3 no 1: pp. 1-25. Lee, A. & Green, B. (2009). Supervision as Metaphor, Studies in Higher Education 34, No. 6, pp 615-630 MacGregor, K. (2011). AFRICA-EU: New virtual network for PhD students, University World News, Issue 196, 06 November 2011, http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20111105112935374 Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction (Vol. 35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Silverman, D. (ed.). (1997). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London: Sage Silverman, D. (2000). Analyzing talk and text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 821-834). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Silverman, D. (2007). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research. London: Sage. Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data (4th ed.). London: Sage. Sting (2003). Broken Music, London: Pocket Books. Willetts, J., Mitchell, C., Abeysuriya, K. & Fam, D. (2012). Creative tensions: negotiating the multiple tensions of a transdisciplinary doctorate, in A. Lee & S. Danby (eds) Reshaping Doctoral Education: international perspectives and pedagogies (pp. 128-143), London. Routledge. Woolgar, S. (1988). Reflexivity is the ethnographer of the text. In S. Woolgar (ed.), Knowledge and reflexivity: new frontiers in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 14-34). London: Sage. 28 Researching doctoral pedagogy close up, Susan Danby & Alison Lee vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Supervisors watching supervisors The deconstructive possibilities and tensions of team supervision Catherine Manathunga Victoria University, Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand Many universities have introduced team supervision as a means of intervening in the intensity of the traditional supervisor-student dyad. This policy is intended to provide students with a great support during their candidature and to share the burden of sole supervision. It is also a pedagogy that seeks to support students' engagement with new knowledges that cross institutional and epistemic boundaries. However, few researchers have studied the effects of team supervision on doctoral pedagogical practices and on the already complicated fields of power circulating in supervision. This paper focuses on one particular aspect of the operations of power within team supervision � the issue of how power circulates between supervisors. Drawing on Foucault's notions of governmentality, technologies of self and surveillance, I seek to track supervisors' self-regulation and peer-regulation when they co-supervise doctoral students with one or more colleagues. I conclude by arguing that the need for more post structural research into supervision pedagogy remains just as urgent as it was when Green and Lee first made their call for theorising postgraduate pedagogy in 1995. Introduction In their seminal special issue on postgraduate pedagogy, Green and Lee (1995), building upon early assertions by Connell (1985) that supervision was a form of teaching, made a passionate plea for supervision to be regarded as a form of pedagogy involving complex power relations circulating between the supervisor, the student and knowledge. The special issue contained a number of ground-breaking, critical explorations of supervision pedagogy. However, team supervision had not yet come to prominence and, as a result, the special issue focused only upon uncovering the complexities and possibilities inherent in sole supervision. If we fast forward to contemporary times, team supervision, or the supervision of one doctoral student by two or more supervisors, has come to be regarded as effective supervision pedagogy and has become standard policy vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 in most universities across the Western world. It is this form of team supervision (i.e. one student working with two or more supervisors) that is the focus of this article rather than group supervision (where several students work together with one or several supervisors). North America has a longer tradition of panel supervision. For the countries that adopted the English model of doctoral education, team supervision is a more recent development. Patterns of supervision also vary across disciplines, with much longer traditions of team supervision common in the Sciences and far less common in the Humanities and some of the Social Sciences. It is believed that team supervision will provide students with a broader range of intellectual and social support during their candidature. In particular, team supervision seeks to address concerns that the sole supervisor model, in which supervision was regarded as a private space (Manathunga 2005b), could be a problematic Supervisors watching supervisors, Catherine Manathunga 29 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W method of inducting research students into academic disciplines. This apprenticeship/prot�g� model of supervision involved the development of an intense relationship between one supervisor (master) and a research student (apprentice/prot�g�). Grant (2008) has also characterised this relationship as master/slave, drawing upon Hegel's construct to highlight the complex and contradictory mutual relations of domination and subordination inherent in these types of relationships. In this model of supervision, the student learnt to become an independent researcher by observing their supervisor. This acculturation into the discipline and into the role of scholar was believed to occur by osmosis. In some cases, this model of supervision worked for research students or they at least survived it. As Lee and William's (1999, p 20) research has suggested, it was more a case of survival; a kind of brutal, `bizarre and barbaric initiation'; a `trial by fire'. This model of supervision was often characterised by exploitation or abuse at worst or neglect at best. It worked best if the supervisor and student were able to develop good rapport. It also worked if the student came from a similar social class and ethnic background to the supervisor or was able to imitate these attitudes, modes of dress, forms of speech and behaviour. Very often the supervisor guarded their student as if they personally owned them, becoming hostile to the notion of their student talking to other colleagues. In this intense private space, students sometimes became cheap quasi research assistants. Even in the Sciences where there is a longer tradition of team-based research, students were often consigned to the role of cheap laboratory assistant. Not only did this model expose students to potential exploitation or abuse, but it also ensured that the burden of the student's success rested heavily on the shoulders of the lone supervisor. So it is now assumed that team supervision shares the significant and often demanding pedagogical responsibility of working with doctoral candidates among several supervisors and may enable junior supervisors to gain supervision mentoring from more experienced colleagues. Increasingly, as students engage with new knowledges that cross institutional and epistemic boundaries, team supervision also provides students with broader interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary support. However, few researchers have actually studied the effects of team supervision on doctoral pedagogical practices. Even fewer researchers have taken up Lee and Green's (1995, p. 2) challenge to subject team supervision to alternative lines of inquiry that might critique the `rational Science model of ... supervision' that has indeed come to dominate, as Lee and Green warned it would. This paper seeks to rise to this challenge by discussing a post structuralist study of team supervision in the Humanities and Social Sciences. In particular, I focus on exploring the operations of power circulating between supervisors in team supervision. After exploring the existing studies of team supervision, which can be located in a liberal theoretical paradigm, this paper outlines the role of power, desire and governmentality in supervision pedagogy. I then highlight the additional complexities team supervision brings to what Grant (2003, p. 189) has already characterised as a `chaotic pedagogy'. This sets the scene for the contextual details of my study. Adopting a poststructuralist discourse analysis methodology, I outline how team supervision produces self-regulation and peer-regulation between supervisors and how intersections of gender and power emerge in my data. Finally, I explore how the operations of power between supervisors can be both generative and problematic and call for more post structuralist investigations of team supervision that might continue the work that Green and Lee (1995, p. 44) described as `needing urgent and rigorous attention'. Team supervision as a universal good Although there is now a substantial literature on supervision pedagogy, much of it remains silent about how team supervision alters the character of supervisory practice. Even those that mention team supervision usually do so to recommend it as a highly effective form of supervision pedagogy rather than to investigate it. For example, Conrad's (2003) pilot study of research students at one Australian university only contains a few comments about team supervision and concentrates instead on group supervision where one supervisor meets with a group of students. Grigg et al.'s (2003) report on cross-disciplinary research indicates that some students experience difficulties in interdisciplinary team supervision but made no further recommendations on this issue. Sutcliffe (1999) reports that the dynamics of team supervision and the need to establish effective team working practice have been highlighted in his supervisor academic development sessions and Andresen (1999, p. 34) also recommends team supervision as an approach that could `balance the inherently fragile and vulnerable dyadic supervisor-student relationship'. The most detailed exploration of team supervision has been conducted by Pang (1999), writing from the perspective of a recent PhD graduate. He recommends five key principles for developing effective team supervision: 1. A good start: establishing explicit expectations in the group and allowing the student to be honest about vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 30 Supervisors watching supervisors, Catherine Manathunga A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W their fear of being confused by so many supervisors 2. Trust and respect: especially when diverse views and perspectives come up. It is usually the student who must work out a compromise or take a stand supporting one perspective or the other. 3. Avoid the politics: supervisors should try to keep students insulated from departmental politics 4. Distinguish between supervisors and friends: try to keep work and social times in the team separate 5. Be sensible, reasonable and supportive: supervisors need to recognise the extra pressures team supervision puts on students and be particularly sensible and supportive (Pang 1999). One of the few articles that draws upon some empirical evidence (300 interviews of students and supervisors in the Social and natural Sciences in the UK) to discuss joint supervision argues that joint supervision can be successful but it can also be plagued with difficulties, ambiguities and tensions (Pole 1998). Pole warns about the dangers of regarding team supervision as a panacea for all supervision ills. Rather than regarding it as a `safety net', he suggests that team supervision `if used cautiously may be an effective way of cushioning a fall' (Pole 1998, p. 270). However, none of this small body of research on team supervision has sought to investigate the highly complicated fields of power circulating in team supervision. Watts (2010) emphasises this continuing dearth of critical investigation of team supervision. Summarising Delamont and others' (2004) list of concerns about team supervision, Watts (2010) argues that communication can become problematic within team supervision and that there is a risk that no one supervisor will take responsibility for the oversight of the whole PhD project. However, she outlines her personal experience that disagreement between supervisors can provide students with opportunities for more critical insights into research issues and that it can provide students with continuity in the face of an unexpected departure of one supervisor. Indeed, most of the existing studies of team supervision come from a liberal paradigm, which suggests that postgraduate supervision is based on rationality, logic, and the intellect. The current dominant liberal discourse circulating about postgraduate supervision constructs effective supervision as mentoring research students (Manathunga 2007). According to this understanding of supervisory vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 pedagogy, supervisors guide and facilitate their students' gradual development into independent researchers. This mentoring discourse represents supervisor/s-student interactions unproblematically as dialogues between `collegial equals' (Wisker 2003 quoted in Grant 2008). Discourses about the `dirty' concepts of `power, desire and difference' (Grant 2001, p. 13) within the supervisory relationship remain absent from this acceptable view of supervision pedagogy. So, within this framing of supervision, it is assumed that team supervision simply gives students access to additional mentors and provides supervisors with more collegial support. There is one recent study by Guerin and others (2011), however, that provides an exception to this. Guerin and her colleagues interviewed research students about team supervision and challenged the positioning of students as `passive novices' (Guerin et al. 2011, p.10). Instead, they argued that students engaged proactively in managing team supervisory relationships, conflict, feedback and communication. Using the metaphor of polygamous marriage, they suggested that students, like the husband of many wives, actively `skilfully and sensitively manage multiple relationships with very different partners' (Guerin et al. 2011, p. 3). ...team supervision represents both an increase in the intensity of surveillance and disciplining of students by several supervisors and a diffusion of this intensity as supervisors are engaged in watching (and at times disciplining) each other. Power, desire and governmentality in supervision There are, however, an increasing number of studies that deploy critical and poststructuralist paradigms to investigate supervision pedagogy, particularly following Lee and Green's 1995 call for action. These scholars have sought to unearth the complexities, operations of power, and hidden constructions inherent in supervision relationships (Grant 2001; 2003; Green & Lee 1995; Lee & Williams 1999). Grant's (2003; 2008) work in particular demonstrates just how complex the operations of power within supervision pedagogy are. Grant (2003) maps out four complex, interwoven layers of relations that operate within supervision.The first layer constructs supervision between a supervisor and a student as an `institutionally prescribed relationship with stable [supervisor and student] positions' (Grant 2003, p. 178). This is the layer acknowledged in policy documents and in studies of supervision drawing on a liberal paradigm. Supervisors watching supervisors, Catherine Manathunga 31 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Grant (2003) argues that the second layer of supervision is the pedagogical power relations that circulate between the supervisor, the student and the thesis or knowledge along the lines proposed by Lusted (1986).The third layer of relations includes the `diverse social positions' adopted by the supervisor and student, producing complicated and changeable interactions (Grant 2003, p. 182). Finally, the fourth layer is the inexplicable yet powerful operation of supervisors' and students' `conscious and unconscious knowing and desires' (Grant 2003, p. 185). Grant (2003; 2008) demonstrates how much potential there is in supervision for supervisors and students to misunderstand each other or talk past each other. Communication in supervision where there is only one supervisor and one student is a complicated personal and pedagogical space as Grant's (2003) work has shown. Adding one or more additional supervisors into the mix has the effect of multiplying these complexities exponentially. As far as I am aware, most of these poststructuralist studies are yet to explore power and desire in team supervision pedagogy. Supervision pedagogy is also a site of governmentality, as I argued in my article investigating notions of mentoring in supervision (Manathunga 2007). This article drew upon Devos' (2004) characterisation of general mentoring programmes for women as sites of governmentality, which require the production of two contradictory subject positions for those being mentored. These subject positions include being simultaneously an active subject and a subject that desires to be acted upon (Devos 2004). Devos (2004, p. 77) thereby demonstrated how mentoring includes both `a form of paternalism and ... `supported self-direction''. I argued that these contradictions within supervision, where the student desires both `autonomy and regulation' (Manathunga 2007, pp. 211-212), were even more pronounced because supervisors (unlike mentors in most formal programmes) have `additional surveillance mechanisms [e.g. annual progress reports or milestone reports], which demonstrate the institutional power and responsibility invested in them' and because they are helping students to `achieve particular identifiable outcomes (the thesis) within a fairly prescribed form and timeline'. Supervisors are also seeking to socialise students into a disciplinary way of being, thinking and acting or, to draw on the work of Foucault (1988), to develop particular technologies of self. As I argued previously, supervisors encourage students to shape their minds (and bodies) through a range of self-disciplining techniques, such as reflective practice, engaging in thinking and writing tasks within disciplinary para- digms, drafting ideas and gaining expert feedback, so that they will become credentialed as wise scholars (Manathunga 2007, p. 211). Supervisors achieve this through a complex mix of support, guidance and facilitation; modelling their own research practices; and surveillance and disciplining (Manathunga 2007). However, in team supervision, both (or many) supervisors are not only encouraging students to develop certain technologies of self and watching and disciplining students. They are also watching each other and causing each other to display particular supervisory technologies of self. So, team supervision represents both an increase in the intensity of surveillance and disciplining of students by several supervisors and a diffusion of this intensity as supervisors are engaged in watching (and at times disciplining) each other. Supervisors become simultaneously more powerful and less powerful when subjected to the scrutiny of their colleagues as well as that of their students. So too, students also become both less and more powerful in these team interactions. All of this ensures that communication and pedagogical patterns in supervision become even more complex and it can be difficult to determine who is actually addressing who in team supervision interactions. Each member of the team is managing their relations with and through each other as well as through the thesis (Grant 2003). As a result, studies that seek to trace the operations of power, desire and governmentality in team supervision are a vital addition to existing understandings of supervision pedagogy. Context and methodologies I collected data from four supervision teams at an Australian research-intensive university; two in the Humanities and two in the Social Sciences.The team supervision meetings for each team were recorded for four consecutive team meetings, except in the case of one team in the Humanities where two meetings were recorded. After each meeting, supervisors and students were emailed some short reflection questions, which they responded to separately on email.These reflections provide valuable indications of each participant's thoughts, feelings and experiences of each meeting. Attempts were made to collect reflections from all of the participants but, in some cases, not all of the participants responded after each meeting. This approach was similar to that adopted by Grant (2003) in her study of Masters supervision, although she interviewed each participant separately after each meeting. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 32 Supervisors watching supervisors, Catherine Manathunga A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Table 1: Research participants Teams 1 Student Natalie � domestic student; confirmed; Anglo-Australian Melanie � domestic student; confirmed; Anglo-Australian Maria � international; new candidate; South American (+ 1 Fred � domestic student; new candidate; AngloAustralian participates in 1 meeting) Margaret � domestic student; confirmed; Anglo-Australian Supervisors Principal S (PS): Diana Assoc. S (AS) 1: Paul AS 2: Tim All Anglo-Australian PS: Bill AS: Eva Both Anglo-Australian PS: Christina AS: Peter Both Anglo-Australian General research topic Vietnamese film studies and one male joint Principal Supervisor were less experienced but not entirely new to supervision. I have deliberately changed the topic areas they are researching a little in order to preserve their harmonious supervisory relation- 2 Education and technology Philosophy ships and to offer them some anonymity. In this paper, I will particularly draw on data from Teams 1 and 2. The interview transcripts and notes produced by supervisors and students were analysed using poststructuralist discourse analysis (Threadgold 2000). This form of discourse analysis was selected because it foregrounds the 3 4 PS: Alice AS: Sue Both Anglo-Australian Social work `context of culture'. Broader disci- plinary cultural norms and practices are particularly important in studying supervision pedagogy because they shape supervisor-student interactions in many significant explicit and implicit ways. In particular, these contextual factors play out in the unconscious knowings and desires that complicate and enrich supervision relationships, both between supervisors and students and between co-supervisors. Poststructuralist discourse analysis also enables the researcher to engage in a form of textual analysis intimately located within poststructuralist theory (Poynton & Lee 2000). Indeed, as Threadgold (2000, p. 40) argues,`the binary separation of metalanguage (or theory) and data ... is already an impossible separation'. Foucault's political notion of discourse as a body of knowledge and practices was adopted in order to uncover the political aspects of team supervision. In particular, the following linguistic devices were tracked in transcripts of team supervision meetings in order to identify some of the displays of power and unconscious knowings and desires of supervisors and students: � dominance in the conversation � turn taking and length of turns � repairs and hesitations in the dialogue � strength or tentativeness of the language � laughter and other audible non-verbal communication � unexplained ambivalences and contradictions. I also sought to track moments when both the supervisors seem to act as one against the student or when one supervisor seems to help the student respond to some of the comments of the other supervisor or when the student seemed to align themselves with either of the supervisors. I paid particular attention to the strength of the student's voice and how frequently they entered Supervisors watching supervisors, Catherine Manathunga Table 1 provides a summary of the details of each team, using pseudonyms and slightly modified research topics to protect participants' identities and supervisory relationships. The four students in this study were all women, with one of them being international and one of them mature aged. Three of the students were from Anglo-Australian backgrounds and one student was from South America. Three of the students were in the mid-candidature stage, while one was in the early stages of candidature. As it happened, another male student was included in two meetings of one team in the Humanities because he was studying a similar PhD topic. A total of nine supervisors participated in this study, including 5 women and 4 men. All of these supervisors were from Anglo-Australian backgrounds. In one team in the Humanities, there was joint Principal Supervision provided by the female and male supervisors, although the team acknowledged the greater role and seniority of the female supervisor. In the three other teams, there was one Principal Supervisor (2 females and 1 male) and up to two Associate Supervisors. As also indicated in Pole's (1998) study of joint supervision in the Social Sciences, these teams had been formed according to the individual expertise of each supervisor, with one team adding an additional Associate Supervisor during the study because they recognised a gap in the expertise of the existing supervision team. Although team supervision is often used in the Humanities and Social Sciences to provide mentoring for new supervisors (Pole 1998), in this study 7 of the supervisors were experienced and one female Principal Supervisor vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 33 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W the conversation and the length and nature of their turns. Identifying these discourses and some of their linguistic markers enabled me to investigate how supervisory teams wrestle with the inherent tension in supervision that comes from the desire for intellectual, collegial dialogue within a pedagogical practice invested with governmentality and power (Grant 2003; Manathunga 2007). For the purposes of this paper I have selected one example of self-regulation from Team 1, one of peer-regulation as represented in Teams 1 and 2 and I have then included a longer analysis of the gender and power dynamics playing out in Team 1. Interestingly, these gender dynamics do not appear to be present in Teams 2 and 3. This also played out in a tendency of the Principal Supervisor to answer the Associate Supervisor's questions that were clearly directed at the student.This is illustrated in the following excerpt: Paul (AS1): Because I remember you were talking about you know, ideas about `Vietnamese'2 women or even if wasn't in films. And there is a whole, really that underpins your methodology, you know. Actually how you go about it, and how you should be doing it. Those issues will be relevant here as well. Diana (PS): You mean who [unclear word] is it? To analyse Vietnamese women as a non-Vietnamese woman? Paul: Not specifically. In your honours thesis you talked about the appropriateness of various approaches or same works? (Team 1, Meeting, 1, 31/5/06) The `you' Paul is referring to here is clearly the student, but it is the Principal Supervisor who responds seeking clarification. What is interesting is that Principal Supervisor becomes aware of this tendency in her post-meeting reflections � `in fact I have a problem of having to make myself stop answering on the student's behalf when Paul raises an issue' (PS,Team 1, email 31/5/06). The First Associate Supervisor (Paul) seems to make a conscious effort to support the feedback given by the Principal Supervisor, which she found `reassuring ... [this] gives me confidence that my judgement/critical skills are ok' (PS, Team 1 email 31/5/06). However, he does not comment explicitly on any of this and assumes that his comments were `well received by student and co-advisors alike' (AS1, Team 1, email 13/12/06). The second male Associate Supervisor, whom we will call Tim, seems to pick up on Diana's nervousness: being the principal advisor, [Diana] might have been worried that I was too critical, and that my comments were indirect criticisms of her advising, which of course they weren't. I saw [Paul] later, though, and he seemed to think my comments were fine' (AS2, Team 1, email 14/12/06). Tim is sufficiently worried about this that he seeks out feedback from the other Associate Supervisor, who has been in the team longer than he has. Therefore, there are clear instances in these two meetings of careful self-regulation mainly by the Principal Supervisor but also, to a lesser extent, by one of the Associate Supervisors. Self-regulation There were a number of instances of careful self-regulation by supervisors in these data. I have included the example that provides the most striking evidence of the ways in which supervisors censor themselves and chose their words more carefully in team supervision situations. It is also indicative of the pressure some Principal Supervisors can experience in team supervision. This example comes from Team 1. The female principal supervisor in this Humanities team whom we will call Diana1, commented in her email reflections that, `as principal advisor and person most responsible for the supervision ... I felt a bit `under scrutiny' myself and, hence, slightly nervous' (Principal Supervisor (PS), Team 1, email 13/12/06). Although she seeks to modify the extent of her nervousness (a bit ... slightly), the team interactions clearly indicate that she feels under surveillance. She comments after the first meeting that she was also `nervous at first about structuring the meeting effectively and presenting comments coherently' (PS,Team 1, email 31/5/06) This is played out in a number of ways. As she herself suggests,`I wasn't sure how much I was talking to the student about her writing and how much I was talking to the other advisors about her writing' (Principal Supervisor (PS), Team 1, email 13/12/06). As a result, in both meetings, she spends a lot of time giving her feedback and it seems to be the Associate Supervisor who is attending to the student's feelings and seeking to draw her opinions out by asking facilitative, prompting questions (lines 289306, Team 1, Meeting 1, 31/5/06). In other words, these feelings of being under surveillance result in the Principal Supervisor focusing a lot more on herself and how she is managing the meeting, rather than on how the student is responding to the feedback or gaining opportunities to contribute to the conversation. Peer-regulation There were also a number of instances of peer-regulation evident in the data. I will focus on two examples from Teams 2 and 1 where one of the Associate Supervisors intervenes to try and soften the comments of the Principal vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 34 Supervisors watching supervisors, Catherine Manathunga A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Supervisor or to give the student a hint about how they might respond to the other supervisor's line of questioning. Bill, the Principal Supervisor from the Social Sciences (Team 2) is asking the student to explain how she has approached data collection.The student's (Eva) responses and nervous laughter suggest a defensiveness that is not characteristic of her usual contributions in the other team meetings recorded in this study. Eventually the Associate Supervisor (Melanie) inserts a hint about how to respond (see italicised line) and Eva regains her momentum and composure: Bill (PS): But yeah, I just wanted you to help me recall where that's coming from? What's that all about? Because it's very very obvious when you're looking at those diagrams and you need to talk about it and you need to make a case about why it's set up and done that way. Eva (St): Well, really I think some people find it really annoying but I was doing it to somehow flesh out sometimes by saying what you don't like about something is giving you more information about what, I mean if you don't like something or what belief isn't so useful is giving you more information about what you believe ...3 Bill: Have you got anything in the literature that you've read? That backs that? Eva: No ... Melanie (AS): People could choose what they want to [write?], and they didn't use it? Eva: Some didn't use it. The only thing that people were compelled to use was the central, overarching concept. The blue one. Melanie: Just teaching and learning. Eva: So here's John4 saying, checking all the [unclear word] and learning and teaching. That was the only one they were compelled to use. And in some cases for example Elizabeth, her map on [teaching5], that's the only concept she uses ... In the second example, this time from Team 1, the Principal Supervisor (Diana) and Associate Supervisor 2 (Tim) engage in sustained and quite critical feedback about the student's draft chapter. Associate Supervisor 1 (Paul) asks some clarifying questions of Diana in this excerpt and the student's (Natalie) responses are limited to soft `yeahs'. Diana even refers to Natalie in the third person as if she is not there. Eventually, Paul intervenes suggesting that it would be hard to rewrite this section along the lines that the other two supervisors are suggesting (see first italics). This prompts Diana to suggest some more sign-posting instead (second italics) and then she and Tim seem to back away from their suggestions, agreeing finally that any of these changes should be made after the next three vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 chapters are written: Diana PS: goes to that the idea of, you know, in, in Vietnamese, um, film studies, and and feminist, women studies, there is this debate about how can you use the western theories to look at Vietnamese contexts, and, I don't see whether you have to accept totally Vietnamese definition of female consciousness in order to examine female consciousness as displayed in Vietnamese films, cause what you're looking at does not necessarily have to be the same as what Vietnamese critics [looking at] ... Diana: ...a bit more defensive against um, um, examiner // Paul: //yer Diana: particular (of) cultural contexts or something, and reading most of your chapters and thinking, well, ((not clear)), is there, and then finding out throughout your chapters your are in fact doing that ( ) and probably stated them// Paul: [I'd keep an eye on that ... it could be hard to write Tim: [a lot of work] ((very weak sound)) Diana: It will cause, it would require a substantial rewriting of the chapter Tim AS2: ...the Vietnamese ...keep that down, and then what you are going to say, um, well, (actually, ....) ((weak voice)) Paul: I guess, [I guess, um] Tim: [seems a bit clumsy, that's all] Paul: it could be, it could be, it// Diana: //what if (through some) sign [posting (more) Tim: What's the sign posting an [(alternative)]? Diana: something like [that] Tim: yer] Diana: I am aware of these arguments, and this is coming later on, something to show// Tim: //yer Diana: to show, and// Tim: //yer, you can do that with sign posting that paragraph, it just means (you'll take) more work to start with the Vietnamese perspective ... What is intriguing about this is that, after this intervention, Tim's comments become far more positive and less critical for the remainder of the meeting.As we saw in the example of self-regulation above, Tim did seem to realise that he had been too critical at first.Although Paul doesn't explicitly comment about this in his post-meeting reflections or admit to Tim that he did regard his critique as too strong, his actions in the meeting clearly seek to regulate Supervisors watching supervisors, Catherine Manathunga 35 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W the behaviour of the other supervisors in the team. alike' (AS1, Team 1, email 15/12/06). Instead he seems to use his responses within supervision team meetings to regulate the comments of his peers. There is not the space in this article to tease out any further the complicated strands of gender, rank and experience operating within this team, but that could be a subject for future analysis. Gender and power in team supervision Although Teams 1, 2 and 3 have a mixture of male and female supervisors and the Principal Supervisors of Teams 1 and 3 are women, the intersections of gender and power that are already evident in these examples of self- and peer-regulation appear most strongly in Team 1. There are possibly a number of reasons for this. Whereas in Team 3, the First Principal Supervisor (in this case she and her colleague are Joint Principal Supervisors) is senior to the Second Principal Supervisor and has more supervisory experience, in Team 1, although the Principal Supervisor has a more senior rank than the Associate Supervisors, she has less supervisory experience than they do. Undoubtedly, personality factors probably come into it too, as the Principal Supervisor (Diana) in Team 1 is a quiet, gentle and self-deprecating person (some might argue an `acceptable' subjectivity for women academics!). I am particularly intrigued by the Second Associate Supervisor's (Tim) comment that he thought that `[Diana], being the principal advisor, might have been worried that I was too critical and that my comments were indirect criticisms of her advising, which of course they weren't' (AS2, Team 1, email 14/12/06). Tim is trying to account for his behaviour in the supervision meeting. The way in which he states this may signal that he may have intended some criticism of Diana' supervision even unconsciously. What is clear, though, in this whole interaction and the post-meeting reflections of each of the supervisors, is that Diana felt particularly defensive about her supervision and critical judgement in front of the other supervisors, although she constructs herself as more confident after interacting with the First Associate Supervisor (Paul) in the first meeting. It is also intriguing that both Diana and Tim seek to construct themselves as reflective supervisors in their postmeeting email comments perhaps to account for their performances in the supervision meetings. In addition to the reflections quoted above, Diana resolves after meeting 2 that `next time we should perhaps circulate each other's comments to the whole group so that more productive group interaction and discussion can take place' (PS, Team 1, email 13/12/06). In Tim's case, his concern centres on being too critical and he checks this out with the First Associate Supervisor (Paul). He seems quite reassured by Paul's response, though, as if that puts the matter to rest. Intriguingly, Paul does not seem interested in constructing himself as a reflective supervisor indicating that he thought his comments were `well received by student and co-advisors Implications for supervision pedagogy This study of supervisors watching supervisors in team supervision highlights the complexities introduced to the already `chaotic' pedagogy (Grant 2003, p. 189) of supervision. In particular, its findings have significant implications for understandings of supervisor subjectivities and pedagogies as team supervision increasingly becomes the norm across most disciplines. As Foucault reminds us, power operates both generatively and oppressively and, therefore, the acts of surveillance and regulation supervisors perform on each other in team supervision have both positive and problematic consequences. So there is a need to recognise both the positive and negative operations of self- and peer-regulation that operate in team supervision. Firstly, as this study demonstrates, team supervision causes an increase in supervisory self-regulation as supervisors monitor their own words and actions more carefully in team supervision meetings than they might do in private meetings with their student. Team supervision also provides opportunities for direct peer-regulation during meetings. In both of the instances reported in this paper, one of the supervisors is able to intervene in the conversation in order to offer the student a hint about how they might respond to the critique of their other supervisor or to gently challenge the other supervisors' requests that the student complete a major rewrite of a chapter. This peer-regulation has the effect of reducing the student's defensiveness or confusion in each of the cases respectively and allows them to regain their composure or their understanding of the feedback being given. Therefore, through the self and peer regulation made possible by team supervision, the intensity and operations of power evident in sole supervision, where students are subjected to all of the surveillance and disciplining, is reduced. However, team supervision also produces some complex and challenging tensions. In particular, it becomes difficult for supervisors and students to understand who is addressing who. Not only are the relations of the supervisor and student being managed through the thesis as in sole supervision (Grant 2003), but the relations of each of the supervisors and the student are being manvol. 54, no. 1, 2012 36 Supervisors watching supervisors, Catherine Manathunga A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W aged through each other as well as the thesis. Guerin and others' (2011) work also emphasises this point. This increases the possibilities for misunderstanding and miscommunication exponentially. So too, gender and power can intersect in difficult ways in team supervision. This is particularly evident in this study in the meetings and reflections of Team 1. A lack of experience and confidence on the part of the female Principal Supervisor causes her to focus more on defending her supervision in team meetings than on attending to the student's feelings or allowing more space for the student to respond to each of the supervisors' comments. While this has the effect of making her very self-conscious, in the end she is able to draw comfort from the affirmation of her approach offered by the First Associate Supervisor in the first meeting and she constructs herself as a reflective supervisor seeking to continuously enhance her supervisory practice. Therefore, Foucault's notions of governmentality and technologies of self allow us to open up new ways of understanding and theorising team supervision subjectivities and pedagogies. In this way, I have sought to apply Lee and Green's 1995 call for more critical, alternative explorations of supervision pedagogy to team supervision. One of the most important effects of this kind of post structuralist scrutiny of supervision is that it foregrounds both the generative possibilities created through team supervision and the problematic tensions it produces for students and for supervisors. In this way, I hope to challenge dominant rational, Science accounts of team supervision as a universal good and demonstrate the ongoing need for post structuralist investigations of the productive and oppressive operations of power in team supervision. Sixteen years after Green and Lee's (1995) seminal special issue on postgraduate pedagogy, the need for more critical, alternative research on new forms of supervision remains just as urgent. Dr Catherine Manathunga is an Associate Professor in Education, Victoria University Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand. References Andresen, L (1999). Supervision revisited: thoughts on scholarship, pedagogy and postgraduate research. In Wisker, G. & Sutcliffe, N. (eds) Good practice in postgraduate supervision. Birmingham: SEDA, pp. 25-38. Connell, R. (1985). How to supervise a PhD. Vestes, 28(2), 38-42. Conrad, L. (2003). Five ways of enhancing the postgraduate community: student perceptions of effective supervision and support. Paper presented at the Learning for an unknown future: 26th Annual HERDSA Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, 6-9 July 2003. Devos, A. (2004). The project of self, the project of others: mentoring, women and the fashioning of the academic subject. Studies in Continuing Education, 26:1, 67-80. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of self. In L. Martin; H. Gutman & P. Hutton. (eds) The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 87-104. Grant, B. (2001). Dirty work: `a code for supervision' read against the grain. In A. Bartlett & G. Mercer (eds), Postgraduate Research Supervision: transforming (R)Elations. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 13-24. Grant, B. (2003). Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education 24(2): 175-190. Grant, B. (2008). Agonistic struggles: master-slave dialogues in humanities supervision. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 7:1, 9-27. Green, B., & Lee, A. (1995). Theorising postgraduate pedagogy. Australian Universities' Review, 38:2, 40-45. Grigg, L.; Johnston, R. & Milson, N. (2003). Emerging issues for cross-disiciplinary research: conceptual and empirical dimensions. Canberra: DEST. Guerin, C., Green, I. & Bastalich, W. (2011). Big love: Managing a team of research supervisors. In Mallan, V. & Lee, A. (eds) Doctoral education in international context. Serdang: Penerbit Universiti Putra Malaysia, pp. 138-153. Lee, A. & Green, B. (1995). Introduction: postgraduate studies/postgraduate pedagogy? Australian Universities' Review, 38:2, 2-4. Lee, A., & Williams, C. (1999). `Forged in fire'. Narratives of trauma in PhD supervision pedagogy. Southern Review, 32(1), 6-26. Lusted, D. (1986). Why pedagogy? Screen, 27:5, 2-14. Manathunga, C. (2005). The development of research supervision: `turning the light on a private space'. International Journal for Academic Development, 10:1, 17-30. Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: the role of power and boundary crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29:2, 207-221. Pang, N. Sun-Keung (1999). The plain truth is out there. In A. Holbrook & S. Johnson (eds). Supervision of postgraduate research in education (pp. 157161). Coldstream, Victoria: AARE. Pole, C. (1998). Joint supervision and the PhD: safety net or panacea? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23:3, 259-271. Poynton, C. & Lee, A. (2000) (eds) Culture and Text: discourse and methodology in social research and cultural studies. London: Allen & Unwin. Sutcliffe, N. (1999). Preparing supervisors: a model of research awards supervision training. In Wisker, G. & Sutcliffe, N. (eds) Good practice in pg supervision. Birmingham: SEDA, pp. 139-147. Threadgold, T. (2000). Poststructuralism and discourse analysis. In Poynton, C. & Lee, A. (2000) (eds) Culture and Text: discourse and methodology in social research and cultural studies. London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 40-58. Watts, J. (2010). Team supervision of the doctorate: managing roles, responsibilities and contradictions. Teaching in Higher Education, 15:3, 335339. Endnotes 1. All names have been changed. 2. Country changed to protect anonymity of participants. 3. ... indicates text deleted in the interests of word length � conversations continue in the same vein; // indicates overlapping voices; [ ] indicates softer text or an aside; (( )) indicates transcriber's explanation about soft or unclear text. 4. All names changed to protect anonymity of participants. 5. Word changed to protect anonymity of participants. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Supervisors watching supervisors, Catherine Manathunga 37 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Identity-trajectories Doctoral journeys from past to present to future Lynn McAlpine University of Oxford, UK and McGill University, Canada Despite much research into doctoral education over the past two decades, theorising the field remains challenging. Recently, identity has been taken up as a conceptualising frame. Views of identity vary but often privilege the reproductive features of society, downplaying how individuals can be intentional in pursuing their desires � with the doctorate but one feature of a broader life. Further, many focus on the experience of the doctorate only rather than the doctorate as situated within earlier experiences and intentions and future imagined careers. This paper draws on evidence from a five-year research programme into doctoral experience to argue for a view of identity, identity-trajectory, that attends particularly to individual agency, interweaving the academic within the personal, and incorporating students' pasts and imagined futures. By re-focusing attention on the agency, resourcefulness and independence of doctoral students, identity-trajectory contributes pedagogically and conceptually distinct ways of framing doctoral experience. Context Despite much research into doctoral education over the past two decades, theorising the field remains challenging. Recently, identity has emerged as a conceptual frame (Green 2005) though conceptualisations vary, emphasising, for instance, multiply identities (Barnacle & Mewburn 2010); embodied, raced and classed identities (Archer 2008); or identities constructed through community membership (Carlone & Johnson 2007). These studies largely emphasise experience of the doctorate only, rather than the doctorate as situated within earlier experiences and intentions, future imagined careers, and just one aspect of a fuller life. As well, many tend to emphasise socialisation and acculturation (e.g. Gardner 2008) or post-modernist (neo-liberal) perspectives (e.g. Archer 2008) � highlighting the reproductive features of society rather than how individuals can be intentional in pursuing their desires (Archer 2000). In this paper, I draw on evidence from a five-year research programme to argue the value of a complementary view of identity, identity-trajectory (McAlpine et al. 2010), that attends particularly to individual agency, nesting the academic within the personal and incorporat- ing students' pasts as well as imagined futures. Focusing attention on the agency, resourcefulness and independence of the individual at the heart of the doctoral endeavour � the student � contributes alternate ways of framing doctoral experience. Research programme Since 2006, two research teams1, one in Canada and the other in the UK, have researched the experiences of over 80 doctoral students in four universities, initially in the social sciences and more recently in the sciences2. Methodologically, the team takes a narrative approach viewing participant information as stories of identity (Sfard & Prusak 2005).The underlying premise is that narrative can provide a means to make sense of both the constancy of an individual's perception of identity combined with the perception of identity change through time (Elliott 2005). For about 60 participants in the social sciences and the sciences, narratives of different kinds have been collected over at least a year: an initial biographic questionnaire, weekly activity logs completed every month or two, folvol. 54, no. 1, 2012 38 Identity-trajectories, Lynn McAlpine A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W lowed by a pre-interview questionnaire and interview. We recruited another 20 individuals who characterised their stories as particularly troublesome when we noticed that despite difficulties and emotional ups and downs, those participating in the first group reported moving forward. The 20 completed pre-interview questionnaires and interviews only. As regards the 60, the activity log captures the experiences of a particular week (Agosto & Hughes-Hassell 2005). The pre-interview questionnaire provides other information related to the total time period, and the information in the logs and pre-interview questionnaire are probed in the interview. Of the 60, a) 20 social sciences students have continued the same data collection cycle in succeeding years so at this point they have been followed for three years (with many now graduated) and b) 10 of the sciences students have just begun their second year of the data collection cycle. After the first interview, we construct case summaries through successive re-reading of all data for each individual: short texts with minimal interpretation, capturing a comprehensive, but reduced, narrative. Each narrative: a) makes connections between events; b) represents the passage of time; and c) shows the intentions of individuals (Coulter & Smith 2009). As each cycle of data collection is completed, the summary is extended. The summaries ensure familiarity with each case yet allow us to look across the cases for themes and patterns (Stake 2006). The construct of identity-trajectory emerged about two years after the team had begun the research (having completed more than one cycle of data collection) and had been reviewing the cases. Since the notion of identitytrajectory first emerged, subsequent data collection and analyses have refined its characterisation. This paper conceptually integrates the empirically-based interpretations of identity-trajectory that have informed its construction. � Horizons for action: the options for action seen as personally viable at any particular time. Doctoral-academic work experience is conceived as three distinct yet interwoven strands that develop somewhat independently: � Networking: present and past relationships which serve as resources as well as carry responsibilities. � Intellectual: written and oral contributions to the field leading to recognition. � Institutional: resources. These constructs are elaborated below through Sam's story to emphasise that while the discrete constructs offer analytic power, they collectively constitute embodied experiences.While Sam's experiences are particular to him, they evoke the kinds of relationships, emotions and intentions reported by the others. Thus, his story is interspersed with descriptions linking his account to the stories across the 60 cases as well as the study of students with difficult journeys. Sam's story is told in his own words (with some edits). It draws on the biographic information, the pre-interview questionnaire and interview, and in particular two activity logs as a way to demonstrate their value in capturing a different perspective on experience than in an interview alone. Font is used to differentiate reference to Sam's story from the more general descriptions. organisational responsibilities and Agency, the personal and the past Sam, late 20s, is in his 5th year in biology in Canada. In choosing his university programme, he was leaving his partner behind in another city, depending on `long-distance contact ...for the usual moral support.' When he began the degree with a 3-year external fellowship, he imagined a future in academia. Since the end of his fellowship, he has been funded through research and teaching assistantships �� and part-time work for his supervisor on a government contract. The past eight months, he has been processing data, doing data analysis and writing his thesis. While he is at the point in his doctorate where he feels he should be with his partner while writing, he has deadlines to meet for his supervisor that make him feel he should remain at the university. Sam's account demonstrates how past experiences are influencing his present experience of the doctorate, and how the academic is situated within his personal life. He has left his partner elsewhere to do the degree, and is managing multiple forms of paid employment while working on his thesis. When asked about his work-life balance, despite occasional visits with `friends for a wine tasting', he responds: My work-life balance is relatively low now, as most of my time is spent working. This is largely due to deadlines approachIdentity-trajectories, Lynn McAlpine Introducing identity-trajectory The following key constructs underpin identity-trajectory: � Agency: efforts to be intentional, to plan, to construct a way forward given constraints (whether expected or unexpected) � though not always successfully. � The personal: the embedding of doctoral and academic experience within broader lives. � The past: the influence of past experience including relationships on present intentions and imagined futures. Two constructs link the personal and the academic: � Opportunity structures: what is understood or known to be the available career opportunities at any point in time. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 39 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W ing, and much work left ...to achieve them. I feel this may be partly due to ... early on in my PhD ... not having a clear direction and spending too much time making decisions, rather than making progress towards deadlines. In retrospect, I might have been able to maintain more balance throughout, but motivation was sometimes difficult to maintain. However, these days, I am strongly motivated to finish, and although there is much to do, it is also easier to find something productive to do that is appealing, whether it be writing, data entry, data analysis, or lab work. Sam is not particularly happy with the present state of affairs, neither personal nor academic. As a result of not making progress earlier on, he is now under pressure. Shifts in his motivation have influenced his work patterns. He is presently more focused and willing at least temporarily to reduce his quality of life in order to finish. Like Sam, students consistently reported the importance of the personal in their doctoral journeys. Individuals made decisions about where to study and how to invest in their work based on personal relationships � sometimes sacrificing these relationships (like Sam) and sometimes sacrificing their own desires, e.g., choosing a programme which would ensure they could support sick parents or not disrupt children's routines.These responsibilities constrained their time and motivation as regards doctoral work. They also experienced life changing events, e.g., child birth, marriage break-up, illness. Most, on a weekly basis, reported engaging with personal networks: friends for emotional support and family/partner for both emotional and practical support (Jazvac-Martek et al. 2011). All had prior experiences, relationships, and intentions which influenced the decisions leading to their present investment in the doctorate as well as their imagined futures.And, like Sam, nearly all consistently reported difficulties in work-life balance. A number reported shifts in their intentions regarding their futures during the doctoral journey (McAlpine & Turner 2011). While those in the longitudinal study appeared on the whole to navigate these challenges, it was apparent that those characterising themselves as having more difficult journeys were different, often confronting a multitude of upsets concurrently and sometimes in situations where their personal networks were not easily available, e.g., concurrent illness, lack of funding, with geographically distant family and friends (McAlpine et al, in press). The essential point is that students' academic investment and progress need to be situated within personal intentions and lives that can support but also add difficulties to the doctoral journey. The nesting of the academic within the personal, a central characteristic of identity-trajectory, ensures a comprehensive perspective in making sense of doctoral intentions, motivations, and decision-making. Opportunity structures and horizons for action As regards Sam's imagined future, this has changed since he began the degree, given his greater awareness of opportunity structures, the career possibilities he understands to be available: Currently, I imagine maybe a post-doc, but frankly, I think [I] will be more likely to ...get a job with the government or nonprofit, particularly in a location closer to my partner. ...postdoc and academic positions are ...increasingly competitive, and often require re-locating to different cities or countries, which I am not willing to do for a 1 or 2-year post. I do not believe any university that I would be satisfied with would ever hire me for a tenure-track position immediately after finishing my PhD. Sam's horizons for action are clear. In negotiating his future he is influenced by personal relationships (his desire to be near his partner) and unwillingness to relocate for the short periods of time required in a post-doc. Still, while Sam is hoping for a job closer to his partner his recognition of the opportunity structures means he will likely end up accepting one in a nearby city rather than the same one. All students developed a more robust understanding of opportunity structures as they progressed through their degrees, particularly as they neared the end (McAlpine & Turner 2011). Applying for jobs, described as timeconsuming, was reported only in the last 6-12 months of the degree. Since most imagined academic careers when they began, what was evident in their dawning awareness of opportunity structures was the limited number of full-time pre-tenure positions; what was on offer tended to be researcher posts � either funded through fellowships on or someone else's grant. In the sciences, often two post-docs were expected � each of one or two years' duration. In the social sciences, these positions were often extremely short � only six months. Students' horizons for action represented a subset of the opportunity structures � the viable options in light of personal intentions. As with Sam, horizons often changed from beginning the degree to nearing the end, as personal circumstance and perceived opportunity structures changed. Only one of those who completed went directly into a tenure-track position; others took on post-PhD posts to build their profiles and others chose professional posts for security, in one case, negotiating an `academic' position within a hospital appointment in vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 40 Identity-trajectories, Lynn McAlpine A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W order to have the permanence that would enable having a family and still sustain academic potential. Lastly, some students concluded that academic life was not for them, e.g., too intense, too political. Opportunity structures and horizons for action offer a means to conceptualise the interaction of agency and structure � in particular highlighting a) how individual understanding of structures was continually under revision, and b) how the personal influenced the use of this knowledge. met senior administrators from several universities that I wouldn't have otherwise. Sam recognises that networking, getting to know others in his area of interest, is important � not only for his present work but also in expanding his opportunity structures. In this instance, given the lack of supervisory support, Sam drew on his present peer network to help him. The academic networking strand (not students' personal relationships though these may occasionally overlap) represents contemporary and historical relationships which individuals build up, draw on and contribute to. The other students, like Sam, engaged with local, national and international contemporary networks on a day-today basis (Jazvac-Martek et al. 2011). They demonstrated resourcefulness in drawing on individual peers, more senior academics, student teams/groups in addition to their supervisors for different kinds of support, e.g. peers for advice, other academics for scholarly and career advice. As with personal relationships, academic networking sometimes carried responsibilities, e.g. future reciprocity. A few students expressed discomfort with building academic networks, describing the activity as too strategic. And a number did not realise until near the end of their degrees the importance of networking to their identity and career development. Networking, intellectual and institutional strands of the academic I focus now on the representation of doctoral-academic work within identity-trajectory: the interweaving of three developing strands � networking (relationships), intellectual (contributions to the field) and institutional (resources and responsibilities). Two weekly activity logs provided by Sam embody the experience of these strands � the ways in which investment or disruption in the strands influences doctoral work � with the academic remaining nested in the personal. One week: I attended a 3-day conference on science policy since I am exploring the possibility of transitioning from a research PhD into a career in policy (given the paucity and highly contested nature of research jobs). So, I viewed this as a worthwhile personal career investment. But, since it wasn't directly related to my research, my supervisor wouldn't support me financially (even though he was an invited speaker at the `non-relevant' conference). He suggested I use income from my part-time contract work to pay for the conference ... For me, this meant using my credit card (hoping to pay off the charge and interest by the end of the semester with a strict personal financial management plan). My supervisor's response also meant not receiving any acknowledgement of the value of this event. Now that Sam is imagining a non-academic future, he is intentionally seeking to understand the opportunity structures available, despite his supervisor's lack of support, and this investment has negative implications on his financial resources. Sam continued: Interestingly, attending the conference definitely made me feel more like an academic than a policy-maker ...I began to question my plans to move into a career in policy, and wondered if I would be happier doing pure research. While I'm still not sure, I feel it's important to explore these possible paths before committing to one. Overall, much of what I learned will still be applicable in a pure research career, in terms of `soft skills' and activities that may not be directly related to research performance, but certainly to social engagement and job fulfilment (at least that is my hope). The event, in fact, led Sam to rethink policy as a potential career. At the same time, the experience provided valuable knowledge related to his desire for a personally fulfilling job. Another day, I prepared a job application for a policy job .... Applying for jobs was important given that Sam was nearing the end of the degree. He never reported seeking supervisory help in this task, drawing instead on his extended network for advice. ...and Monday was spent in meetings, working as a Teaching Assistant, and a few hours actually reading material related to my research. I was also in touch with a doctoral student in Europe about my research methods. ... I spent 5 hours on data collection and analysis that contributed to actually making progress on my PhD. I see my #1 priority Identity-trajectories, Lynn McAlpine Nor did [my supervisor] introduce me to any colleagues or help me to network. I overcame this ...by relying on fellow students and colleagues at the conference who know me and took the time to introduce me to people and expand my network. Connected to the conference was a 1-day workshop on knowledge transfer. Although I doubt I will ever do knowledge transfer as a career, I realised that, whether I am in research or policy, becoming familiar with this field and its language was beneficial, and I also vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 41 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W as getting back to data collection and analysis, so I can then write. While Sam reports many activities here, I focus on his reference to `actually reading' � something he appears to perceive as important but spends little time at. In identity-trajectory, reading is conceived as a feature of the networking strand. Thus, while networking can be intuitively understood as involving inter-personal interaction with contemporary individuals, in identity-trajectory networking is conceived more broadly to include intertextual networking � engaging in the historical, epistemological, and methodological networks that are constructed through reading as well as conversation (McAlpine 2011). The work creates a network of key scholars and ideas pertinent to the thinking underlying the thesis, and academic thinking more broadly. What was striking across the 60 students was that reading was reported as frequently as writing. Generally, there was more day-to-day reference to reading in the sciences than the social sciences; this may have been influenced by the fact that these students were all nearing completion, whereas the social sciences students were at a range of different places in their degrees. Still, reading as an activity was not straightforward: like Sam, often `squeezed in' among other activities or not possible due to time constraints. In the social sciences, individuals' were reading to find epistemological links that might underpin their work. Such links could be historical or contemporary. In the sciences, rather than epistemological links, reading related to empirical findings in recently published papers representing the most up-to-date experimental results. There was a sense at times particularly in the social sciences that reading was not always done purposively, e.g., being done when experiencing writing block. And students sometimes wanted supervisory help as regards what and how to read yet rarely received it.This contrasted with the sciences where reading was connected to daily research practices in which experiments are run countless times attempting to replicate or extend previous findings. Thus, individuals might set themselves goals as to the number of papers to read each week. While students were intentional in doing reading, rare was the student able to articulate the nature and role of the process. However, one social sciences student noted that `when one is writing, one is never alone'. And in the sciences, one recent graduate described how reading (and subsequently writing) linked him to the broader community. The development of academic inter-personal and inter-textual networks precedes and contributes to the development of the intellectual strand � writing and other forms of communicating that contribute to one's specialism. Returning to Sam's story: As part of my regular routine to stay healthy and sane, I ran 2 days, played Ultimate Frisbee 1 evening, and worked out in a gym 3 days. With neither the time nor the money, I don't engage in many other social activities. As on most weekends, I cooked, cleaned, did grocery shopping and laundry - all the things I typically don't have time for after a day in the office or lab. I saw myself as the most significant individual in my progress this week, since I chose to invest time in activities not directly related to my thesis, with the hope they would translate into long-term career benefits. Sam creates a routine to maintain a work-life balance. Again we see clearly his commitment to situating thesis work within what is for him the present issue of finding a job. Another log looks quite different. I spent approximately 40 hours this week on work contributing to my study, most of it processing about 80 samples in a gas chromatograph (GC). Each sample required a minimum of 8 minutes. So ...to feel productive, I set up my laptop beside the GC and organised data files and wrote analysis scripts while waiting. ...The samples occasionally took a little longer than they needed to because I would get distracted by these other tasks, but it meant the work was less boring and I got a lot more done. I also had a 1-hour weekly meeting with my supervisor to discuss progress and deadlines; we talked in the lab next to the GC, so I could continue to process samples. We see here that Sam is resourceful in organising himself so that he both uses his time well and stays motivated. His location enables him to develop his institutional strand; this strand carries responsibilities yet provides resources to progress intentions. He has access to a lab and research tools, but he also is charged with working with the lab technician to ensure supplies are adequate as well as teaching. Further, he meets with his supervisor, another form of institutional resource. University and departmental location, not surprisingly, influenced the development of the institutional strand, organisational responsibilities and resources, as well as the other academic strands of identity-trajectory. I begin by examining the supervisory relationship as a responsibilityresource and then move on to other examples. In entering a PhD programme, individuals assumed a role with responsibilities and began to interact with another individual, the supervisor, also holding an institutional role. In other words, while supervisors are generally conceived as involved in the development of students' intellectual and networking strands, in fact, the supervisor can also be conceived as an institutional and regulated resource. In drawing on this resource, students at various points in the degree generally wanted advice or support from their supervisors less than vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 42 Identity-trajectories, Lynn McAlpine A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W half of the weeks surveyed, tending to seek more support near the beginning and end of their degrees (McAlpine & Mckinnon, in press � an analysis focused on 16 students' supervisory wants and needs).While they wanted feedback on particular tasks they also wanted and did not always get feedback on their overall progress. Interestingly, a considerable number of times, the help sought was related to institutional issues � university requirements, form filling, institutional access to resources � as well their networking and intellectual strands.The reasons students gave for seeking help from their supervisors rather than others were consistently one or more of the following: a) the supervisor was more experienced in research, networking and institutional regulations; b) the supervisor had the necessary disciplinary expertise including methodology; and c) the supervisor was the `most informed about my work'. In this study and the one about those with difficult doctoral journeys, three issues emerged as disruptive of student progress � supervisory unavailability, lack of intellectual investment, and interpersonal conflict. In the case of the students in the latter study, as noted earlier, their academic difficulties were usually combined with personal concurrent challenges. Overall, while the supervisor could enable institutional connectedness, offer networking opportunities, and encourage intellectual development, when this was not the case most students were agentive in seeking support elsewhere given their extensive networks both academic and personal. Students appeared to understand that the basis for the supervisory relationship was ultimately an institutionally defined role assigned for the duration of the doctorate.They all expected the relationship to be professional, but not all expected or wanted more than that. Moving now to other aspects of the institutional strand, students generally reported drawing on libraries and librarians, office space and office equipment, lab equipment and technicians, computers and software to progress their work. Additionally, they drew on intellectual resources such as seminars, workshops, and more senior academic colleagues for advice. And, they benefited from university funds, not only university fellowships but also teaching contracts and TA-ships which enabled them to contribute to an aspect of the institution's mission. Such responsibilities were often perceived as opportunities since they afforded students useful experiences of academic work and also led to satisfaction in contributing to institutional decision-making (McAlpine & Amundsen 2009). Unfortunately, students also reported difficulties in finding pertinent policies and services which they reported disrupted progress; even seeking help in their departments was an ad-hoc affair (McAlpine et al, in press). vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Lastly, students had chosen a doctoral programme based on their own desires and personal commitments in relation to what they understood to be on offer. This had implications not just in their personal lives but also in the institutional resources and responsibilities available to them � though they were not always fully aware of this until they had begun their doctorate. For some students this meant not finding the intellectual and networking resources they had hoped for in their departmental locations. In such cases, students were often agentive and resourceful in seeking support in other departments within their universities and even going to other universities to join networks or attend seminars (McAlpine & Lucas 2011). Developing the institutional strand of academic identity is critical to understanding university governance � essential if students wish academic careers (McAlpine & Asghar 2010). While many students engaged in activities that helped them learn how academic institutions functioned, others did not report this kind of academic work. Given increasing pressure for `timely' completion, it may be that some students received advice to avoid such involvement � strategic in the short-term but potentially detrimental in the long-term for students intending academic careers. Returning now to Sam's story in his second log: I spent a lot of time on-line reading about an open-source document-preparation system, learning to use it to write my first thesis chapter / publication, and emailed technical questions about the software to some colleagues in the lab who had already used it. ...Exploring this resource was the most important experience this week since it provided the specific information I wanted, helped me solve problems and make progress on my goals ...I also wrote the bulk of the methods section for a publication, which is also a chapter in my thesis. Here, reading supports Sam's use of another institutional resource designed to facilitate his writing, though he also calls on his colleagues for help. As a result, he is able to move forward on his writing goal. And, I spent about an hour looking into a conference I want to attend ...I will have to complete a couple of travel grant applications over the next couple of weeks. I also spent 4 hours organising committee work and a meeting for a science policy conference ...later in the year, a couple of hours organising an EndNote database for a contract job, and attended a statistics workshop. I checked with computer staff about backup options, and also coordinated with technical support staff for installation of software on lab computers for microscope cameras. I felt like an academic the whole time I was in the lab, and especially while learning to use the arcane (but effective!) document preparation system. Identity-trajectories, Lynn McAlpine 43 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Evident here are multiple forms of academic work which collectively constitute academic life, and glimpses of additional institutional resources, e.g, lab staff, available to Sam and other students. Beginning the writing process was also important, because it is usually the most difficult, but seeing the product gave me a sense of accomplishment. I was reminded how much I can enjoy writing, and was motivated to continue writing late into some nights, once beyond the initial overwhelming feeling of starting. While Sam has mentioned writing four times already, this is his first extended reference to what in identity-trajectory is referred to as the intellectual strand � communicating in ways that make a contribution to one's specialism or field. Not surprisingly, given the focus on completing a doctoral thesis, whether in the social sciences or the sciences, individuals reported writing on a regular basis � with the more common dissertation genre in the social sciences being a monograph and in the sciences a series of papers. Many experienced difficulties in getting started and reported writing blocks as they developed their ideas through writing and then tried to clearly represent their ideas to others (Boggs & McAlpine 2010). Students also reported tensions around how much time to dedicate to writing given competing demands. Still, a number, like Sam, reported enjoyment and a sense of accomplishment when their writing was flowing. Students were drawing on the `knowledgemaking' practices of their specialism (developed through their inter-textual networking, reading) to develop the intellectual strand (contributing to their scholarly community). They wrote both for themselves (e.g., lab and field notes, code, Endnote summaries), for others (e.g., manuscript reviews, journal manuscripts, departmental annual reports), and occasionally with others (e.g., co-authored papers). Lastly, students generally reported valuing feedback on their writing and seeking it out in a range of venues beyond their supervisors describing feedback as clarifying thinking and enhancing fluency in communicating. Here Sam is working outside the university, in fact, representing it and being recognised as someone with expertise rather than a student. The other students consistently reported being engaged in the same range of networking, intellectual and institutional activities as Sam. While noting that not all were directly related to completing their degrees, they described the motivating power of both contributing to and being recognised for their involvement in academic work beyond that directly related to doctoral work. Further, they viewed these activities as valuable in better preparing them for a possible academic life (McAlpine & Amundsen 2009). The networking, intellectual and institutional strands in identity-trajectory contribute a distinct structure by which to analyse the ways in which students developed their identities through engaging in doctoral-academic work. I like to set daily goals, keeping a To-Do list to help me remember small things, particularly administrative details. In this way, I can get more small tasks accomplished in between the bigger ones that actually occupy most of my attention. But to meet the goals I sometimes have to stay very late in the lab which interferes with my eating and sleeping schedule. And this makes me feel crummy and cranky � until the weekend, when I start to feel more satisfied with my overall progress. This weekend I had a welcome break skiing, and realised how out-of-shape I was after hours in the lab. I also cooked a lot; the leftovers meant I could spend more time in the lab this coming week. Sam's resilience and resourcefulness are evident � he intentionally uses his organisational skills to maintain momentum and ensures `downtime' to sustain motivation. Sam's story ends where it began with a reference to balancing the academic within the personal. This was a constant in the lives of all students. While usually investing in and finding doctoral work interesting, most struggled to find a way to balance the demands of doctoral-academic work within their broader lives. Rare was the individual who had made the decision to treat academic work as a 9 to 5 proposition � something to be left at the office. I also felt like an academic when I was invited to a meeting about statistics workshops with two academics, another graduate student, and a research professional from a government research centre. I am helping to organise such grad workshops in the department. During the meeting I realised I had relevant experience and suggestions to contribute: I didn't feel like a lowly, passive grad student who needed help, but like someone with applicable experience, an academic peer, with a vision for provincial-scale initiatives. This was particularly true when I realised that the professional had only recently finished his PhD, so the quality of the PhD degree seemed somewhat inflated, relative to the quantity of experience that separated the two of us. Conceptualising and researching doctoral experience I argued initially that identity-trajectory offered a complementary perspective to those which emphasise the reproductive features of society. While a structural perspective is necessary to understand the influence of factors beyond our individual perspectives, a focus on individual intention, as in identity-trajectory, highlights the individual's sense of agency in navigating some of these structural fac- 44 Identity-trajectories, Lynn McAlpine vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W tors. It thus offers a means to re-think how we conceive of and research doctoral experience: giving greater attention to how the academic is embedded in personal intentions3; how varied past intentions and responsibilities as well as resources are brought into the academic context; and how negotiating these with what is on offer contributes to doctoral experiences and imagined futures. Conceiving doctoral experience in this way links personal agency and resourcefulness over time to a frequently noted doctoral characteristic � increasing independence (e.g., Gardner 2008). Students' investment in developing and drawing on their academic networks emphasises the importance of independence from the supervisor as well as interdependence among colleagues (Jones 2008; Hakala 2009). Further, students' reported agency focuses attention on the individual's desire to deal with the challenges (personal and structural) as well as the pleasures experienced in doctoral work. Still, while identity-trajectory foregrounds agency, the inter-play of agency with structure is integral. The role of structure is particularly strong in the institutional strand: resources are on offer but are accompanied by responsibilities which can constrain as well as support intentions as well as the development of the networking and intellectual strands. Further, the interaction of horizons for action with opportunity structures demonstrates the tensions around negotiating personal desires within available structures. Additionally, much previous research has focused only on doctoral experience alone and has not followed individuals as they graduate and move on. Collecting data longitudinally, which Schlosser & Kahn (2007) have called for, enables tracking the futures that individuals construct � whether staying in academia, stopping out, or leaving. Thus, this work addresses a gap in the literature, the transition from doctoral education to work (Leonard et al. 2006). Still, since data collection occurs at discrete points in time it is only possible to approximate (Hounsell 2011) the progression of identities and careers in the making. � Use the admissions process to explore students' intentions, personal relationships and related horizons for action, enabling the potential student and the institution to assess whether doctoral work is the best means to achieve the individual's goals. � Incorporate strategies early on for students to gain a more textured knowledge of opportunity structures (academic as well as non-academic), critical given the difficulty of finding academic positions (Nerad et al. 2007). Students can use this knowledge in deciding the kinds of learning activities they should engage in during the degree. As regards the networking strand, while students were intentional, the evidence directs us to consider how students' inter-personal and inter-textual networks can be more fully incorporated into doctoral pedagogies, important not only to intellectual and career development, but also potentially completion of the doctorate (Wright 2003). Possible strategies: � Make visible within the curriculum the importance of developing inter-personal academic networks � particularly given the expectation that future scholars will work collaboratively (Henkel 2000). � Explicitly focus on how to read strategically, as well as the purpose of reading (this may require advice from those with expertise in academic literacy). As regards the intellectual strand, again students invested heavily in their intellectual work, but recognised their need for support, preferably offered within their specialism rather than generically. Implications: � Embed an explicit curriculum about the disciplinary genres in pro-seminars or other contexts in which disciplinary epistemologies and methodologies are under discussion. � Make writing-as-a-process visible, e.g., offering writing retreats, writing feedback sessions (academic literacy expertise may be helpful here). As for the institutional strand, while all drew on the resources and most had some responsibilities many of which they enjoyed, these engagements were rarely framed pedagogically; reinforcing student agency in this regards should be central to doctoral pedagogies: position the student as able and willing to a) act independently of the supervisor, and b) draw on a range of resources often beyond the university. Some strategies: � Create a website that links to resources, policies and practices related to financial, health and other nonacademic concerns. Such a structure creates equity of support for both students and supervisors, particularly for new supervisors who struggle to find supervisory resources (Amundsen & McAlpine 2009). Identity-trajectories, Lynn McAlpine Pedagogical and policy implications Nevertheless, identity-trajectory provides a basis for reframing practice and policy (McAlpine & Amundsen, in press). Students are engaged in their doctoral journeys while purposefully striving to achieve life goals in relation to past and present experiences, relationships and responsibilities.Thus, their investment in doctoral work will vary. Implications of this finding include: vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 45 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W � Ensure, if not already the case, that students have membership on departmental, faculty and university committees. � Provide financial and physical resources for students to collectively create their own development opportunities, e.g., writing workshops. Lynn McAlpine is Professor of Higher Education Development at the University of Oxford, UK, and Professor Emerita at McGill University, Canada. Education Research and Development, 24(2), 151-164. Hakala, J. (2009). Socialization of junior researchers in new academic research environments: Two case studies from Finland. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-516. Jazvac-Martek, M., Chen, S. & McAlpine, L. (2011). Tracking doctoral student experience over time: Cultivating agency in diverse spaces. In L. McAlpine & C. Amundsen (eds.). Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators. Amsterdam: Springer, 17-36. Jones, L. (2008). Converging paradigms for doctoral training in the sciences and humanities. In D. Boud & A. Lee (eds), Changing Practices in Doctoral Education. London: Routledge, 29-41. Leonard, D., Metcalfe, J., Becker, R. & Evans, J. (2006). Review of literature on the impact of working context and support on the postgraduate research student learning experience. London: Higher Education Academy. McAlpine, L. (2011). The doctorate: What role reading? Paper presented at the Academic Literacies Conference, London, UK. McAlpine, L. & Amundsen, C. (2009). Identity and agency: Pleasures and collegiality among the challenges of the doctoral journey. Studies in Continuing Education, 31(2), 107-123. McAlpine, L. & Amundsen, C. (2011). Challenging the taken-for-granted: How research analysis might inform pedagogical practices and institutional policies related to doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 37, 7, Published iFirst July 6, 2011. McAlpine, L., Amundsen, C. & Jazvac-Martek, M. (2010). Living and imagining academic careers: Perceptions of doctoral students and pre-tenure academics. In L. McAlpine & G. Akerlind (eds). Becoming an academic: International Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 125-154. McAlpine, L. & Asghar, A. (2010). Enhancing academic climate: Doctoral students as their own developers. International Journal of Academic Development, 15(2), 167-178. McAlpine, L. & Lucas, L. (2011). Different places, different specialisms: Similar questions of doctoral identities under construction. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(6), 695-706. McAlpine, L. & McKinnon, M. (in press). Supervision � the most variable of variables: Student perspectives. Studies in Continuing Education. McAlpine, L., Paulson, J., Gonsalves, A. & Jazvac-Martek, M. (in press). `Untold' doctoral stories in the social sciences: Can we move beyond cultural narratives of neglect? Higher Education Research and Development. McAlpine, L. & Turner, G. (2011). Imagined and emerging career patterns: Perceptions of doctoral students and research staff. Journal of Further and Continuing Education.Published iFirst, 20 December 2011. Mowbray, S., & Halse, C. (2010). The purpose of the PhD: Theorizing the skills acquired by students. Higher Education Research and Development, 29(6), 653-664. Nerad, M., Rudd, E., Morrison, E., & Picciano, J. (2007). Social science PhDs five+ years out: a national survey of PhDs in six fields (Highlights Report). Seattle: Centre for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education, University of Washington. Schlosser, L. Z. & Kahn, J. H. (2007). Dyadic Perspectives on Advisor�Advisee Relationships in Counseling Psychology Doctoral Programs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(2), 211-217. Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14-22. Stake, R. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. Wright, T. (2003). Postgraduate research students: people in context? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 31(2), 209-227. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Acknowledgement This research has been supported in part by the Social Science Research Council of Canada and the Centre for Excellence Preparing for Academic Practice. Endnotes 1. While there have been many team members, three in particular have been involved for lengthy periods and made substantial contributions: Cheryl Amundsen, Nick Hopwood, and Gill Turner. 2. These 80 represent a portion of the overall research program which has also followed 50 post-PhD researchers and pre-tenure lecturers. 3. I am not suggesting that others ignore the personal; for instance, Mowbray & Halse (2010) refer to students seeing their personal and professional lives as intertwined. However, in identity-trajectory, the personal (and agency) are starting points and the personal is a constant point of reference in the analyses. References Agosto, D., & Hughes- Hassell, S. (2005). People, places, and questions: An investigation of the everyday life information-seeking behaviours of urban young adults. Library and Information Science Research, 27, 141-163. Amundsen, C. & McAlpine, L. (2009). Learning supervision: Trial by fire? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 331-342. Archer, L. (2008). Younger academics' constructions of authenticity', `success', and professional identity. Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 385-403. Archer, M. (2000). Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Barnacle, R., & Mewburn, I. (2010). Learning networks and the journey of `becoming doctor'. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 433-444. Boggs., A., & McAlpine, L. (2010). The myth of `writing it up'. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Higher Education, Wales, UK. Carlone, H., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of colour: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187-1218. Coulter, C., & Smith, M. (2009). The construction zone: Literary elements in narrative research. Educational Researcher, 38(8), 577-590. Elliott, Jane. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London, UK: Sage. Hounsell, D. (2011, Aug.). Personal communication. Gardner, S. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 125-138. Green, B. (2005). Unfinished business: subjectivity and supervision, Higher 46 Identity-trajectories, Lynn McAlpine A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W What constitutes doctoral knowledge? Exploring issues of power and subjectivity in doctoral examination Anita Devos Monash University, Victoria Margaret Somerville University of Western Sydney, NSW Globalisation has brought increasing diversity in student populations and therefore the potential for different sorts of knowledge to enter the academy. At the same time there is heightened surveillance brought about in response to the pressures of global competition, including increasing standardisation, marketisation and performativity measures. A corollary of these larger processes is the increasing surveillance and control of knowledge and knowledge production in universities, to ensure the position of nation states in global economic competition. This paper considers how these tensions are enacted at the site of doctoral examination with the potential for opening up or closing down the possibilities of new knowledge being generated through doctoral research. This is a significant issue for universities, for future graduates, and for the nation's economic competitiveness, because new and diverse forms of knowledge are critical for the future. In the article, we explore how doctoral knowledge and subjectivities are constituted in the doctoral examination process, with reference to a recent thesis examination in our Faculty. We draw on the Adjudicator's report produced in the case, and the experiences of the second author as the candidate's supervisor, in an effort to make explicit the invisible pedagogies of doctoral examination. In the process we raise issues of the relations of power exercised through the intersection of different epistemologies and ontologies, and the inevitable negotiation and production of knowledge-making subjectivities of those involved. We conclude that doctoral knowledge and knowledge subjectivities are constituted within this power/knowledge assemblage, and challenge the boundaries of institutional knowledge production. We propose generative ways of understanding the possibilities for the production of alternative forms of knowledge in doctoral work that may confront and extend conventional notions of (doctoral) knowledge production, and what it means to make `an original contribution to knowledge'. Introduction Doctoral education is increasingly being driven by perceptions of what counts as worthwhile in knowledge economy discourses.The recurring themes in the doctoral education research literature reinforce an assumed shared global narrative of the need for change in doctoral education towards the closer alignment of doctoral graduates with the needs vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 of the economy (see Australian Government 2011; Marginson & van der Wende 2007). In the context of government and institutional investments in particular kinds of doctoral education it is timely to consider what counts as worthwhile knowledge and to whom, and how that knowledge might be produced and represented. In order to do this we examine the processes of knowledge production by reviewing a recent doctoral exami- What constitutes doctoral knowledge?, Anita Devos & Margaret Somerville 47 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W nation case in which a thesis by a Cambodian candidate received two divergent examination results. Under our university's policy, an adjudicator was appointed to read the examiners' reports and the candidate's written defence of her thesis, to assess the merits of the examiners' reports, and to recommend a result. The adjudicator recommended the candidate be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy subject to minor amendments being made to the satisfaction of the Faculty's research degrees administrator. The stakeholders directly involved in this process included the candidate, the supervisor, the examiners, the adjudicator, and the research degrees administrator. In this paper we examine how doctoral knowledge, and the knowledge subjectivities of these actors were constituted within the examination process examination, in particular the role of the adjudicator's reports in accommodating the respective actors' subjectivities. We begin the paper with an outline of the case following which we discuss the examination process as a technology for disciplining the parties involved (see Foucault 1983, 1991). We then analyse the adjudicator's report produced in the case, reflecting on our own stories and positioning within this assemblage of actors and administrative procedures.The paper concludes with a discussion of the ways in which the examination process, as a feature of doctoral pedagogies, shapes practices that direct what counts as worthwhile doctoral knowledge. We note that issues associated with thesis examination were not considered explicitly in the 1995 Special Issue of Australian Universities' Review to which this current issue relates, yet thesis examination is a critical juncture in the doctoral education process, with serious implications for candidate, supervisor and institution, and for how we understand the fields in which we work. Our article takes up key issues raised by this case, to do with the nature of knowledge in doctoral education; how doctoral knowledge and researcher subjectivities are constituted in the supervision and examination process; of what constitutes an original contribution to knowledge; and why we should encompass the necessity to produce alternative forms of knowledge and knowledge subjectivities. In this process we resist the temptation to make more of the thesis at the heart of our case. Its subject matter is indeed compelling yet to elaborate further on the thesis and its contribution to new knowledge, distracts us from our core focus here on the pedagogical dimensions of the examination process. As authors we represent the roles of supervisor (Somerville) and research degrees administrator (Devos). The issues presented are framed conceptually by Somerville's theorisation of alternative methodologies and knowledge in doctoral research (Somerville 2007, 2008), which is underpinned by feminist psychoanalytic and postcolonial theory. The role of the examination process is considered through the lens of Foucault's theorisation of the subject and power (Devos 2008; Foucault 1983).We ask how were doctoral knowledge and knowledge subjectivities negotiated in this process? And what are the implications for how we supervise, examine and administer research degrees? The case study In 2009, a doctoral candidate in education submitted her PhD for examination. It was an unusual thesis in the form of a memoir by a member of the Cambodian Royal Family, deposed and exiled during the Pol Pot regime in the 1970s. The memoir itself is unconventional and does not fit within the usual methodologies of memoir and life history writing because it is in fact the memoir of the candidate's grandmother, memorised in Cambodian language before the candidate left Cambodia in exile. During the Pol Pot regime, the candidate lost everything, including her two children, so the act of writing her thesis represented a highly emotionally charged commitment to intergenerational and transcontinental identity work. Piphal arrived in Australia in 1975 in exile. Now an Australian citizen she continues the work of her grandmother in practising and teaching Cambodian cultural traditions, particularly from the perspective of the Cambodian Royal Family. While the candidate's story is unique, in the larger context of global social processes and mobilities, conflicts and refugee movements, the knowledge problem presented here is not uncommon. The candidate's story The following is quoted from the candidate's thesis (Engly 2010), selected for its relevance to the focus of this paper. On the 27th of March, I packed up every beautiful and expensive souvenir that was given to me since I was young by Prince Sihanouk, Princess Monique, the Queen Mother and King Suramarith (the father of Prince Sihanouk). I passed them to be under the care of the Samdech Preah Sangha Niyaka Huot Tat, a top ranking Buddhist monk then who stayed at the Ohnalom Pagoda which was located by the Mekong River near the public market Phsar Kandal. Samdech Preah Sangha Niyaka Huot Tat advised me to bring other rare objects to him if I wanted to when there was still time. After we came back from the temple, my husband and I started burning every other priceless thing while an army helicopter hovered and patrolled above our vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 48 What constitutes doctoral knowledge?, Anita Devos & Margaret Somerville A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W house. Among all the rare and expensive gifts, my favourites were huge Chinese silk paintings. These were given to me by my late father who received them as presents from the former Prime Minster Zhou En Lai while he was in China during the 1950s. I understood the serious circumstance well enough that I had to burn those rare collections. I could not take them to the Samdech Huot Tat because he would not have enough room for those special souvenirs and the lives of my family were obviously in grave danger if they were found. Our families were then placed under house arrest for eight months. Two soldiers always guarded our front and back doors and watched every single movement. A soldier drove my children to school every day while another checked the shopping baskets when my cook returned from the market every morning. They took everything out of the basket and spread them out on the floor because they wanted to find if there was any paper or message meant for our family that could have been hidden among the cakes and vegetables. We were not allowed to see our parents, our siblings or anyone else and we lived in hell during those eight months. Whatever we did or spoke, we took extreme care of our actions and choice of words. In the lounge room, I saw everyone still in their hiding places under an armchair or in the corner of a big cupboard display. I took a pair of thongs from my maid and struggled to return to my bedroom because my little niece was still trapped inside and was crying out for help. I held her under my left arm tightly and found my way back outside to be with the others. As soon as I was out of my bedroom, a door and a wall which were burning down suddenly collapsed behind my back. `All of you go to the last car', I shouted, and everyone quickly packed up into a single small car which was one of the four cars parked in the garage. We did not take anything with us except my handbag, which was on a chair in the lounge, because the house had already burnt and fell down in pieces. I drove to my mother's house and dropped the children off there. After that tragic event, we moved into my mother's house. On the same day at 5 o'clock, after dinner, I sat quietly near my mother who was lying down on the sofa. I listened to the news on the television that reported the `destruction of a house by a large rocket which was launched from the other side of the Mekong River, across Island Chruoy Changva, and the Cambodian Army could not find launch sites'. After the news, the children went to bed. My dear mother went into her room and came back with a large brown thick envelope in her hands. She then handed it to me and said: `Arlette (my nickname at home), this is a book that I have kept so many years with extreme care. I have read it thoroughly but some parts have now worn out. You will find it very important. I know you like reading and you like books but for this one, you have to take extra care as it is not just any ordinary book.' vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 She suggested me to read it several times, even hundreds of times, until I have memorised the memoir by heart since our country could not warn us of any danger or doom. She sighed and said that she could not keep that memoir with her anymore. Some writing was faded away because they were almost a hundred years old and the quality of paper was poor because they were produced by an ancient technical procedure back in the old days. Wherever she has moved with my father, she had always kept it close to her heart. When I came to Australia, I came to a medical conference and it was during my time in Australia that I lost my two children and everything I owned in the Pol Pot regime. I never saw those memoirs again. I recall the memoirs as I memorised them and write them down in Cambodian and then translate them into English. The English translation is sometimes difficult because the ideas are difficult to communicate in English so there is another layer of editing required to help to make sense of the cultural meanings of this record of Cambodian history. I have used my inherited knowledge of royal custom and dress, and of traditional Cambodian cultural practices and meanings, to assist in the communication of the sense of the preservation of Cambodian history and culture that occurred through the Nationalist Movement. Such techniques as dressing contemporary Australians in aspects of royal dress, and then photographing them, assists to communicate the lost meanings of Cambodian cultural practice. The supervisor's story Towards the end of Piphal's candidature, the supervisor organised for a colleague in Piphal's home city to meet with Piphal on a regular basis to discuss her work in progress. The supervisor felt that this face-to-face support would be beneficial for the progress of the PhD. The following is an excerpt from the supervisor's correspondence with this colleague at the time of making this arrangement. 4/10/2008 It is the voice of Piphal as the narrator that will hold the whole story together and will be a continuing thread throughout. It is the story of her resilience and the qualities that have given her that resilience, how `the memoir' is a symbol of continuity to a past that has now gone irretrievably from her life because of her migration and the events of Pol Pot. There is such a lot of violence and it also seems to be about this tension between the violence of personal and cultural erasure and the persistence of cultural story and embodied cultural practice (like gesture, dress, fabric). There were some beautiful instances of storytelling from Piphal at our residential school. In one related to a free writing exercise she talked about seeing the patterns in the clouds as like lace flowers and the lace flowers became the gestures of the hands in the dances of the royal ballet. Her chapter about the royal ballet starts with some of the memoir and that is where the ritual of the dressing comes in to the What constitutes doctoral knowledge?, Anita Devos & Margaret Somerville 49 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W story. Madame Doumer was taught the meaning of the gestures, bodily comportment and so on. So that free writing might be a good way to begin that chapter. Piphal dressed me as Madame Doumer who was in the memoir dressed in Cambodian Royal dress by Bophaphuong, Piphal's grandmother so she could take photos for her thesis. A kind of doubled identity transformation from French to Cambodian in 19th century Cambodia to Australian to French to Cambodian in 21st century Australia. Piphal brought the royal clothes along to a doctoral school and the other candidates helped to dress me once Piphal and I had privately donned the under and most of the outer garments. Her care and gentility in the dressing was as of a maid to royalty but with Piphal's position reversed; Piphal as handmaiden. It was the Wednesday morning dress for a Cambodian princess � a cream lace silk blouse, emerald green silk wrap-around skirt held in place by an ornate gold belt, a green silk shoulder sash and then layers of ritual jewellery. There were several heavy gold bangles around my wrists and ankles, a large gold broach on my shoulder to hold the sash in place and rings that did not fit my fingers. Each item of gold jewellery had ornate patterns of ritual significance in Cambodian Buddhist culture and each was placed in the correct order on my body. I felt weighed down by the gold jewellery and how it constrained my body movements. Once dressed I was instructed in how to walk, sit, hold my head, my hands, where my eyes should be directed, that is in how to become the body of a Cambodian royal princess. I was photographed by Piphal. She included the photograph in her thesis as a form of mimesis. At the time I felt extremely uncomfortable in all of the sense of bodily comportment, as if my body was tightly held in place and I failed miserably to reproduce the body of a Cambodian princess. In the photos, however, I can see a remarkable translation and I understood so much more of Piphal's subjectivity. The memoir is such an elusive object. Is it one object or several? Does it exist as an object or only in Piphal's mind? Was it taught to her orally, or shown to her in writing, or both? What is the process through which the memoir comes into being as a piece of writing and what are the constraints around that - political, language, personal, etc. For example, I have suggested to Piphal at times that the language is too slanderous (against the French), but for Piphal it is a literal translation of her Grandfather's (and Grandmother's) memoir and how can one change a memoir quote? On the other hand it is already translated from written to oral and back to written, from Cambodian script to English language and script, so it is already changed. What is the relation to Piphal's own stories and storytelling and to the continuity of traditions? There is also the sense that Piphal believes that the writing, and indeed all that happens around it, is directed by the hands of the ancestors, so in that sense too it is a record beyond the person who carries it. Piphal tells me about how she carried the memoir in her head for over 20 years and during all this time she was in `the abyss' because she did not know how to get the story out. When she met me, she says, I `hooked her from the depths of the abyss so that she could bring the story to light'. She believes that she was guided to meet me by her grandmother � I cannot for the life of me work out how it happened � why or how did a person from another city who had connections to both universities in that city end up enrolling in a PhD at my University? By what process did she come to choose me who has no experience or knowledge of Cambodian history or cultural practice? Piphal acquired all of the artefacts involved in this ritual of dressing after her arrival in Australia. The dressing in traditional clothing acts as a metaphor for the complex and varied subjectivities Piphal's supervisor negotiates in this supervision, as she assumes one or other position within the relationship. The heavy jewellery symbolises too the mantle she assumes in taking on responsibility for assisting Piphal to bring her grandmother's story to light through the doctorate. The research degrees administrator One of my roles in the Faculty is to participate in advisory panels convened when there is a significant discrepancy between thesis examiners' reports. From time to time, new academic staff are invited to attend these panels as part of their supervisor training. I first became aware of the sensitivity surrounding Piphal's examination in the lead up to the panel meeting, when I was told that the supervisor was concerned about the advisory panel being opened to new supervisors. Her wishes for a closed panel meeting, in light of the unusual nature of the thesis and the risks inherent in its production, were not respected, and three to four new supervisors attended the confidential proceedings in addition to the official panel members. The incident made explicit the investments of supervisors in the examination of their students' theses, and the challenge to supervisor subjectivities in this particular case. The issues raised by this thesis were clear on reading the examiners' reports, each appearing well founded, but clearly written from such different standpoints. How were we to make sense of them? The Supervisor was asked by the panel to recommend an Adjudicator to assess the case. The panel in doing this `outsourced' the intellectual work needed to resolve the case. At this stage I was worried, as the reports seemed irreconcilable, speaking from such different positions about how knowledge is produced, what constitutes acceptable doctoral work, and how it might be represented in a thesis. The adjudicator's report received, the advisory panel was reconvened to consider and make a recommendation for a result. The adjudicator's report `resolved' vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 50 What constitutes doctoral knowledge?, Anita Devos & Margaret Somerville A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W the examination process and the candidate asked to make minor amendments. My role then was to sign off on the amendments once made. In carrying out this role, I am mindful of the power invested in determining what constitutes acceptable amendments as the changes recommended by examiners and panels in contested cases are usually subject to interpretation. Given the diversity of disciplines and thesis work in our Faculty, this kind of flexibility is necessary for the candidate and supervisor to act in any meaningful way to develop the work. When I `check' the amendments made, my practice is guided by the advisory panel's analysis of the combined reports, together with my own, and the supervisor's interpretation of those reports and panel's recommendations. The case highlighted my problematic position as gatekeeper, an agent in a series of pedagogical moves designed, from an institutional perspective, to license new doctorate holders. This case in particular was significant, as it was apparent that the challenges the thesis posed sat outside the bounds of the panel members' experiences. Who judges what makes new knowledge? What language do we use to speak about things we don't understand? The case had particular meanings for me given my commitment to developing a dialogue amongst colleagues about alternative forms of thesis work, as a means to extend our thinking about how we support innovation in doctoral work. knowledge production. It materialised an aspect of the supervisor's role as it existed in the candidate's imagination and made evident the different way the supervisory relationship was constituted in the space between eastern and western epistemologies, language, ethnicities, and class. In articulating a methodology of `postmodern emergence' as the nature of such radical alternative methodologies, Somerville writes about an ontology of becoming-other-to-ourselves through our research (2007, 2008). In this paper we identify the process of becoming-otherto-oneself as a characteristic of the necessarily relational and intersubjective pedagogical processes of producing knowledge through doctoral supervision. The thesis represents ten years of close engagement between candidate and supervisor with several intermissions for major upheavals in the candidate's life. When the thesis was finally completed the task of finding examiners was difficult, due to increasing pressures of academic work for potential examiners, the unusual nature of the thesis, and the challenge of specifying `a field' for this research. Thesis examination as a technology of disciplining The point at which claims to make `a contribution to new knowledge' are tested is in the thesis examination process. At our university, two examiners are asked to comment on whether a thesis: 1. `Constitutes a significant contribution to knowledge and understanding of the field concerned; 2. Contains material worthy of publication; and whether 3. The format and literary presentation of the thesis are satisfactory'. Examiner A agreed with all three, while examiner B ticked no for the first two, and yes for the third (presentation). Examiner A described the thesis as an `impressive and unique contribution to knowledge', and `a remarkable work of personal and academic scholarship'. Examiner B pointed out `the strength of the work [lies] in its detailed and fascinating primary research' but went on to recommend substantial further work mainly to develop the historical and political contexts of the narrative, with a view to resubmission and re-examination. A Faculty Advisory Panel was convened and an adjudicator appointed . From time to time, examiners recommend very different grades for a thesis. What distinguishes this case is the challenge this thesis posed to conceptions of what constitutes an original contribution to knowledge and how that knowledge might be produced and represented. As Somerville points out (2007), many candidates do not choose alterna- The production of knowledge and knowledge subjectivities In doctoral supervision, supervisor and candidate are co-implicated in knowledge production. Both will enter and be changed through the process. Piphal, steeped in a different set of understandings and interpretation of the teacher-student relationship, believed that the Supervisor was sent by the candidate's long deceased grandmother to achieve the release of her knowledge into the world. Despite the supervisor's gentle protests, discussion, explanation and resistance this did not change at any point during the supervision or afterwards. On one hand, the Candidate was in a position of upper class superiority as a member of the Royal family in relation to the supervisor's non-royal class positioning. On the other, the supervisor was revered as a knowledgeable teacher with great power in relation to the publication of the memoirs. This complex set of embodied beliefs framed the pedagogical relationship enacted through the identity translation work and symbolised by the inclusion of photographs of the supervisor dressed as Madame Doumer. This act of dressing in a mimetic performance of her grandmother's relationship with Madame Doumer, and then adding the photo to the thesis, illustrates the incorporation of the supervisor('s) body in the process of vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 What constitutes doctoral knowledge?, Anita Devos & Margaret Somerville 51 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W tive methodologies but take them up because `...there are no other ways for that research to be undertaken or represented' (240). These may include methodologies not yet developed that will evolve through the work of the candidate, meaning that there will be no examiner experienced in the particular methodology of the thesis. At best it may be possible to locate examiners who are open to new and emergent forms of knowledge representation. In their study of `consistency' in examiner recommendations on the same thesis, Holbrook et al. (2008) found that only 33 of the 804 theses they studied (4 per cent) had one or more discrepant reports, and only 37 examiners (less than 2 per cent) showed a marked discrepancy from the other examiners and committees (45).They suggest that despite the highly subjective nature of thesis examination, their findings point to `the `innate robustness' of the `invisible' doctoral curriculum and evidence of consistently applied standards' (45). Alternatively, the evidence of high levels of consistency can indicate the highly effective disciplining and normalising role of doctoral pedagogies. Citing Kwiram (2006,142) writing in a Carnegie volume on the future of the doctorate in the US, Holbrook et al. (2008) note that `while there are differences in expectations, quality and performance across candidates, disciplines, departments and nations `there seems to be a tacit understanding of what constitutes a well-prepared PhD student' and that in the complete absence of any central repository or rules or a cosmic accrediting agency there is `extraordinary stability'' (46). Holbrook et al. take heart from their study results, suggesting the same applies in Australia. Yet these results raise questions about the inherent worthiness of standardisation (see Devos 2010), and about the relationship between `a well-prepared PhD candidate' and the production of new knowledge, pointing to different understandings of the purpose of the doctorate.The issue presented in our paper turns on how we articulate those invisible pedagogies of the doctorate that lead to such high levels of consistency in examination. Our intention in doing this is to promote debate about the implications of this `invisible curriculum' for innovation in doctoral work leading to the production of new knowledge. Our account of the thesis examination process illustrates the disciplining role performed in the production of new knowledge in doctoral education. Thesis examination is the final stage of the roll out of a suite of doctoral pedagogies, its power effects in shaping new knowledge rendered invisible within a discourse of standards (see Devos 2010). It shows the ways in which technologies of examination discipline those involved and construct particular sorts of subjectivities and dispositions towards what counts as new and worthwhile knowledge. This is indeed paradoxical if we are to view doctoral education as about expanding the fields of knowledge and knowledge making in ways we cannot at this point imagine.The disciplinary apparatus creates a web of constraints over which we may feel we have no choice. Academics may experience what McWilliam refers to as a heightened `risk consciousness' (2007) whereby they become focused on risk management, and averse to risk-taking. Within contemporary universities, the pedagogies of the doctorate, in this case analysed at the point of thesis examination, and framed through distinct disciplinary traditions and wider performative pressures, may steer us towards safe options and away from the goals of the doctorate to make an original and significant contribution to new knowledge. The adjudicator's report The adjudicator's report was a concise document that operates at the level of meta-narrative, viewing the two examiners' reports from the perspective of what they each reflect about the nature of scholarship and of disciplines. Of her role as an arbiter, requested to pronounce on the relative soundness, correctness or appropriateness of the two examiners recommendations, the adjudicator commented that both examiners were competent and fair from the perspectives of the disciplinary and research spaces in which they were each located. Because of its unique qualities, the thesis, she argued, could not be judged in the usual ways following normalised academic procedures of text productions. She went on to argue that when examiner B asked for the work to be connected to other research projects and studies, s/he was missing the point that the thesis is enough on its own. In other words, the thesis should be judged on its own terms; the work stands alone, in its own genre. New and inexperienced examiners approach the marking of doctoral theses with some trepidation, often because they have little to go on other than their own experience of having been examined. Yet there is an implied discourse that we know and agree on what a PhD is, what it might look like, and what constitutes a significant contribution to knowledge. While Holbrook et al.'s research (2008) reports on remarkable consistency amongst examiners, a scan of education theses in our libraries points to quite different understandings across sub-fields, or at least that different sorts of evidence may be acceptable for demonstrating the same achievements amongst candidates. How and from where is our epistevol. 54, no. 1, 2012 52 What constitutes doctoral knowledge?, Anita Devos & Margaret Somerville A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W mology of the doctorate derived? Is it a private epistemology or a collectively held one, perhaps acquired through induction into a sub disciplinary field? How does it acquire its normalising powers? The kind of scholarship examiner B recommended be conducted in order to be awarded a Pass, the adjudicator suggested, was not mandatory for the form of innovative scholarship the candidate was undertaking in the work. The adjudicator argued the thesis is the constitution of an outstanding documentation of an epistemology and ontology. The adjudicator observed the difficulties facing PhD examiners, in so doing refraining from casting judgment on one or other examiner, because universities are not set up to produce PhD examiners who can move across disciplinary fields, see possibilities of excellence in difference and be open to research innovations they themselves have never seen and never imagined. How then, we ask, does important new knowledge enter the system? The adjudicator alludes to the failure of a whole system, a failure of both innovation and imagination, which limits our capacities and inclinations to make assessments of merit for which we have no benchmarks. When asked to report on possible bias in the reports, she commented that there is no evidence of bias in the reports of the two examiners, although one must wonder how much we as senior academics colonise others and want new scholarship to be like ours. In this she draws attention to our inclinations towards reproduction in scholarship rather than innovation, emphasising her overall commentary on the nature of knowledge and of knowledge making in doctoral research.The adjudicator defined the issue not as a question of a level appropriate to that of a doctoral candidate; rather it is about a thesis of difference and innovation. In closing she concurred with examiner B's assessment of the thesis as a remarkable piece of personal and academic scholarship. This report closed the examination effectively and opened a discourse of `difference and innovation' in regard to doctoral research and pedagogies, theorised by Somerville as founded on a methodology of postmodern emergence (2007, 2008). In this context, the term suggests a capacity and preparedness to work outside of `normalised' frameworks for evaluating merit in doctoral research in order to recognise what is `the other' in the creation vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 of new and generative ways of expressing difference. The adjudicator's report is remarkable because it encapsulates the issues at stake in working across different domains of knowledge, theory and text. It is the space within which the subjectivities of the actors came together, not in an effort or act of reconciliation, as the positions are `irreconcilable', but as a space within which those subjectivities could be respected and managed. Concluding comments: What counts as doctoral knowledge? A Doctor of Philosophy is underpinned by ontology and epistemology (which are in turn related to methodology) because it primarily addresses the philosophy of knowledge production. This means it is necessarily framed in relation to knowledge in a particular field. In this case, the object of the candidate's inquiry was her grandmother's memoirs, which are located within a Cambodian ontology and epistemology. The work of her doctorate was to preserve her sense of the integrity of a Cambodian epistemology while simultaneously translating that into English within an Australian location. Her relationship to her supervisor, as supervisor and as collaborator in that knowledge production, was understood through that lens. While most supervisions demand the negotiation of boundaries � of class, gender, epistemology, researcher subjectivities, priorities � this case raised a particular set of issues due to the non-traditional forms of inquiry and representation. These issues must be understood and theorised not as an isolated and specific example, but as an instance on a continuum of all knowledge production. The risk here was that the thesis would fail � a potentially huge risk, of death to the knowledge and to the identity of the producer of that knowledge. For the candidate who had lost so much, that was the ultimate risk, but it was her choice and not one the supervisor could choose not to take.The risk to the supervisor was a risk to reputation, of subjectivity as co-producer of knowledge, and of many years of hard work going unrecognised. The risk for the administrator concerned the challenge to her researcher and administrator subjectivities: what does it mean when a highly original thesis fails � for students coming along behind, for supervision quality, for institutional reputation? Thesis examination is the final stage of the roll out of a suite of doctoral pedagogies, its power effects in shaping new knowledge rendered invisible within a discourse of standards. What constitutes doctoral knowledge?, Anita Devos & Margaret Somerville 53 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W It is in some respects strange to be suggesting we must encompass the necessity to produce alternative forms of knowledge and knowledge subjectivities in our doctoral pedagogies, as this is really asking why should we produce new knowledge at all. New knowledge constitutes difference and without difference new knowledge cannot exist. The question then becomes how much difference we can embrace without risking the erasure of the boundaries that define us. The case challenges us to think about how, while providing form, structure and guidance to all of the parties in this process (or, a frame on the chaos of the world (Grosz 2008) which makes knowledge production possible, we also need to be mindful of the dangers of those structures. In making this case the subject of an academic paper, we seek to make explicit the invisible pedagogies of doctoral examination, offering a different theorisation of that process to other researchers in this field. Thesis examination is regarded as a private matter; it has conventions and practices that exercise normalising effects producing high levels of consistency in marking as others have noted; and governed by protocols of which we may only be vaguely aware. Making explicit these protocols or conventions allows us to examine their foundation in the context of a wider debate about doctoral work and its place in contemporary universities and in society, and provides a platform to consider the ways in which pedagogical power is exercised at the point of entry into the disciplinary field. It further provides a platform for engaging new academics in these debates. In conclusion, we note how candidate, supervisor and administrator subjectivities are constituted within complex webs of institutional and discipline-based regimes of power. Through our elaboration of these webs we begin to articulate their constraining and productive capacities. Beginning with the ethical issues of who owns the text of the reports, who owns the knowledge produced in supervision, and how we can articulate these issues, we understand this as fraught territory. Relations in this territory tend to remain invisible to the different players and to others who need to learn, and the operations of power and relational production of knowledge not well explored or theorised in the literature. While this case may represent an extremity of difference, doctoral education must make room for the messy, unfolding, emergent nature of doctoral knowledge and subjectivities that are produced within this space. Making these relations of power and production visible will enable those involved to take the risks necessary to name and learn. Anita Devos is Senior Lecturer and Graduate Coordinator Research Degrees in the Faculty of Education, Monash University, and Editorial Board member of AUR. Margaret Somerville is a Professor of Education and Senior Researcher in the School of Education, University of Western Sydney. Acknowledgements Thank you to the candidate and adjudicator for giving us permission to use their texts, knowing we would not be able to ensure their anonymity. In this regard the paper is a contribution to discussions of intellectual property in doctoral work. For ethical reasons, we do not draw on the initial examiners' reports except to paraphrase their key concerns. As authors, we are sensitive of the ways in which scholarly and other identities are at risk in the production and official recognition of new knowledge, and of the imperative to avoid harm in our commentary. References Australian Government (2011). Research Skills for an Innovative Future: A Research Workforce Strategy to cover the Decade to 2020 and Beyond. Canberra: Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Devos, A. (2010). New teachers, mentoring and the formation of professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education 261219-1223. Devos, A. (2008). Where enterprise and equity meet: The rise of mentoring for women in Australian universities. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 29, No. 2: 195-205. Engly, P. (2010). The secret nationalist movement: memoirs of a Cambodian princess. Unpublished PhD thesis. Monash University. Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H.L.Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (eds) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuraliusm and Hermeneutics. (second edition) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 208-226. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (eds) The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. Herfordhsire: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 87-104. Grosz, E. (2008). Chaos, territory, art: Deleuze and the framing of the earth. New York: Columbia University Press. Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T. & Fairbairn, H. (2008). Consistency and inconsistency in PhD thesis examination. Australian Journal of Education 52, No. 1: 36-48. Marginson, S. & van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and Higher Education. Paris: OECD. McWilliam, E. (2007). Managing `nearly' reasonable risk in the contemporary university. Studies in Higher Education 32, No. 3: 311-321. Somerville, M. (2007). Postmodern emergence. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 20, No. 2: 225-243. Somerville, M. (2008). Waiting in the chaotic place of unknowing: articulating postmodern emergence, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 21, No: 3: 209-220. 54 What constitutes doctoral knowledge?, Anita Devos & Margaret Somerville vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Internationalisation of doctoral education Possibilities for new knowledge and understandings Janette Ryan University of Oxford, UK The past decade has seen a rapid increase in the number of international students undertaking doctorates in Anglophone universities such as Australia and the UK. In 2009, 11,500 international students were undertaking postgraduate research in Australia, with a 20 per cent increase in doctoral enrolments over the previous year (AEI 2011). In the UK, international students comprise 50 per cent of full-time research degree students (UKCISA 2011). The postgraduate research student cohort in these countries has thus radically changed as these students have brought with them different academic cultures and intellectual traditions. Although distinct phases can be identified in the responses of Australian and British universities to increases in international students, with the current phase aligned to internationalisation agendas, there still appears to be a lack of recognition of the potential to take advantage of these global flows of people, ideas and perspectives by engaging with the knowledge and academic values that international doctoral students bring. Are we taking advantage of these opportunities for the generation of new knowledge and skills or do we risk being complacent about the superiority of `Western' academic ways? Using theories of cross-cultural pedagogy, this paper reports on a qualitative study of views of scholarship and learning in Western and Confucian-heritage higher education, using Australia and the UK, and China and Hong Kong as case studies. Interviews with expert scholars in these contexts demonstrate that although there are differences and similarities towards knowledge and scholarship between these higher education systems, these are changing as contemporary teaching and learning conditions and imperatives become more closely tied to discourses of internationalisation and globalisation. This demonstrates recognition of the changes occurring in higher education and an understanding of the need for genuine intercultural dialogue so that international education is not just based on the legitimisation of Western knowledge but becomes an enterprise of mutual learning. Introduction Radical shifts have occurred in doctoral student cohorts in Anglophone universities in the past decade due to significant increases in the number of international students, most notably in Australia and the UK. International students comprise 21 per cent of students in Australia (AEI 2010a) and 15 per cent in the UK (UKCISA 2011). They comprise significant proportions of postgraduate vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 programmes in both countries and can be the majority in many courses with Chinese students being the largest single national group in both Australia and the UK. The numbers of Chinese doctoral students in both countries has steadily risen yet the supervision of Chinese doctoral students has received little attention (Chung & Ingleby 2011; Singh 2009). Most Anglophone universities espouse `internationalisation' as part of their mission as well as the development Internationalisation of doctoral education, Janette Ryan 55 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W of intercultural skills amongst their graduates, yet moves towards the internationalisation of teaching and learning have been modest, particularly at postgraduate level (Singh 2009). It is therefore timely that not only the vision of internationalisation needs to be articulated, but also how new knowledge and skills can arise from truly internationalised learning. The doctoral relationship provides an ideal vehicle for the exchange of cultural intellectual ideas and the development of new epistemologies. These spaces enable deep conversation and debate and exploration of alternative paradigms to generate new knowledge and fashion new attitudes and perspectives that cross cultural boundaries. The new knowledge that arises can be transformative for all parties in changed and changing higher education contexts. To date, however, responses to international doctoral students are mainly characterised by `one-way' learning where the student is expected to conform to Western notions of scholarship and learning. Turner and Robson (2008) describe current pedagogical approaches as `ethnocentric' rather than `ethnorelative' (p. 40). Going further, and using Ranci�re's notion of `ignorance', Singh (2009) argues that relationships between Western supervisors and Chinese doctoral students are based on `ignorance' of the students' backgrounds (p. 185). Chung and Ingleby (2011) believe that the lack of attention to the supervision needs of Chinese students is based on `simple ignorance of the large cultural differences between Chinese and Westerners' (p. 173). Singh (2009) believes, however, that this `ignorance' can be used as a platform for learning: `This means bringing this intellectual capital to bear in the production and flow of research-based knowledge as much as the dialogic education of transnational educational researchers' (Singh 2009, p. 187). in Anglophone universities seem to be content with the quality and appeal of their higher education and have not made similar attempts to learn from other academic cultures, especially those of the fast-developing economic powerhouses of India and China. According to the OECD (2011), for example, 11 international students travel to study in the UK for each British student who travels abroad to study, and for Australia, the ratio is 24:1, the highest of any country. There is much debate in Australian and British universities about the need to `internationalise' the curriculum, yet few shared views of what this entails in concrete terms. Further, these initiatives tend to focus on undergraduate programmes and graduate attributes rather than the postgraduate level. These debates occur alongside broader discourses about the internationalisation of university operations, and the proliferation of relationships with overseas partners and transnational education programmes. These discourses usually place the onus on international students to adapt to their new learning environment rather than considering whether and how universities also need to adapt and change (Gu & Schweisfurth 2006; Ryan & Viete 2009; Turner & Robson 2008). Internationalisation debates focus on developing an `international dimension' (Knight 2004) into all university operations, generally without articulating what this entails or what domains are involved. At the level of curriculum, they can involve the superficial inclusion of international examples rather than genuine attempts to pluralise the epistemological knowledge base (Webb 2005). Analysis of Australian and British universities' responses to increased numbers of international students over the past two decades shows that there are three distinct (but overlapping) phases. These have moved from ethnocentric responses (Ryan 2011b: Turner & Robson 2008), where international students are expected to conform to the requirements of Western academe, to more recent approaches where intercultural learning is seen as a desirable attribute for all students in globalised contexts (Gu & Schweisfurth 2006; Ryan & Viete 2009). The first two phases involved a shift from a `skills deficit' (Ballard & Clancy 1997) located within the international student to a focus on adapting teaching and learning to `accommodate' international students and both these approaches continue to co-exist.These approaches are based on essentialising `whole culture' explanations (Clarke & Gieve 2006) for student differences despite diversity amongst national groups and radical changes within the major source countries of international students such as China.These adjustment/accommodation models position Western academe vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 International education `flows' The flow of international students from China to Anglophone universities is part of China's `brain gain' policy to improve the nation's human capital through mobility of its students and scholars (Pan 2011). The reform of higher education in China has been achieved through both internal means such as massive increases in expenditure to create a number of world-class universities, and external means such as sending students and scholars abroad (Ryan 2011a). This `strategic dependence' on foreign higher education resources to develop human capital to drive its education reform and economic progress has `enabled education abroad to become a source of brain gain' for China (Pan 2011, p. 106). In contrast, those 56 Internationalisation of doctoral education, Janette Ryan A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W and Anglophone countries as dominant and hegemonic. They offer few sustainable or innovative ways to move beyond `deficit' debates to new approaches to teaching in cross cultural contexts. Research during the first phase (in the 1990s) focused on differences between `international' and `local' students and the skills that international students need remediated (Ryan & Viete 2009). This saw the proliferation of `front loading' or `add on' programmes such as foundation courses, English for Academic Purposes courses and academic skills services. These programmes take responsibility away from supervisors for their international students' academic skills learning, although they do reduce the sometimes heavy burden for academics that this can entail.These programmes have benefits for a whole range of students (not just international ones) but they can be disconnected from the students' discipline area and can focus on narrow academic skills such as drills in paraphrasing and referencing techniques. Over the recent decade, as international student numbers accelerated, the `gaze' has shifted to how lecturers should `accommodate' international students and make their teaching practices more explicit so that international students can adjust their learning behaviours to Western contexts. The need to make explicit the `rules of the game' for international students (Carroll & Ryan 2005) - Western modes of expression, norms for interactions between teachers and students, and the rules for referring to the work of others - can be seen in a plethora of information provided to international students. Research on problems experienced by international students tends to result in calls for better induction, increased language skills, or more academic support programmes, that is, for the further `improvement' of international students. `Internationalisation' agendas in the current phase include `internationalisation of the curriculum' for both home and international students. Universities are looking beyond their borders for opportunities for international partnerships to expand their operations and export their education programmes. Although universities are exploring how to respond to more diverse students, policy responses are still typified by the `augmentation' of students' learning and thus continue the onus on international students alone to adapt (Gu & Schweisfurth 2006). Internationalisation debates generally ignore the `cultural dynamics' of teaching and learning (Huisman 2010) and the potential for taking advantage of the flows of international students in ways that move beyond integration into, or adaptation to, the dominant academic culture. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Moving beyond Western paradigms The `universalism' of Western academic paradigms as well as what constitutes `Western' (or `Eastern') are contested however. Labelling students (or academics) on the basis of whole systems of cultural practice ignores the considerable diversity within cultures as well as between them (Ryan & Louie 2007). Nevertheless, these terms are commonly used, and the term `Western' education is generally used to refer to the `Anglo-American model' (Klitg�rd 2011a). The dominance of `Western' academe and its assumed superiority continues to permeate academic research and literature. According to Connell (2007) not only is Western social science research Eurocentric but it is usually situated within an Anglophone context, in what Klitg�rd (2011a) calls the `tyranny of the Anglosphere'. Marginson (2010) argues that `equal cultural respect is hard to secure in Anglo-American countries in which systems are monocultural; there is usually an innate belief in Western superiority'. `Internationalisation' needs to be more than inclusion of international examples in courses or the inclusion of an international `dimension' into university operations (Knight 2004). It needs to extend to engagement with intellectual traditions around the world so that international knowledge and perspectives are available for debate and learning by both academics and students. This view of internationalisation sees it as a mutual enterprise: The internationalisation of education can be expressed in the exchange of culture and values, mutual understanding and a respect for difference...The internationalisation of education does not simply mean the integration of different national cultures or the suppression of one national culture by another culture. (Gu 2001, p. 105) This definition of internationalisation views internationalisation not within a single system, but rather as an endeavour between civilisations. Implicit in Gu's definition is a reaction to internationalisation as a Western academic imperialist endeavour and the `one way' nature of the traffic. As Singh (2009) argues, there is still much ignorance between Western and Chinese or `Confucianheritage culture' (CHC) intellectual paradigms and this is inhibiting two-way or transcultural learning.`Western' and `CHC' paradigms of scholarship and learning are generally described as dichotomies and debates on the `Chinese learner' are inaccurate and unhelpful (Ryan & Louie 2007). This `ignorance' about supposed differences between academic cultures and individuals within them inhibits the mutual and respectful exchange of ideas (as Gu advoInternationalisation of doctoral education, Janette Ryan 57 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W cates) rather than the simple integration of knowledge from one culture into another. While supervision practices often ignore the potential for mutual learning (Rizvi 2010; Robinson-Pant 2009; Sillitoe, Webb & Zhang 2005), something even less positive often happens in international student supervision. Instead of learning being two-way, the behaviours of international doctoral students are often misinterpreted and pathologised (Chung & Ingleby 2011). Supervisors can misinterpret their lack of English language proficiency as lack of ability; their initial lack of sophisticated language as lack of intellect; their quest to find the `correct' answer dependent learning rather than an active process to find out what is expected of them; their reluctance to question as lacking criticality rather than modesty or respect for their supervisor; and their relative silence in supervision meetings as lack of connection with ideas rather than internal engagement. Supervisors may view `acts of textual borrowing' (Schmitt 2005) as plagiarism rather than a necessary step in their learning development (Klitg�rd 2011b). Without attempts by supervisors to understand what is unfamiliar for them, and the impact of their previous learning experiences, international students may be viewed as dependent learners lacking in criticality (Ryan & Louie 2007). They not only have to learn new approaches and skills but also `unlearn' their old ones. Recognition of these issues by the supervisor can be a catalyst for engagement in mutual learning which can be more productive for the supervisor and the student. Supervisors can help international doctoral students to not just `bridge the gap' but to meet on the bridge (Ryan & Viete 2009). However, international doctoral students sometimes report that they are required to conduct research only within their country of study rather than undertake comparative studies. This can occur because the supervisor may feel they lack knowledge of the overseas context or the subject area. International doctoral students are also generally not permitted to use foreign language sources as supervisors and examiners are unable to check them. This question needs further debate as these students want to ensure that their doctoral study has relevance for their future work. Lingard (2006) believes that the agency that international students bring to the research encounter should be recognised. Trahar (2011) relates how her views radically changed during the intimate and close discussions with her international doctoral students where she could explore other cultures and values. Transcultural knowledge can develop from contact between cultures which results in `a new, composite culture in which some existing cultural features are combined, while some are lost, and new features are generated' (Murray 2010). Socio-cultural theories of learning explain the importance of the cultural milieu of learning but also its potential for redefining learning communities as transcultural spaces. Transcultural approaches recognise that modern societies are no longer monolithic and that `we are in an era where interculturality, transculturalism and the eventual prospect of identifying a cosmopolitan citizenship can become a reality' (Cuccioletta 2002, p. 2). According to Sillitoe, Webb and Zhang (2005) working with doctoral students from Confucian cultures can bring new insights: they generate knowledge that is different from Western researchers; can penetrate and interpret Confucian cultures as `insiders' but are skilled in `Western' research methods; their more `holistic' views of the world are useful when investigating issues such as sustainable development; and they help to clarify the `normative' structures and practices of the Western supervision model for Western supervisors which in turn assists both home and international students. ...working with doctoral students from Confucian cultures can bring new insights: they generate knowledge that is different from Western researchers; ...and they help to clarify the `normative' structures and practices of the Western supervision model for Western supervisors which in turn assists both home and international students Moving towards cross cultural teaching The work of theorists such as Lave and Wenger (1999) highlights the social and cultural situatedness of teaching and learning and the `communities of practice' that exist through the co-construction of knowledge by teachers and learners. The importance of the social context can be seen through the adoption of teaching strategies such as group work and collaborative learning. The cultural `boundedness' of such approaches, however - the ways they operate, whose voice is heard and whose knowledge is valued - and how these norms came to be is hard for those within that culture to recognise. Being an `outsider' to a culture brings a `surplus of seeing' (Bakhtin 1986, p. 7) that makes academic norms visible; it can ``make strange" vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 58 Internationalisation of doctoral education, Janette Ryan A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W the present, in order to begin to provide a vocabulary for questioning the apparent naturalness and givenness of contemporary practices in postgraduate education' (Lee & Green 1995, p. 3). Morris and Hudson (1995) argue that international education `helps to problematise inherited notions of ideal pedagogic order' (p. 72). Negative views of international students and Chinese students in particular are still prevalent (Singh 2009) as lecturers and supervisors misinterpret the behaviours of their newly-arrived students as passive and lacking critical thinking (Grimshaw 2007). Those with more intimate knowledge of Chinese learners refute these assumptions (Clark & Gieve 2006; Grimshaw 2007; Gu & Schweisfurth 2006; Jin & Cortazzi 2006; Louie 2005; Shi 2006). According to Grimshaw (2007): empirical studies reveal that, contrary to the Western stereotype, Chinese societies do value an exploratory and reflective approach to learning; that Chinese teachers do not rely exclusively upon the transmission mode of delivery; and that Chinese students can be seen to engage in autonomous, problem solving activities. (p. 302). Academics continue, however, to report the same difficulties and `pedagogical uncertainties' with teaching international students reported over a decade ago (Singh 2009;Turner & Robson 2008). If these issues remain unaddressed, there is a risk of continued negative attitudes by lecturers about international students (Deumert, Marginson, Nyland, Ramia & Sawir 2005; DeVos 2003; Rizvi 2010). Many academics remain unwilling or unconvinced of the need to change and adapt and see their role as educating students in `Western ways' and `Western values' (Trahar 2011). Lack of knowledge about the cultural situatedness of learning and teaching and different academic paradigms is inhibiting the development of cross cultural teaching that draws on an international range of approaches. This `ignorance' means a lack of understanding of contemporary realities in countries such as China which is undergoing fundamental change as well as the enormous diversity amongst individuals within them (Jin & Cortazzi 2006; Ryan 2011a; Ryan, Kang, Mitchell & Erickson 2009). Rather than focusing on `differences' between cultures, changing contexts and imperatives call for recognition of the potential for common ground and mutual learning. To date, however, there has been little informed debate about differences between Western and CHC paradigms and even less debate about the diversities within them. Evidence from the study reported below shows that adaptation between academic cultures is currently unidirecvol. 54, no. 1, 2012 tional, but that there are sufficient commonalities for the engagement with what are merely different approaches to be both possible and fruitful. Western and CHC scholarship and learning In order to understand the contemporary realities of Western and Chinese or CHC approaches to scholarship and learning, the research reported here investigated how these terms are understood and practised within both contexts. Rather than basing judgements about different systems on the behaviours of international students struggling to adapt and thus making assumptions about their previous educational contexts, this research examines understandings and practices by experienced academics within and across those systems. Interviews were conducted amongst a purposive sample of senior academics in a range of disciplines in universities in two Western and two Confucian-heritage countries: Australia and the UK, and China and Hong Kong. Participants had at least 10 years' experience and were at Associate Professor or equivalent level or above. To date, 24 interviews have been conducted with scholars in the disciplines of Education or the Humanities.This comprises six interviews each in Australia and the UK with equal numbers from both disciplines (only two of the 12 participants had significant experience in China and none were of Chinese descent). Five interviews in each discipline have been conducted in mainland China (all with Chinese scholars, five never having been out of China), and one in each discipline in Hong Kong (one of Chinese descent and one of European descent, both with experience of Western and Chinese higher education). As this is a work in progress, findings are tentative and are discussed here for illustrative purposes. The total final number of interviews will be 54. The participants were asked (in English or Chinese): � How do you define characteristics of `good' scholarship and `effective' learning? � What differences and commonalities do you believe exist between Western and CHC paradigms of scholarship and learning? � Do you believe that these paradigms are changing or should change? No attempt was made to define these terms; participants were invited to respond in any way they chose. Case study methodology (Stake 2006) and a constant comparative method of analysis (Maykut & Morehouse 1994) were used to identify commonalities and differInternationalisation of doctoral education, Janette Ryan 59 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Table 1: Definitions of `good scholarship and `effective learning' Western `Good' scholarship Original, original ideas Imaginative Creative Adds value, makes a difference Advances knowledge or thinking, application to existing knowledge Rigorous, questioning, systematic Sound theories and methods, innovative methodologies `Effective' learning Understanding and applying knowledge Think for yourself Work independently Challenge and interrogate authorities Think about what they learn and ask new questions Build on what's known, develop new schema ences in participants' responses. Participants were identified via email contact with Deans or equivalent at 18 universities which included larger and smaller institutions, ones with longer and shorter histories, and urban and rural locations. From the interviews conducted to date, it is clear that there are diverse and competing discourses within universities in both systems and amongst individuals, and scholars in different contexts have both shared and different views on scholarship and learning. The scholars' definitions of scholarship and research are strikingly similar across the two systems. Similar understandings of `good' scholarship and `effective' learning can be seen from the vocabulary used to describe these terms (see Table 1). These words and phrases have been taken verbatim from participants' responses to the first question and are representative of overall responses. The high degree of commonality amongst respondents' responses may be due in part to the influence that Western pedagogy is having in China, although even the Chinese respondents who had never left China used these same terms. Few Western participants could answer the second question about differences and commonalities between paradigms and freely admitted their ignorance of Chinese or CHC paradigms, often expressing regret about this. The participants who were able to venture an opinion had worked in China or had Chinese colleagues. While acknowledging that differences do occur in academic Chinese Original, innovative Uses imagination Creative, passion for pursuing knowledge Has some value, beneficial Contribution to knowledge, application of knowledge Systematic inquiry Includes theory, methodology and subject knowledge, innovative methodologies Deep and broad knowledge framework, applying knowledge Critical thinking Independent learner Challenge authorities' views Know why you want to learn and what you should learn [Combines] old and new academic knowledge practices between systems, almost all respondents who answered this question (from both paradigms) emphasised the essential commonalities of ideas and concepts of scholarship and learning. Those with experience in both systems were more likely to report that features were more common than different as can be seen from the quotes below. A Chinese Professor of Humanities at a university in southern China (with experience in both systems) commented: There are commonalities that good scholarship and effective learning share in both paradigms. An oftcited belief in China is that the Western paradigm emphasises critical thinking whereas the CHC paradigm emphasises rote learning, memorisation and breadth of knowledge. I believe that differences exist only amongst individual scholars whether they are Eastern or Western. An American-born Professor of Literature working in Hong Kong who had considerable experience in China noted similar concepts and aspirations in both systems but sometimes different methods of arriving at these: I don't see any real difference in scholarship in China and in the West insofar as people want to have an understanding and an idea and represent their own understanding of the idea but I think that the way that you begin to arrive at that knowledge, the `patterns of respect', the ways that you put yourself forward might be different in both places but the final results would likely be the same. The final question about changes or the desirability of change in these paradigms also elicited similar and differvol. 54, no. 1, 2012 60 Internationalisation of doctoral education, Janette Ryan A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W ent responses between and within the two groups. Academics on both sides reported that significant change is occurring within their own paradigm. Respondents from China and those with experience of China often commented on the pace and magnitude of change in China, as seen in the comment from a European Senior Lecturer in Linguistics with experience in China: Some Western participants noted that while paradigms are changing in China, this is mainly one-way learning, from the West. The statement below from the American Professor of Literature quoted above shows that while China is learning from the West, it is trying to do this in a way that maintains the best of Confucian education traditions, that is, that combines the best features of both systems: In CHC things are currently changing so fast that it I don't think that the West is radically changing their is breathtaking. The CHC views on the educational scholars and learners are process but I do think that ... although there are differences and eager to catch up with the China is Westernising. It is West, which has meant trying to understand difsimilarities towards knowledge and eagerness, openness, ferent kinds of skill sets scholarship both within and across hard work in such measto give their students an ures that today the Westopportunity to feel comfortthese contexts these are changing as ern scholars and learners able with Western styles of contemporary conditions and imperatives seem to be meandering learning, with Western styles become more closely tied to discourses of along leisurely in comof knowledge and they're parison. incorporating that within internationalisation and globalisation. the classroom in their own way... they don't lose what The American Professor of is quintessentially Confucian Literature mentioned above further commented: or quintessentially Chinese. Confucian-heritage cultures are giving way to a certain kind of individuality and this is creating a different kind of learning environment... Oftentimes people will say that within Confucian-heritage cultures you are expected to parrot back what the teachers will say to you but that hasn't been my experience. CHC academics generally expressed positive views about changes within their system and an enthusiasm for further change, while Western academics tended to comment on negative changes in their systems especially towards more managerialist approaches: Paradigms of scholarship and learning are becoming more market-driven in both the West and CHC countries. (History academic at a Russell Group university in London) The statement below by a European lecturer in English with experience in China shows that there are perhaps more commonalities between systems than is generally thought while at the same time there is potential for beneficial learning between the systems: The freedom of research is an ideal that I think both paradigms ascribe to, but for both the real world sets limits. CHC scholarship is less/has been less open to Western scrutiny, perhaps less global...When it comes to learning [in China], I find that there perhaps has been a lack in confidence, a lack of belief in the individual, and also a lack of awareness of individual needs in order to learn best. In the West, on the other hand, there has been a lack of understanding that some learning requires hard work, and that not all learning comes automatically. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 These interviews demonstrate that although there are differences and similarities towards knowledge and scholarship both within and across these contexts these are changing as contemporary conditions and imperatives become more closely tied to discourses of internationalisation and globalisation. The data also demonstrate that negative views about `Chinese learners' are not based on contemporary expectations and practices of educators within Chinese contexts. Potential for mutual learning This research shows not only that each system holds much in common but also points to the potential for mutual learning when assumptions are critically examined and the possibilities for reciprocal learning are identified. Reciprocal learning in the doctoral sphere can occur through broadening the scope and topics for doctoral study, drawing on different cultural epistemologies and intellectual traditions, and considering how to assess unfamiliar modes of expression, argumentation and organisation of the dissertation. It also requires consideration of the inclusion of foreign language sources and on this point, and in general, international colleagues or examiners may be useful sources of expertise. As China becomes a major player in world affairs, universities and academics need to understand the contexts with which they are engaging and be prepared to adapt and change so that they too can reinvigorate their own Internationalisation of doctoral education, Janette Ryan 61 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W cultures of learning. As international student mobility worldwide accelerates, many non-Anglophone countries are offering programmes in English, often at less cost, so universities enjoying traditional comparative advantages need to ensure that their education continues to be of high quality and relevance in the global education environment.The UK International Unit cautions against complacency in this regard: Patterns and flows of international students may start to change... mobile students are increasingly likely to choose destinations within their own regions, and thus we may begin to see less of an `East-West' movement. (International Unit 2011) And equally, emerging countries need to avoid the slavish adoption of foreign ideas and practices and instead examine them for how they can enrich and rejuvenate their own. The large numbers of international students at Australian and British universities provide opportunities for the development of more globalised paradigms and practices better suited to changing contexts around the world. Universities that limit their interactions with international students to one-way transmission of knowledge risk stagnation and lack of appeal to students, both home and international, who now have more choices available. A transcultural focus can better equip all students to live and work in globalised contexts and in ways that make labels such as `home' or `international' obsolete. Transcultural approaches can provide the vehicle for such changes in pedagogy and curriculum; they move beyond interactions between cultures with one culture positioned as more powerful or `legitimate', to a stance which arises from mutual dialogue and respect amongst academic cultures and knowledge traditions. Postgraduate supervisors and lecturers need to not just engage in rhetoric about internationalisation but also to listen to others' views of internationalisation; universities need to not just be institutions of learning but learning institutions. Individual supervisors need to develop `meta awareness' of their students' backgrounds and needs (Louie 2005) and universities and nations need to recognise the `necessity for sharing knowledge, building intellectual capacity, and remaining competitive in the global economy' through global academic mobility (UK International Unit 2011). Sixteen years ago, Morris and Hudson (1995) noted `the moment of intense change and complexity' of the times; few could have predicted the pace and acceleration of change and complexity of those trends. Diversity of student cohorts extends beyond national citizenship but also to cultural, linguistic, social and economic diversity, and to issues of gender, sexuality and disability to name but a few; `many different cultures appear within single geographical cultures' (Morris & Hudson 1995, p. 73). It is timely to look back on the issues highlighted in this journal in 1995 and note Morris and Hudson's aspirations for moving beyond `monocultural chauvinism' towards a `new international academic ethos'.The editors of the special issue (Lee & Green 1995) pointed to the connection between postgraduate education and national concerns. Since then, debates have moved to the global level and the relevance of postgraduate education for global knowledge economies. Imperatives for new forms of knowledge and skills have become more urgent. The experience and knowledge that international students bring to encounters between supervisors and students can be tapped to create this `international academic ethos'. Universities are spaces where intercultural connections occur and can be at the forefront of global knowledge generation. Drawing from both traditions means that new knowledge can be created through more holistic approaches and a more reflective than adversarial orientation to knowledge. Supervisors can recognise the collaborative and respectful learning styles of their students rather than problematise them. The evidence of the study reported here although limited does indicate that there are sufficient underlying similarities and aspirations to enable mutual adaptation and engagement between academic cultures. This stance can provide access to not only 5,000 years of Chinese intellectual development but also an opportunity to engage with China in its future trajectory as a world superpower. Janette Ryan is a Research Associate at the China Centre at the University of Oxford, Director of the University of Oxford's International Students Teaching and Support Project and Director of the UK Higher Education Academy's Teaching International Students Project. References AEI. (Australian Education International). (2011). International Student Data, YTD April 2011. Available: http://www.austrade.gov.au/Export/Export_Markets/ Industries/Education/International-Student-Data Accessed 7 June 2011. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Edited by C. Emerson & M. Holquist, trans. Vern W. Gee. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Ballard, B. & Clanchy, J. (1997). Teaching international students: A brief guide for lecturers and supervisors. Deakin, ACT: IDP Education Australia. Carroll, J. & Ryan, J. (2005). (eds), Teaching international students: Improving learning for all. London: Routledge. Chung, M. & Ingleby, R. (2011). Overcoming the cultural challenges in supervising Chinese research students in Australia. In J. Ryan (ed.) China's higher education reform and internationalisation. London: Routledge. 62 Internationalisation of doctoral education, Janette Ryan vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Clark, R. & Gieve, S. (2006). On the discursive construction of `The Chinese Learner'. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 19(1), 54�73. Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Cuccioletta, D. (2002). Multiculturalism or transculturalism: Towards a cosmopolitan citizenship. London Journal of Canadian Studies, 17, 1-11. Deumert, A., Marginson, S., Nyland, C. Ramia, G. & Sawir, E. (2005). The social and economic security of international students in Australia: Study of 200 student cases. Clayton: Monash Institute for the Study of Global Movements. Devos, A. (2003). Academic standards, internationalisation, and the discursive construction of `The international student', Higher Education Research and Development, 22:2, 155�166. Grimshaw, T. (2007), Problematizing the construct of `the Chinese learner': Insights from ethnographic research. Educational Studies, 33(3), 299-311. Gu, M. Y. (2001). Education in China and abroad: Perspectives from a lifetime in comparative education. Hong Kong: Comparative Research Education Centre, University of Hong Kong. Gu, Q. & Schweisfurth, M. (2006) Who adapts? Beyond cultural models of `the Chinese learner', Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 54�73. Huisman, J. (2010). Internationalisation in higher education: Local responses to global challenges. Inaugural Seminar, Internationalisation and Globalisation in Higher Education, Society for Research in Higher Education International Research, London, 30 March 2010. Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. (2006). Changing practices in Chinese cultures. Language, Culture & Curriculum, 19(1), 5-20. Klitg�rd, I. (2011a). The internationalisation of academic English writing in higher education: Anglo-American doctrines or transcultural hybridity? Between tradition and change: `The future of English in the light of globalization, transculturalism, and Internationalization' Conference, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark, 11-12 October 2011 Klitg�rd, I. (2011b). Plagiarism in the international university: From kidnapping and theft to translation and hybridity. In B. Preisler, I.Klitg�rd & H. Fabricius (Eds), Language and learning in the international university. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of International Studies, 8(5), 5-31. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1999). Learning and pedagogy in communities of practice. In J. Leach & B. Moon (eds), Learners and pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Lee, A. & Green, B. (1995). Introduction: Postgraduate studies/postgraduate pedagogy? Australian Universities' Review, 2, 1-4. Lingard, R. (2006). Globalisation, the research imagination and deparochialising the study of education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(1), 287-302. Louie, K. (2005). Gathering cultural knowledge: Useful or use with care? In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (eds) Teaching international students: Improving learning for all. London: Routledge. Marginson, S. (2010). International student security: Globalization, state, university. Keynote address to the World Universities Forum, Davos, 9-11 January 2010. Maykut, P. & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. London: Falmer. Morris, S. & Hudson, W. (1995). International education and innovative approaches to university teaching. Australian Universities' Review, 2, 70-74. Murray, D. (2010). Female North African-French students in France: Narratives of educational experiences. Doctoral thesis, University of Nevada. Available: http://digitalcommons.library.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations/344 (accessed vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 20 June 2011). OECD (Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation). (2011). Education at a glance: Who studies abroad and where. Available: http://www. oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2011/who-studies-abroadand-where_eag-2011-25-en (accessed 28 October 2011). Pan, S. Y. (2011). Education abroad, human capital development, and national competitiveness: China's Brain Gain strategies. Frontiers of Education in China, 6(1), 106-138. Rizvi, F. (2010). International students and doctoral studies in transnational spaces. In Walker, M. & Thomson, P. (eds). Routledge Doctoral Supervisor's companion: Supporting effective research in education and the social sciences. London: Routledge. Robinson-Pant, A. (2009). Changing academies: Exploring international PhD students' perspectives on `host' and `home' universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(4), 417-429. Ryan, J. (2011a). (ed.). China's higher education reform and internationalisation. London: Routledge. Ryan, J. (2011b). Teaching and learning for international students: Towards a transcultural approach. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(6), 631-648. Ryan, J., Kang, C.Y., Mitchell, I. & Erickson, G. (2009). China's basic education reform: An account of an international collaborative research and development project. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(4), 427-441. Ryan, J. & Louie, K. (2007). False dichotomy? `Western' and `Eastern' concepts of scholarship and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory (39)4, 404-417. Ryan, J. & Viete, R. (2009). Respectful interactions: Learning with international students in the English-speaking academy. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 303-314. Schmitt, D. (2005). Writing in the international classroom. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan. (eds), Teaching international students: Improving learning for all. London: Routledge. Shi, L. J. (2006). The successors to Confucianism or a new generation? A questionnaire study on Chinese students' culture of learning English. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 122-147. Sillitoe, J. Webb, J. & Zhang, C. (2005). Postgraduate research: The benefits for institutions, supervisors and students of working across and between cultures. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (eds), Teaching international students: Improving learning for all. London: Routledge. Singh, M. (2009). Using Chinese knowledge in internationalising research education: Jacques Ranci�re, an ignorant supervisor and doctoral students from China. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(2) 185-201. Stake, R. (1996). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press. Trahar, S. (ed.) (2011). The Doctorate: International stories of the UK experience. Bristol: ESCalate Subject Centre. Available: http://escalate.ac.uk/8137 Accessed 5 July 2011. Turner, Y. & Robson, S. (2008). Internationalizing the university. London: Continuum. UKCISA. (United Kingdom Council for International Student Affairs). (2011). Higher Education Statistics. Available at: http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/about/statistics_he.php#table2 (accessed 16 July 2011). Universities UK International Unit. (2010). International Focus, 15 September 2010. Available at: http://www.international.ac.uk/resources/International%20 Focus%2061.15.09.10.pdf (accessed 14 December 2010) UK International Unit (2011). International Focus, 26 May 2011. Webb, G. (2005). Internationalisation of the curriculum: An institutional approach. In:J. Carroll & J. Ryan (eds), Teaching international students: Improving learning for all. London: Routledge. Internationalisation of doctoral education, Janette Ryan 63 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Up and coming? Doctoral education in China Rui Yang University of Hong Kong, China In line with China's massive leap forward in higher education since the late 1990s and its ambitious bid for world-class universities within decades, doctoral education has been strongly, and arguable strategically, promoted by the Chinese government. During the past four decades, China quickly established a national system of academic degrees and postgraduate education since the early 1980s. Its doctoral education has since grown fast to become one of the largest in the world. While the developmental process deserves much commendation, it was never short of twists and turns. The extraordinarily fast growth has particularly led to a variety of problems that have evoked controversy in China, especially over the widely perceived decline of quality in doctoral training. In view of a lack of literature in English on Chinese doctoral education, this article attempts to provide an analytical review of China's current practices as well as some issues and challenges faced by the system in meeting societal needs and future development. Introduction Doctorate holders represent a crucial human resource for research and innovation. As a site for the production of new knowledge and new knowledge making practices, doctoral education has recently become `a matter of increasing interest and concern' in many parts of the world (Lee & Green 1995, p. 2), as a consequence of educational reforms. In China, postgraduate education is a borrowed concept from overseas (Wu 2009). The Chinese system of academic degrees and postgraduate education was only formally established in the early 1980s. 1 Dasheng Deng (2011), respectively on the educational aspirations and occupational orientation of Chinese doctoral students.Aiming to delineate a detailed picture of the current practices of China's doctoral education, this article covers its stages of developments; disciplinary, institutional and regional distributions; thesis quality; supervisory practices; and the employment of doctorate holders. Development Immediately after the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), China faced devastating shortage of professionals. With strong support from the central government, postgraduate education was quickly resumed in 1978. By 1980, enrolled postgraduate students totalled 22,000. Meanwhile discussions on establishing China's academic degree system were underway. A work committee was set up in March 1979, chaired by the then Minister for Education, Jiang Nanxiang. The Regulations on Academic Degrees of the People's Republic of China was issued in February 1980. The first batch of 18 doctorates was conferred on 27 May 1983. Since then, doctoral education has grown significantly in China (Wu 2009). While higher educavol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Their growth, however, has been by leaps and bounds.The Chinese doctoral education system has swiftly become one of the largest in the world. Within this fast growing period, there has been no shortage of twists and turns, as well as costs and benefits, from institutional arrangement, administration and procedure, protocol and policy, finance and governance, to supervisory practice, and learning experience. While there has been an increasing body of literature within China on doctoral education, few studies have appeared in English. Recent exceptions are by Peter S Li, Liming Li and Li Zong (2007) and Yandong Zhao and 64 Up and coming?, Rui Yang A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W tion institutions are the mainstay, doctoral training is also practiced at academies of research at national, provincial and regional city levels, in some military institutions and at Party schools. The past three decades could be divided into different stages of development. The first was between the end of the 1970s and the early 1990s, centred on making full use of the limited number of the nation's experts including returned scholars from overseas and those who received highly specialised training during the 1950s to establish a doctoral training system. Delegations were sent overseas to gain external experience. It was reiterated that Chinese doctorates should have similar quality with their foreign equivalents. Among the first batch of applications for doctoral programmes and supervisors, only 3/5 and 1/2 of them respectively were approved.There was tight control from the central government over quality. For example, the first batch approved nationwide in 1981 included 151 institutions, 812 programmes and 1,151 supervisors. The second batch in 1984 only added 45 institutions, 316 programmes, and 183 supervisors. The third batch in 1986 and the fourth in 1990 added respectively 41 and 10 institutions, 675 and 277 programmes and 1,791 and 1,509 supervisors (Guo 2009, p. 22). Thirty-three universities were allowed to experiment by the Ministry of Education to build their graduate schools. The second stage ranged almost the entire 1990s. Doctoral education continued to grow during this period, based on the perceived need for highly trained professionals, especially by the central government. During 1992-1999, an annual increase rate of doctoral students averaged 20.6 per cent, surpassing that of Master's students (12.3 per cent) (Research Team on Analyses of Educational Statistics of China's Academic Degrees and Graduate Education 2009, p. 38). The fifth, sixth and seventh batches of approved institutions and programmes were respectively 24 and 274, 5 and 145, and 49 and 341 (Guo 2009). Another major change during this period was that those universities allowed earlier to experiment graduate schools were formally approved. They could select doctoral supervisors based on their assessment conducted within their own institutions. The third stage was in line with China's most recent massive university enrolment. An average of 26.6 per cent annual increase rate was recorded during 1999-2003 (Research Team on Analyses of Educational Statistics of China's Academic Degrees and Graduate Education 2009, p. 38). In 2000, another twenty-two universities were approved to set up graduate schools. During this period, doctoral enrolments increased from around 20,000 in vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 1999 to 49,000 in 2003, 53,000 in 2004 and 58,000 in 2007 (Department of Development and Planning, Ministry of Education 1999, 2003, 2004, 2007). The supervisorstudent ratio reached its peak, of 1:15.32 in the higher education institutions under direct jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education (Xie 2006, p. 28). There were three additions to the approved doctoral degree granting institutions and programmes respectively: 7 and 442 in 2000, 35 and 728 in 2003 (mainly in provincial higher education institutions), and 19 and 605 in 2006 (Wu 2009). According to Chinese Ministry of Education's (2011, July 6) latest statistics, in 2010 China recruited 538,200 postgraduate students with 63,800 at doctoral level, total enrolment of postgraduate students reached 1,538,400 with 258,900 at doctoral level, and granted 388,600 postgraduate degrees including 49,000 doctorates. The number of doctorates conferred in 2010 was behind that of the United States of 57,599 in academic year 2008-2009 (Bell 2010, p. 16). In retrospect, the developmental path of China's doctoral education shows strong promotion and tight control by the central government, which decides which institutions are qualified to offer doctoral training and in what scale. However, the government after all is a political rather than academic organisation. Its actions in doctoral education are based on its ideo-political considerations (Wu 2009). While it has guaranteed a fast growth of doctoral training, its tight control could stifle even denature the nation's doctoral education. For instance, in order to show its equal treatment to various ethnicities, the central government designated a few universities of nationalities doctoral degree granting capacity without seriously considering their academic achievements (H Q Wang 2008). The high control has also caused strong, unhealthy competitions among local governments to win central government's favour to set up doctoral programmes within their jurisdictions, leading to insufficient attention to local needs. Distribution In China, academic disciplines are generally divided into Arts and Sciences. The former includes literature, history, philosophy, economics, law, and management, while the latter covers natural sciences, engineering, medicine, and agriculture. Since China borrowed the former Soviet experience in the 1950s, there has always been an imbalance between Arts and Sciences. This is also the case in doctoral training, as shown in the distribution of doctorates. In 1996, the proportion of doctorates in Arts and Sciences were 15 per cent and 84.4 per cent respectively. Up and coming?, Rui Yang 65 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Table 1: Doctorates Conferred Nationwide: 1996-2006 Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Philosophy 78 95 112 148 199 218 263 323 370 439 516 Economics 196 260 388 513 514 621 855 1040 1266 1508 2030 Law 135 201 241 290 330 444 615 683 917 1122 1624 Education 49 751 117 145 144 199 213 283 360 437 596 Literature 143 197 248 349 387 491 648 829 995 1162 1590 History 117 146 190 198 257 269 310 428 467 527 562 Science 1441 1642 2095 2168 2306 3452 2736 3496 4293 5269 6669 Engineering 2199 2636 3276 3769 4484 4746 5020 6306 7886 9792 11643 Agriculture 223 286 373 383 462 551 651 742 899 1102 1366 Medicine 846 1036 1211 1251 1757 2130 2450 3085 3714 4583 5792 Management 117 169 194 324 410 493 766 1096 1434 1843 2498 Source: Li & Zhan 2008a, p. 29. Such imbalance continued to be 26.5 per cent and 71.5 per cent in 2006. From the mid-1990s, the distribution of doctorates conferred in various disciplines has shown some interesting changes during 1996-2006, as shown below by Table 1: Engineering, Science and Medicine have remained unchanged as the top three; while Management jumped from the 8th in 1996 to the 4th in 2006; Agriculture was just the opposite, dropping from the 4th in 1996 to the 8th in 2006 (Li & Zhan 2008a, p. 31). The emphasis on scientific, technological and medical research is also shown by the annual national outstanding doctoral thesis awards. As shown by Table 2 below, while medicine, science and agriculture were all overrepresented, social sciences, without exception, were all underrepresented. Another sort of distribution imbalance is institutional and regional: doctoral programmes concentrate overwhelmingly in key institutions in major industrialised areas. By 2007, for example, Peking and Tsinghua Universities had 201 and 181 doctoral programmes respectively. In contrast, by 2002, Guizhou had 2, while Qinghai, Ningxia and Tibet had none (Guo 2009). Resulted from China's shortage of a broad-based distribution of research capacity, 55 per cent of the nation's doctoral programmes were in north and east China by June 2001. Major concentrations included Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Shaanxi and Sichuan (Lin 2005), with an evident dominant role played by Beijing: in 2006, Beijing had 11,731 doctorates conferred, while Shanghai came as the second with 3,249, and all other provinces had fewer than 80 (Guo 2009). Institutionally, as elsewhere such as Australia (Pearson et al. 2008), China's doctoral programmes concentrate in the nation's major universities, which are designated by the government as `key-point' higher education institutions. When the first batch of doctoral programmes were approved in 1987, 174 (91.5 per cent) of them were located in those key institutions (Wu 2000, p. 45). Resulted from some long-term features of China's higher education growth, such major institutions have the nation's strongest academic staff, the majority of research funding, and the best equipments and facilities. This also means that these elite institutions have much better and larger student pool to select their doctoral candidates. As reported by a teacher training institution in the northwest, only 8 per cent of its doctoral students enrolled in `key-point' institutions during their undergraduate and Master's studies (China's Doctoral Education Quality Research Team 2010). Table 2: National Outstanding Doctoral Thesis Awards during 1999-2007 and Disciplinary Proportion of Doctorates Conferred in 2006 to the National Total Discipline Annual Average of Awards (%) 1.7 2.1 2.8 10.4 29.5 4.9 2.8 Proportion of Doctorates to the National (%) 7 5.7 4.6 16.3 18.7 3.8 1.6 Management Economics Law Medicine Science Agriculture History Source: Li & Zhan 2008a, p. 31. 66 Up and coming?, Rui Yang vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Thesis There have been various understandings of the quality of doctoral education and its assessment. Suggested indicators include the length between graduation and employment, nature and level of employment, starting salary, professional development and workplace performance. A national investigation on quality of doctoral training jointly commissioned by the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council, Ministry of Education, and Personnel Ministry in September 2007 collected comprehensive data from virtually all institutions involved in doctoral training (including 257 higher education institutions, 31 research institutes and one Party school) and selected organisations that employ doctorate holders. In addition to the data collected through questionnaires and interviews, the study also compared domestic and overseas doctoral theses, analysed academic contributions by doctoral projects and workplace performance by doctoral degree holders. The study covered nine aspects including basic and professional knowledge, research capacity, morality, thesis quality, relevant subject knowledge, foreign languages proficiency, sense of (social) responsibility, creativity, and organisational skills. Respondents included doctoral students, their supervisors and administrators. It found that more than 80 per cent respondents reported positively in all those areas (China's Doctoral Education Quality Research Team 2010). However, the large-scale questionnaire survey and the assessment of doctoral theses relied heavily on respondents' personal judgments. It remains difficult to compare the quality of doctoral education in different institutions (Zhou 2010). In comparison with some other criteria that often generate debates, the quality of doctoral theses has been recognised globally as a relatively much more reliable indicator (Ji et al. 2009).The aforementioned project received highly positive comments about the overall development from supervisors and the administrators who were directly involved in doctoral training, especially in dimensions including foreign languages proficiency, quality of theses, and research capacity. In comparison with the situation thirty years ago, the study reported substantial improvement in the quality of doctoral work. The international comparison showed an overall shrinking gap between domestic and overseas doctoral theses, with some domestic work already at international cutting edge. While recognising remarkable achievements within a relatively short period of time, the study acknowledged a considerable lag behind the practices in the higher education systems of major Western countries (China's Doctoral vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Education Quality Research Team 2010). The width and depth of theoretical foundations and subject knowledge respectively scored poorly in social sciences, only slightly better in management, and apparently better in agriculture and medicine. When asked whether or not to meet international standards for argument and presentation, only sciences scored highly, while others all substantially lower than the perceived international practice, with social sciences at the bottom. Overall, the quality of China's doctoral theses in sciences was well recognised, engineering did reasonably well, while management was just passable and social sciences quite poorly (Guo 2009, pp. 31-32). Although such assessments were only based on the (indeed quite subjective) judgments of Chinese doctoral supervisors and administrators, and their comparability between Chinese and Western performances could be open to question, these findings can still shed light on the quality of Chinese doctoral theses. For example, problems in doctoral training in China's social sciences, such as political, sociological, law and educational studies, have been well documented within the Chinese academic circles and internationally (Chen 2006). Over-general topics, shortage of empirical and/or first-hand data, loose argumentation, and highly subjective conclusions remain commonplace. Students in these disciplines usually lack a basic understanding of the latest international achievements in their subject areas, let alone engagement with them. They also often receive little methodological training (Yang & Zhang 2008). In universities of science and technology, a common arrangement in China is that doctoral students take on their supervisors' research, partially or in total, as their doctoral projects. A survey at the Beijing Forestry University reported that 14.6 per cent of students independently chaired their supervisors' research projects, 72.9 per cent participated and devoted most of their study time to the research projects originally granted to their supervisors, only 12.5 per cent of students, who were usually part-time students with full-time jobs, reported that their theses were rarely or never part of their supervisors' research work (Liu & Wang 2011, p. 143). Similar to Beijing Forestry University's situation, such experience, for both supervisors and students, has been largely well perceived with each side gaining what they desired. This is the normal way for China's doctoral students to receive financial supports to conduct their projects. It also helps them to have actual research experience. However, based on a survey of three 985 universities,2 10.3 per cent of all the doctoral students never participated in any research projects, while in social sciences 24.6 per cent students reported Up and coming?, Rui Yang 67 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Table 3: Disciplinary Distribution of National Outstanding Doctoral Theses, 1999-2009 Discipline Philosophy Economics Law Education Literature History Science Engineering Agriculture Medicine Military science Management Source: Zhou et al. 2011, p. 75. Table 4: Regional Distribution of National Outstanding Doctoral Theses, 1999-2009 Province Number of theses Percentage of the national total 34.20 15.80 8.23 5.27 4.53 3.51 3.42 3.23 2.96 2.87 2.59 2.13 2.13 2.03 2.03 1.57 1.02 0.74 0.46 0.37 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.09 Ranking Number of theses 17 24 29 24 47 30 316 395 55 113 12 20 Percentage of the national total 1.57 2.22 2.68 2.22 4.34 2.77 29.21 36.51 5.08 10.44 1.11 1.85 Beijing Shanghai Jiangsu Shaanxi Hubei Zhejiang Hunan Guangdong Tianjin Anhui Sichuan Liaoning Heilongjiang Jilin Shandong Chongqing Gansu Fujian Yunnan Henan Hebei Shanxi Inner Mongolia Qinghai Source: Zhou et al. 2011, p. 76. 370 171 89 57 49 38 37 35 32 31 28 23 23 22 22 17 11 8 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 so. Nearly a quarter of doctoral students in the humanities and social sciences denied strong correlation between their studies and their supervisors' research projects (Luo et al. 2009). Each year around 100 outstanding doctoral theses are selected to be awarded as the nation's best theses of that year. During 1999-2009, a total of 1,082 from 145 institutions were awarded. As shown by Table 3, engineering, sciences and medicine have been the dominant disciplines. Table 4 further confirms the regional disparities in doctoral education in China: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Shaanxi and Hubei were the top five positions, occupied 68 per cent of national best theses, while no awards went to Jiangxi, Guizhou, Xinjiang, Ningxia, and Tibet during the time period. As for institutional distributions, the top ten were Chinese Academy of Sciences, Tsinghua University, Peking University, Fudan University, Zhejiang University, University of Science and Technology of China, Nanjing University, Renmin University of China, Shanghai Jiaotong University, and Xi'an Jiaotong University respectively with 171, 85, 72, 48, 36, 30, 29, 25, 23, and 21 awards (Zhou et al. 2011). Except for the national academy, all the higher education institutions are on the 985 Project list. the other hand, it is also particularly valued. As reported by Liu and Wang (2011, p. 143), the doctoral students at Beijing Forestry University ranked supervision the second most important factor in deciding their completion of studies, only behind their own professional foundations and research capacity.Their majority (84.4 per cent) were happy with the supervision they had received, while 13.5 per cent thought it was `just ok', and only 2.0 per cent considered the supervision was not acceptable. Similarly, 89.7 per cent of them reported that their supervisors attached much importance to their doctoral work, only one per cent were negative. As for how often they met their supervisors, 33 per cent answered `monthly', 27.8 per cent `fortnightly', and 25.8 per cent `weekly', with 7.3 vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Supervision In China, doctoral supervision is on one hand highly debated, especially over issues such as the most important qualities for good supervision and whether or not there is a Chinese way to supervise doctoral students. On 68 Up and coming?, Rui Yang A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W per cent reported `twice a week' and 6.3 per cent said they rarely met. A survey of three major research universities by Luo et al. (2009) reported that 51.3 per cent of doctoral students met their supervisors at least fortnightly, while 18.6 had such meetings weekly. In terms of the frequency of supervision meetings between supervisors and students, there lacks clear disciplinary differentiation between social, natural and engineering sciences. However, frequency alone does not tell the entire story. Some studies based on in-depth interviews found that it was still a common feeling among doctoral students that they did not have sufficient communication with their supervisors. The most cited complaints included overgeneralised advices, group supervision without targeting at their specific problems, and too much formality (W H Wang 2008). This echoes an earlier study at Tsinghua University, which found that 42.9 per cent doctoral students reported that their supervisors were not directing at their real issues, and 43.9 per cent complained about their supervisors' unavailability (Jiang et al. 2005).According to another even earlier study conducted at Shanghai which further confirmed such findings, 40.9 per cent doctoral students said their supervisors just `let things drift' (Song & Zhang 2001, p. 3). However, unlike Australia where lack of emotional support and insufficient social interactions between supervisors and students are commonly cited areas of discontent by students (Leder 1995; Shannon 1995), national surveys find that while the assessment of doctoral supervisors was 3 Table 5: Increase of Doctoral Supervisors Year Number of Supervisors 3478 4149 5067 5895 6919 8049 8772 10507 12315 14874 17800 Doctoral Degrees Conferred 5578 6793 8518 9593 11378 13744 14706 18625 22936 28318 35628 StudentSupervisor Ratio 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: Li & Zhan 2008b, p. 14. types of employment, career mobility, income, and career satisfaction (Auriol 2007). In China, national surveys repeatedly confirm a general satisfaction of doctorate holders with their employment after doctoral studies, although with the seemingly evergrowing number of doctorates, their advantaged position in the labour market will be challenged more in the years to come (Li et al. 2007). The majority of Chinese doctorate holders choose to work in higher education and research institutions, in scientific and research-related jobs, although as the Chinese society becomes more diversified, the proportion of those with doctorates working in research and teaching environment in China has declined, for example, from 77.7 per cent in 1996 to 46 per cent in 2006 (Li & Zhan 2008b). Generally, there is a clear match between doctorate holders' occupational orientation and their actual choice-making behaviours (Zhao & Deng 2011). In 2007, a survey of 31,251 respondents from 289 doctoral training institutions, 200 government organisations and over 100 enterprises showed that on average doctorate holders were promoted to associate and full professor levels at the age of 34.1 and 39.7. It also found evident gender impact on promotion: generally female doctorate holders needed an extra of 7.2 months to become a full professor. The average ages for Chinese doctorate holders' first internationally indexed (Science Citation Index, Engineering Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Art & Humanities Citation Index) journal articles, first patents, and first research grants in a role of principal investigator were respectively 30.9, 33.2 and 33. Here, once again, it Up and coming?, Rui Yang much poorer, positive response still reached 50 per cent (China's Doctoral Education Quality Research Team 2010). Yet, the situation could become worse in the years to come as China has more and younger doctoral supervisors, as indicated by Table 5.Younger supervisors have been widely reported to be more focused on their own research and publications rather than on their interactions with doctoral students. Indeed, both their commitment and academic quality have been seriously questioned (Xu 2005). Career Since the 1970s, there have been some studies on career development of doctoral degree holders. Earlier research in the United States focused much on academic publications and income (Clark & Centra 1982).There have since been further studies in Europe (Mangematin et al. 2000) and Australia (Kubler & Western 2007). In 2004, OECD initiated the Project on Careers of Doctorate Holders, which collected data from Australia, Canada, the United States, Switzerland, and Germany and used indicators including vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 69 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W took female doctorate holders an average of 2.4 months longer to reach the same level (Zhao et al. 2011). Overall, the 2007 study showed clear advantages for doctorate holders to obtain professional promotions and gain academic publications. It was also clear that the younger when one received her/his doctorate, the more likely s/he obtained professional promotions. It is particularly interesting to note that the study revealed that while supervisors' academic reputation had clear impact on the age of their students' first academic publications, the impact on the ages of their students' to gain their promotions, patents and research grants was minimal. This is because promotion is mainly decided by length of service and research outputs. Only under special circumstances can one's academic achievements lead to her/his accelerated promotion. As reported by Zhao and Deng (2011), another study in 2007 by the Chinese Academy for Science and Technology for Development revealed that the chosen occupational categories related closely to their doctoral fields of study: those from the humanities and social sciences tended to choose the teaching profession primarily (57 per cent); those from science often selected basic research fields (20 per cent); while those from engineering favoured applied research, and technology development (57 per cent). It also found a high correlation between doctorate holders' social backgrounds and their occupational choices. nations. Indeed, despite of the relatively short history of development, China's doctoral education has had some tough problems to tackle. One serious issue is the aforementioned imbalances and disparities that could have farreaching social and educational consequences, especially in terms of equity and justice. Another major issue is the rampant academic corruption that has deeply penetrated into China's doctoral training, seriously affecting its quality and international reputation (Shen 2009). Both the growth and many problems China has echo much the international scenario (Pearson et al. 2008).The Chinese experience is particularly eye-catching for its upand-coming positioning in the global doctoral education landscape. In a society that becomes rapidly knowledgebased and internationalised, China's doctoral education needs to respond well to evolving disciplinary practices, industry interactions and the career goals of doctoral students. Although a borrowed concept, it has fostered some features of its own. It is interesting to see how further China's doctoral education fares in an unprecedentedly keen global competition. While whether or not China's doctoral education could live up to the nation's high expectations remains uncertain, doctoral education definitely has a critical role to play in the rising Chinese power. Rui Yang is Associate Professor and Assistant Dean (Research Projects and Centres) at the Faculty of Education of the University of Hong Kong. Conclusions During the past four decades when doctoral education experienced a variety of difficulties in many industrialised societies, China established its national system of academic degrees and postgraduate education, and developed it fast to become one of the largest in the world.This has been in line with China's massive leap forward in higher education since the late 1990s and its ambitious bid for world-class universities within decades. Doctoral education has been strongly, and arguable strategically, promoted by the Chinese government.Today, China's domestically trained doctorate holders have become a significant force of the nation's research and innovation, contributing vigorously to economic construction and social development in the country. As part of China's higher education, doctoral education shares features and characteristic of the wider national system. The above account has revealed tight control by the central government over doctoral education throughout the entire process of doctoral training. While the Chinese are catching up swiftly in doctoral training, they acknowledge the considerable gap between their achievements and those practiced in major Western Endnotes 1. China's earliest practices in postgraduate education started in 1918 at nine research institutions in arts, science and law programmes at Peking University. Before the official establishment of a national system of academic degrees and postgraduate education, China also provided postgraduate education in the 1950s and 1960s (Xu 2005, pp. 47, 51). Project 985 is under President Jiang Zemin's call at the 100th anniversary of Peking University on 4 May 1998, and code-named after the date Year 98 Month 5. It aims to promote the development of Chinese universities to raise their influence and reputation in the world. To achieve this goal, the Chinese central and local governments have allocated large amount of funding to universities admitted into this project to develop new research centres, improve facilities, hold international conferences, attract world-renowned academic staff and visiting scholars, and to help Chinese academics attend conferences abroad. When it was first announced in 1998, funding was made available to Peking and Tsinghua Universities only and then to an elite group of 9 universities. By the end of the first phase of the project, 34 universities were sponsored. The second phase of the project added 5 more universities, making the total number of universities sponsored by the project to 39. It was announced in September 2007 that the project would not admit other universities. All the listed institutions are recognised as China's most research-intensive universities. 2. 3. In China, doctoral student supervisor is a prestigious title given by the central government to nationally leading scholars, based on their academic achievement (Gu, 1991). vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 70 Up and coming?, Rui Yang A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W References Auriol, L. (2007). Labor market characteristics and international mobility of doctorate holders: Results of seven countries. Paris: OECD. Bell, N. (2010). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 1999 to 2009. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Chen, L. (2006). Some problems in writing dissertations of liberal arts. Journal of Xuzhou Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 32(3), 108-111. China's Doctoral Education Quality Research Team (2010). Report on China's doctoral education quality. Beijing: Peking University Press. Clark, M. J., & Centra, J. A. (1982). Conditions influencing the career accomplishments of Ph.D.s. GRE Board Research Report GREB No. 76-2R, Princeton, N.J., Educational Testing Service. Department of Development and Planning, Ministry of Education (1999). Educational statistics yearbook of China. Beijing: People's Education Press. Department of Development and Planning, Ministry of Education (2003). Educational statistics yearbook of China. Beijing: People's Education Press. Department of Development and Planning, Ministry of Education (2004). Educational statistics yearbook of China. Beijing: People's Education Press. Department of Development and Planning, Ministry of Education (2007). Educational statistics yearbook of China. Beijing: People's Education Press. Gu, M. Y. (Ed.), (1991). Encyclopedia of Education. Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press. Guo J. R. (2009). Expansion of doctoral education, quality distribution and quality assurance of doctorates in Chinese universities: A perspective of the institutionalism. Peking University Education Review, 7(2), 21-46. Institute for International Education (IIE) (2006) Data on US international education. Retrieved August 17, 2006, from http://opendoors.iienetwork. org/?p569736 Ji, D. M., Qiao, J. F., & Wu, B. (2009). Taking measures to ensure quality of doctoral theses. Journal of Hunan Medical University (Social Sciences), 11(6), 119-122. Jiang, Y. F., Wu, H.X., & Xiong, Q. N. (2005). An analysis of supervisors as a factor to influence doctoral students' creativity. Fudan Education Forum, 6, 51-54. Kubler, M., & Western, M. (2007). PhD graduates 5 to 7 years out: Employment outcomes, job attributes and the quality of research training summary results for the Australian National University. Brisbane: The University of Queensland Social Research Centre. Leder, G. (1995). Higher degree research supervision: a question of balance. The Australian Universities' Review, 38(2), 5-7. Lee, A., & Green, B. (1995). Introduction: postgraduate studies/postgraduate pedagogy?. The Australian Universities' Review, 38(2), 2-3. Li, L. G., & Zhan, H. Y. (2008a). The transformation of the discipline structure of Chinese doctoral education: 1996-2006. Fudan Education Forum, 6(6), 28-32. Li, L. G., & Zhan, H. Y. (2008b) Expansion rate and quality assurance in doctoral education: China and USA compared. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 29(5), 9-15. Li, P. S., Li, L. M., & Zong, L. (2007). Postgraduate educational aspirations and policy implications: A case study of university students in western China. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(2), 143-158. Lin, W. L. (2005). Regional distribution and adjustment of doctoral programs and their institutional bases. Researches in Higher Education of Engineering, 3, 22-23, 27. Liu, C. Q., & Wang, L. Z. (2011). Completion rates of doctoral students: A study of Beijing Forestry University. Heilongjiang Researches on Higher Education, 2, 141-144. Luo, Y. C., Zhu, Y. D., & Yang, Y. (2009). Current situation and suggestions for doctoral candidates' participation in projects in China's universities: Based on the questionnaire survey of three `985 Project' universities. Fudan Education Forum, 7(6), 19-25. Mangematin, V., Mandran, N., & Crozet, A. (2000). Careers of PhD in social sciences in France: The influence of how the research was done. European Journal of Education, 35(1), 111-124. Ministry of Education (2008) Information on international students. Retrieved 1 August 2011 from http://www.edu.cn/2008_9362/20100121/ t20100121_441948.shtml Ministry of Education (2011, July 6) 2010 statistical bulletin of national educational development. Retrieved from http://www.edu.cn/zysj_9508/20110223/ t20110223_580325.shtml Research Team on Analyses of Educational Statistics of China's Academic Degrees and Graduate Education (2009). Report on analyses of educational statistics of China's academic degrees and graduate education. Beijing: People's University Press. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005). Education at a glance. Paris: OECD. Pearson, M., Evans, T. & Macauley, P. (2008). Growth and diversity in doctoral education: Assessing the Australian experience. Higher Education, 55(3), 357-372. Shannon, A. G. (1995). Research degree supervision: `more mentor than master.' Australian Universities' Review, 38(2), 12-15. Shen, M. H. (2009, 26 October) Renmin University president Ji Baocheng: China's largest group of doctorates in government. Qianjiang Evening News. Retrieved from http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/ politics/2009-10/27/content_12338668_1.htm Song, X. M., & Zhang, L. (2001, May 31). Urgent need for strengthening doctoral supervision. Guangming Daily, p 3. Wang, H. Q. (2008). A review of ten assessments of degree granting capacity in new China's history of academic degrees and graduate Education. Cultural and Educational References, 11, 154-157. Wang, W. H. (2008). Some analyses of doctoral supervision: A study of five research intensive universities. Fudan Education Forum, 4, 66-70. Wu, B. X. (2009). Academic degrees and postgraduate education in China: Establishment and practices. Beijing, Higher Education Press. Xie, G. H. (2006). New developments in academic degrees and graduate education. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Xu, X. Y. (2005). Contemporary doctoral education in China. Beijing: Intellectual Property Publishing House. Yang, Z., & Zhang, S. J. (2008). On the supervision of doctoral theses in humanities and social sciences. China Higher Education, 20, 39-40. Zhao, S. K., Fan, W., & Li, H. B. (2011). Career developments and its influence factors of doctorate recipients. Researches in Higher Education of Engineering, 1, 148-151. Zhao, Y. D., & Deng, D. S. (2011). The occupational orientation of doctoral graduates in China. In W. J. Morgan & B. Wu (eds), Higher education reform in China: Beyond the expansion (109-118). New York: Routledge. Zhou, G. L. (2010). An investigation of the quality of doctoral education in China: Based on a case study of UH university. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press. Zhou, S. J., Chen, F. R., & An, P. S. (2011). Statistical analyses of national outstanding doctoral dissertations. Higher Education Development and Evaluation, 27(1), 73-82. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Up and coming?, Rui Yang 71 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Assessing international (post)graduate education A research agenda Tami Blumenfield Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, USA Maresi Nerad University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA `Internationalisation' has become the new buzzword for universities around the world, with jointly offered degrees as well as smaller-scale exchanges for students. Despite this rapid expansion of international campuses and programmes, and the increasing acceptance and encouragement of international experiences for [post]graduate students, little comprehensive evaluative work has been done to assess their efficacy on a broad scale and to determine what types and models of international work can be most effective. The lack of reliable and comprehensive data is especially problematic for science and engineering fields, where academic staff anxieties about forming students into competent scientists often collide with enthusiasm for encouraging international collaborations. Questions of exactly what makes a competent, or excellent, scientist, and what may benefit the scientific domain, do not have easy � or agreed-upon � answers. This article assesses the current state of internationalisation and international experiences, focusing in particular on science and engineering fields. It discusses initial results from a workshop, sponsored by the US National Science Foundation and organised by the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education at the University of Washington, to develop an interdisciplinary research agenda aimed at launching and coordinating empirically driven research on international graduate education. It concludes by identifying areas for future research. radical � like replacing toilets with seatless models � but Introduction In their article for the 1995 volume of Australia Universities' Review on Postgraduate Studies and Postgraduate pedagogy, Sid Morris and Wayne Hudson laid out a framework for radically redefining international education in Australia by changing teaching methods, expanding languages of instruction and assignment submission, making university infrastructure more inclusive, and generally placing international students at the centre of educational innovation that should spread to Australian students as well. Sixteen years later, some of their ideas still sound the rapid expansion of international education and the construction of entire campuses in other countries must be beyond what they imagined.Today, internationalisation of universities is the new buzzword. As Knight describes (2008), we now witness the internationalisation of higher education on a new level: `The number of multilateral university networks for research, teaching and contract project work has exploded; new regional international education organisations have been established; countries are reviewing their national internationalisation strategies and programmes; and new policy actors such as immigration, vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 72 Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W industry, trade are engaged and collaborating with education, foreign affairs, science and technology. The increase in volume, scope and scale of cross-border movement of education programmes (franchise, twinning, branch campus, etc.), and providers (commercial companies, non-government organisations, traditional universities), is unprecedented' (Knight 2008, p. 10). This unprecedented expansion of international education has seen administrators in many countries scrambling to sign memoranda of understanding and develop joint or dual degree programmes (Berka 2011; Kuder & Obst 2009). International exchanges are becoming requisite in many universities at the undergraduate level, and this trend is quickly extending into the graduate level as well. Not only the physical location and movement of people but also the nature of many scholars' academic work has changed dramatically. Over the last two decades knowledge production has changed from Mode 1 research in which scientists solve disciplinary puzzles individually to Mode 2 production where research occurs in multi-disciplinary, team-based groups who tackle real world problems, working effectively in international contexts, at the interfaces of academy/industry and academy/society, as well as in academia, industry, government, and non-profit sectors (Adams et al. 2007; Gibbons et al. 1994; Hicks et al. 2001; Nerad 2010; Stokes 1997). Developing a `collaborative advantage' rather than a `competitive advantage' can be an important way to build on the necessity of working together to solve complex problems (Lynn & Salzman 2006). The increased pressure to internationalise must be seen in the context of globalisation. Governments have followed the economic theories of the knowledge society: believing in the power of advanced education to spur economic growth and build national capacity, governments are allocating substantial funds to increase the research and development capacities of their countries (Nerad 2011). Indeed, `the preparation of the next generation of PhDs needs to include multi-cultural competencies in order to be able to work collaboratively in international teams on solving societal problems in multi-national settings' (Nerad 2011). Therefore, in recent years, international experiences for doctoral students have become sought after for both their general educational and career preparation values. For instance, in the US the National Science Foundation (NSF) created a new programme in 2005, Partnership for International Research and Education (PIRE), that emphasises international exchange experiences for US PhD students. The NSF-funded innovative, interdisciplinary doctoral programme, Integrated Graduate Education, Research and Training (IGERT), crevol. 54, no. 1, 2012 ated in 1997, also encourages international experience. In Europe, the ERASMUS Mundi and the Madame Curie programme support inter-European international education and career development. Individual university departments are also establishing international collaborations with programmes or laboratories from other nations to work on global problems and in the process help their students and postdocs develop cultural expertise. Many universities � particularly those in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, as well as some colleges in the US � derive substantial operating income from the tuition and fees paid by international students at the undergraduate level. For example, international students (at all levels) provided 14.9 per cent of the total income for Australian higher education in 2009 (Marginson 2011). International experiences for those beyond the undergraduate level are more costly, often require subsidisation, and therefore can be more difficult to fund. Despite the importance � especially in the context of shrinking national and regional budgets � of showing accountability for these high expenditures, evidence about the value of international experiences in graduate education remains largely anecdotal (Kirk 2008). After considering whether universities are becoming new incarnations of multinational corporations, Daniel Denecke of the Council of Graduate Schools concludes,`Value propositions underlying strategic decisions are not backed by evidence, [pointing to] a vital need for real outcomes data on the efficacy and value of international collaboration for students, research staff, and institutions' (Denecke 2011). Similarly, the Royal Society report on international scientific collaboration emphasised that while collaborations are vital and lead to many positive outcomes, `Little is understood about the dynamics of networking and the mobility of scientists, how these affect global science and how best to harness these networks to catalyse international collaboration' (Royal Society 2011, p. 6). While international partnerships are vital, significant questions remain. An increasing push to demonstrate value is thus giving new urgency to outcomes-based research on international educational experiences. This is particularly true for science and engineering fields, in which competition for funding, limited time to degree, and concerns about the intangible costs of international experiences (e.g., distraction from primary research projects and delays to degree caused by `cultural' pursuits) force students and internationally engaged academic staff alike to clearly demonstrate the value of their international engagement. It is hoped that international experiences enhance students' knowledge acquisition and contribution to research, prepare them for an increasingly international Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad 73 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W employment market, and also establish a cosmopolitan mind set and revive awareness and obligation of civic engagement. This includes the notion of a citizen who crosses national boundaries without seeking to assimilate and to homogenise, but instead to accept differences and embrace diversity (Guerin & Green 2009; Nerad 2009). But do and can these experiences fulfil the great expectations that we have for them? This question has proven exceedingly complicated to answer. It is to open a discussion and to build a research agenda with the goal of assessing and evaluating international experiences that we write this article. In part, it builds on the authors' earlier work to begin dialogues in person through an international workshop supported by the US National Science Foundation and held in Washington, DC in February 2011. Among studies of international exchanges among doctoral students and postdocs, some focus simply on mobility (Ackers et al. 2008; Avveduto 2002;Verbik 2007), while others examine postdocs as skilled migrants (Cantwell 2009). Only a few examine productivity of international exchanges and the impact on scientific careers. J�ns' study (2007) of academic mobility to Germany argues that there are typical cultures of academic mobility and collaboration and that these can be partly explained by spatial relations specific to particular research practices. This study suggests a way to conceptualise what kind of research would benefit most from international exchange. It specifically addresses different kinds of international interactions and the impacts of these on publication. Gl�nzel (2000) seeks to quantify the types and impacts of international scientific co-authorship relations in a multinational comparison, as the recent Royal Society report (March 2011) has done too. Cantwell (2009) reveals the increasing reliance on international postdocs in academic production and examines the role of international mobility in careers of postdoctoral scientists. This kind of research provides an empirically based starting point for thinking about how to maximise the career and scientific impact for scientists of international collaborations. Nerad (2011a) points to a new conceptual learning model that includes international competences. Assessments of specific programmes in terms of success in training, research, and academic staff exchange offer useful starting points for research questions leading to generalisable results. The study of aspects of the scientific process specific to international collaborations and exchanges as well as their scientific impacts is still an emerging area of inquiry. Sisco and Reinhard (2007) focus their study on academic staff exchange, although from a business education context.The Stanford Research Institute (2002) conducts research on the outcomes of Fulbright Scholar exchanges, and Universities UK (2009) offers a more general overview of researcher mobility, although their scope is limited to Europe. Research on the impact of study abroad programmes for undergraduate students offers insight into factors important in international exchange experiences for doctoral and postdoctoral students (Dwyer & Peters 2004; Martin, Bradford & Rohrlich 1995; Norris & Gillespie 2009), including possible negative impacts of international exchange (Ryan & Twibell 2000). Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1996) offers an especially useful starting point for characterising the specificity of the international exchange experience for graduate students because it compares outcomes in terms of professional and personal development among vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Reviewing the literature: what do we know about international experiences of postgraduate students? While detailed research into the exact benefits or hindrances to (post)graduate students undergoing international training during their degree is yet incomplete, studies of graduate students and even undergraduates who study abroad may serve usefully as a base for this new area of inquiry.They explore the role of international students in the hosting nation, the effect of mobility on scientific careers and productivity, and the potential for intercultural competence and existing studies of undergraduate exchange to better inform future research. Here we review some key studies that can serve as models for further research. Hans de Wit has discussed broad aspects of internationalisation in higher education, taking a historical and comparative perspective, in two wide-ranging books (de Wit 2002; de Wit 2010). Douglass and Edelstein (2009) focus on the role of international students, urging policymakers in the United States to pay more attention to the strategic importance of international students; Nerad (2011a) has likewise pointed to missed opportunities to draw on international students as resources for the entire university community. Studies that take the perspectives of international students' experiences in the United States are increasing, and these newer studies are differentiating among international students, rather than treating them as one uniform group (e.g., Trice & Yoo 2007; Finley et al. 2007). Other studies look at more homogenous groups; for example, Japanese female students (Mayuzumi et al. 2007; Yamamoto 1994) or Chinese women (Qin & Lykes 2006) at US universities. 74 Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W a sample including both graduate and undergraduate students. Undergraduates tend to experience more personal development gain, while doctoral students report direct career benefits. A key lesson of this research is that it is possible and useful to prepare for going abroad and for returning home, itself a difficult transition referred to as `reverse culture shock' (Storti 1997). Existing literature thus offers several models for studying the outcomes of international educational and research collaborations for doctoral and postdoctoral students. One source of information is rooted in subjectivity, including first-person accounts of experiences as well as scholarly investigations of identity, attitudes, and subjective evaluations. Occupying a key role in this category is intercultural competence. Defined as a complex concept that broadly deals with effective and appropriate interactions with those from different backgrounds, cultures, or perspectives (Deardorff 2009), this capacity has long been understood as critical in business. Efforts to design more effective international exchanges at the doctoral and postdoctoral level may benefit from findings in this research area. It offers pedagogical tools and assessment instruments that might be adapted to purposes of evaluating the impacts of international exchanges for doctoral and postdoctoral students. Researchers and practitioners in the area of intercultural sensitivity and competence offer examples of widely used and tested training techniques, including the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) which has been tested for reliability and validity (Paige, JacobsCassuto, Yershova & DeJaeghere 2003). In general, the field of intercultural competence offers a diverse set of research approaches and findings, which should be synthesised where relevant to the particular types of exchanges undertaken among early career researchers (e.g., Altshuler, Sussman, & Kachur 2003; Greenholz 2000; Paige et al. 2003).Thus, one method of studying the impact of international exchanges is to examine outcomes in terms of intercultural competence; well-developed instruments for doing so exist already. A final approach is to document the career outcomes of students participating in international exchanges and collaborations. This can be done by means of retrospective surveys as the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education (CIRGE) has done (Nerad 2009; vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Nerad et al. 2007). In the US, the existing Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) does not collect data on international experiences. The Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR), a subset of the SED, tracks career mobility, but does not allow linking careers to international experiences during doctoral education. The SDR, however, allows for analyses of numbers of international collaborations as well as coauthorship with international researchers (Hogan et al. 2010). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in collaboration with the Eurostat project on Careers of Doctorate Holders and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics completed in 2007 (and repeated in 2010) the first survey on international career mobility of doctorate holders and reasons for mobility in seven countries in Europe (http://www.oecd.org/sti/workingpapers). This study is only available for selected European countries. Methods for measuring the contribution of international exchanges to the vitality of the US scientific enterprise and the quality of PhD graduates need to be developed and refined. Starting points are offered by evaluation research of NSF IGERT programmes with strong international components (Heg & Nerad 2004) and by studies in the sociology of science and studies of innovation that use indicators such as publications and citations and examine scientific networks, such as the analyses of data from the SDR mentioned above. Evaluations and assessments of particular programmes offer potential frameworks, methods, and instruments: for instance, Sadrozinski (2005) develops a framework for evaluating the educational outcomes of international collaborations among doctoral students. This framework uses participant observation, interviews, focus groups, and materials analysis to evaluate international collaborations. The report (Sadrozinski 2005, pp. 21-29) also includes interview protocols for academic staff and students over three phases and an online survey in the appendix, making it a useful resource. Finally, Kirk (2008) reports on a NSF workshop intended to develop approaches for evaluating international science and engineering-related collaborations, beginning with an analysis of those funded by NSF. The workshop suggested examining effects of these collaborations on individuals, on institutions, and on what the author termed the `knowledge environment level,' or quality of innovation and research (Kirk 2008, p. Postgraduate advisers themselves steered students from diverse cultural backgrounds and female students away from certain opportunities based on perceived fears, even when these perceptions were not matched by actual experiences Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad 75 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W 4). More specific measures of scientific and technological skill acquisition, the area 2008 workshop participants struggled to define for assessment purposes, still await creation. Taken together, these various areas represent starting points for developing a more cohesive, long-term assessment on the value of international experiences at the postgraduate level. � What are the best ways to prepare students for international experiences? � What are the most effective international experiences... to students? To institutions? To international partners? What value do international experiences bring? � How can we measure effectiveness of international experiences? � How do international experiences affect `science'? Do they improve it, given the existence of different cultures of science and approaches to problem solving? � How can we maintain a focus on broader equity issues in all places � gender, ethnicity, class, nationality, and so on? These themes guided the workshop design. Tenminute igniting talks examined existing research and shared participant experiences. `Perception lenses' were introduced to challenge participants to take unfamiliar perspectives. Early career researchers presented skits to open conversations about the uneven aspects of international collaborations and interdisciplinary encounters (Breslow & Blumenfield 2011; Graybill & Shandas 2011). And working groups developed responses to key questions articulated above, often by posing specific questions or sets of questions for further investigation. The framework of identifying elements of research needed to understand aspects of international experiences at several stages � before, during, and after these experiences took place � was explored. Convening an international, interdisciplinary workshop to develop a research agenda With financial support from a grant by NSF, an international, interdisciplinary workshop was designed to stimulate the research agenda setting on understanding the value added of international collaboration at the postgraduate level. This workshop was motivated by the CIRGE emphasis on the research of institutional and educational challenges faced by interdisciplinary and increasingly international doctoral programmes and their evaluations, as well as the commitment to contribute to the preparation of the next generation of researchers for leadership in a global and knowledge-based world. On the practical side, CIRGE researchers were inspired by their experience of establishing effective research communities of international experts in doctoral education and subsequent publications through the CIRGE series of international research synthesis workshops (see CIRGE website, http://depts.washington.edu/cirgeweb/). The programme was designed to (a) increase the mutual understanding of essential topics relevant to investigating the impact of international collaborations at the (post) graduate level and beyond, (b) gather information on what we know and should know about assessing international experiences and programmes, and (c) move collectively towards charting research directions for the next years. A series of short talks (10 minutes) helped `ignite' ideas about relevant research topics, `fuelled' awareness of important assessment aspects in international collaborations, and `kept the flames burning' to enable the participants to identify potential collaborators for future research on international programmes and experiences. A simple conceptual framework was applied, exploring issues of collaboration and assessment before, during and after the international collaboration activity. Prior to the workshop, participants identified the following key concerns through a pre-workshop survey: � How can we maximise and measure global/intercultural competence (as we train students to be researchers)? Workshop results One important result of the workshop was coming to a consensus on key questions as priorities for further empirical research. During breakout group discussions and through discussions on the blog prior to the workshop in Washington, DC, participants identified the following central research questions: 1. Does international collaboration lead to better science/scientists? 2. Do current institutional and funding structures lead to missed opportunities for international collaboration? If so, how? 3. How can we assess institutional preparedness for international collaborations/experiences? 4. What are the expected outcomes and goals of international experiences/collaborations? How are they established? 5. What are the actual impacts, outcomes, and transformation of the international experiences/collaborations? The following sections address preliminary efforts to vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 76 Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W pool knowledge regarding these questions and to further refine the questions into concrete research topics. and joint submission of grant proposals, was a constant desire, but diversity-supporting elements like dependent support and full inclusion of minority individuals were also priorities on the wish list. Planning for international collaboration: the institutional context One frequently voiced frustration by the research community is the challenge of obtaining funding for international collaborators, and the dangerous imbalance of research relationships that could result from a US Congress-funded agency that restricted funding for foreign researchers. Timelines for international collaborative work and the structure of doctoral student funding also posed challenges: grants that limited the time to degree funded through the grant discouraged international ventures. For example, students funded for three years faced a ticking clock: adding an international component to their research could lengthen their doctoral study period and potentially extend this stage past the allowable funding period. Furthermore, the outcomes of international experiences should be studied over a longer term than most grant evaluations allowed. Structurally, then, existing strict doctoral programme length in many fields poses barriers to international work and to assessing its outcomes. In addition, racial and gender disparities are often magnified by international doctoral education opportunities (Ackers et al. 2008; Hogan et al. 2010). Thus this area presented a particularly important area of research focus. The precarious situation of early career researchers received significant attention from workshop participants, and models for expanding access to international opportunities without increasing inequalities demanded further attention. Postgraduate advisers themselves steered students from diverse cultural backgrounds and female students away from certain opportunities based on perceived fears, even when these perceptions were not matched by actual experiences (Zippel 2011). For example, advisers discouraged some female students from going to Middle Eastern countries where women could face discrimination in public. These pervasive forms of discrimination should be carefully studied as the role of the postgraduate adviser continues to be crucial in the formation of students. Compounding the problem, more men than women receive unsolicited invitations to engage in international work by another institution. Zippel suggests that developing an application process for women to research abroad rather than requiring them to be selected by a mentor or an academic staff person would help alleviate this disparity (Hogan et al. 2010). A working group at the workshop developed a `wish list' for making internationalisation more feasible. Funding, vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Internationalisation `wish list' International collaboration opportunities should: � Be constraint free: explore joint funding possibilities. � Include increased programme support, funding travel, personnel, associated research and stipends. � Fund supplies for offices and laboratory expenses. � Initiate reactivation transitions earlier: provide support resources for post-doc to return for careers, conferences, and other travel. � Address institutional level-challenges: these challenges are particularly acute in institutions facing a budget crunch, where staffing constraints prevent multiple grant submission. � Consider missed opportunities: issues of reciprocity relate to problems of under-funding. One person gave an example of being picked up in a limo in China and generally being treated like a `star' in other countries. The reception of international visitors to the US is often less resplendent. Examining length, timing, and characteristics of effective international experiences What length of international experience is most effective, and when should the experience occur? Can multiple experiences occur, as preferred by the subjects of Avedduto (1998) (although they lacked the funding for multiple experiences)? One researcher emphasises, `The greater the culture gap, the longer it may take for meaningful understanding to develop' (Bordia 2011). Most likely, the answers to questions about duration will vary based on the goals and context of the particular situation. There may be no single determinant of an ideal, one-sizefits-all, length of an international experience. Maintaining flexibility in the types and lengths of international experiences may help make them more accessible to individuals with place-based obligations, including family commitments and other career needs. Furthermore, how do variations in the type of international experience affect the outcomes? It will be important to distinguish in evaluation research between individual student exchanges and more complex research collaborations. Questions identified by working group members included: � What are the effects of increased Internet access on international collaborations � will this prevent students Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad 77 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W from fully immersing themselves? (Or, conversely, will this alleviate some problems of loneliness, etc., and family separation?) � What role can student support services play? Who will advise the student in a partner university? � How well are students integrated into the research community? � What is the role of the individual researcher vs. the institution? � What funding is available locally? � Are the communication channels between the institution, departments, and individuals fit for the purpose of the collaboration? � How much flexibility is allowable? During his presentation, Bordia (2011) explained that `effective collaborations have a scientific basis, complementary expertise, and appropriate facilities.' He also emphasised that for students, having an assigned host is essential. Nagoya University social psychology professor Jiro Takai (2011) offered insights from psychology about fostering effective relationships between students from the host country and students from abroad, an important yet under-studied aspect of the international experience (cf. Nerad 2011a).After explaining that merely bringing groups into contact with each other has been largely discredited as an effective tool for cross-cultural understanding � proximity does not guarantee meaningful interaction � , he drew from social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner 1979) to suggest that optimal results would occur from changing the ways in which students identified. Since social identity theorists have established that groups (ingroups) work hard to assert their superiority over others (outgroups), the key to integrating diverse participants may be to redraw the lines of established groups (Figure 1). Takai's work points to the potential for universities to draw on recategorisation, decategorisation, and subcategorisation to manipulate whether students identified as international students or whether new identities could be forged. These examples show that not merely the length of international experiences, but also the depth of integration into another research community, should be considered as assessments are developed. Figure 1: Shifting categorisations Diagrams from `Cross-cultural Exchange: Intergroup or Intragroup?,'created by Jiro Takai (2011). � What is the value of individual interdisciplinary skills compared with interdisciplinary team skills? � Is the international experience considered and valued during career planning and job searches? � Is there a bias toward people who have engaged in collaborative work? � Job opportunities, funding, and reward systems all influence potential outcomes. What forms of recognition result, if any? The hope to find a universal framework for assessing international experiences for postgraduate students and vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Assessing outcomes following international experiences and developing frameworks for outcomes assessments Questions about assessing outcomes on an individual level (please consult Nerad & Blumenfield 2011 for additional questions about assessing outcomes on an institutional level): 78 Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W for early career researchers is understandable, but not realistic. Different lenses can be applied to approach the finding of a framework. Different frameworks follow different questions. For example, one common question would be,`Does international work lead to better science? Does it form a better scientist?' An evaluation looking to answer these questions would need to first clarify the programme objectives and then build an assessment tailored to those objectives. Tools drawing from the intercultural communications field are seldom field-specific. A model from the Engineering Cultures China / Global Hub consortium combines disciplinary-specific knowledge (engineering) with intercultural competence training (Jesiek & Beddoes 2010). This programme included several training modules and several online assessment modules. The flexibility of this tool meant that students could complete assessments during their international engineering internships in China as well as during the training and after the programme completion. The number of high-quality, programme-specific assessments of international experiences for postgraduate students is growing. Now, programme directors and responsible academic staff need to carefully consider how to pool this information to contribute to a larger understanding of promising practices in international research and education. Longitudinal, multi-country studies should be coordinated and supported by national (or international) funding agencies. Assessments should be robust, incorporating quantitative and qualitative approaches; they should also be balanced between formative and summative assessment (Pfotenhauer 2010); and they should take advantage of creative assessment tools like datadriven storytelling (Macklin 2011). Assessments should not rely entirely on student self-report, but should gather information from multiple perspectives. For example, host country collaborators, international student colleagues, employers, advisors, and same-university colleagues could all be well-positioned to provide insight into how well individuals achieved certain outcomes. Depending on the outcomes to be measured, additional people or units could be included as well. Examining relationships resulting from international research experiences can provide a helpful tool for assessment. Shawn Wilson, author of Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods (2009), emphasises that relationships resulting from the research process, in addition to research results themselves, should be highly valued. Writing from the perspective of an indigenous researcher, he notes that many attempts at cross-border research fail or falter because insufficient attention is paid to interpersonal vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 relationships. For example, one American university sent several cohorts of doctoral students to collaborate with community organisations in another country. However, the students lacked linguistic competence necessary to pursue research independently, and overlooked the necessary aspects of nurturing a mutually beneficial long-term relationship. This led to an earlier-than-anticipated end to productive collaboration. One university administrator in South Africa described US universities knocking on her door and assessed them as interested in `exotic plants, exotic minerals, and exotic people.' But, she added, `we are not exotic, and we are increasingly not interested.' Summary and recommendations In this article we reviewed recent literature that is useful for approaching research on assessing international (post) graduate education and collaboration. We found that the existing publications focus more on the undergraduate level of international exchanges than the postgraduate one. At the postgraduate level the focus is on the mobility of doctorates, especially within Europe, and on joint publications and creation of international networks. We found that the intercultural competencies concept offers much for future research at the postgraduate level, and that insights from intergroup psychology play an additional role in building understanding. We also found that attention to the effects of international experiences for magnifying or minimising inequalities should be an important component of future research. We further reported from findings of an international, interdisciplinary workshop on the topic of developing a research agenda for assessing international postgraduate education and collaboration. Results No single uniform conceptual framework will be able to move this nascent field forward. Rather multiple lenses, qualitative and quantitative methods, and the multitude of stakeholders need to be considered. Only with manyfaceted, complex case studies with mixed methods will we arrive at a comprehensive understanding of whether value has been added to postgraduate education and research through international experiences and collaboration or not. Such assessment research will approach studies with a framework of before, during and after the international activity, and will distinguish between the individual or institutional level of analysis and the contribution to the advancement of science and knowledge per se. Future research will pay attention to gender and race issues within international collaboration and to the rel- Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad 79 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Figure 2: Thinking through Inclusivity Thinking through Inclusivity: Considerations for Before, During and After International Encounters Before: Inclusiveness can be defined through six terms: gender, ethnicity, geography networks, backgrounds, discipline, institution, bilateral and multilateral programmes, and structure (partnerships and exchanges). How accessible are programmes? Who applies? What is the number of students? Are programmes individual-based, or group-based? What are the potential missed opportunities? Are the programmes transparent? How can IGERT programmes become more inclusive? During: How structured is the programme? Are there mentorship programmes? An effective programme will offer support services for all participants; its infrastructure will encourage integration and provide a community base. After: Questions about inclusivity must be posed: Did it break apart biases? For whom? At what level? evance of length of exchanges or visits to other countries and cultures. Future research needs to be particularly alert to national funding structures and whether these facilitate or hinder international national collaborations. Figure 2 provides an example using the structuring framework of before, during, after and applying it to the issue of inclusiveness. English language venues. Finally, paying careful attention to the changing carrots and sticks used by universities, often at the behest of national governments, as countries reform and recalibrate their higher education systems (e.g., research assessment exercises of the sort recently revamped in Australia (cf.AUR 53:1)), and noting how they affect international collaborations of both junior scholars and postgraduate students, will be critical. We close with a call for collaborators.We hope that this important research agenda may attract new participants and foster connections among those already engaged in similar work. Tami Blumenfield is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, and a specialist in Chinese studies. Maresi Nerad is associate professor of higher education and director of the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education at the University of Washington, Seattle. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the US National Science Foundation for funding the grant proposal, Investigating the International Experiences in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Graduate Education and Beyond: From Anecdotal to Empirical Evidence (#105029).We also thank the February 2011 workshop participants for their ongoing engagement with this work. Recommendations We recommend that national and international funding agencies support, coordinate and pool emerging cases of individual institution's assessment studies to help build a comprehensive understanding of the values of international engagement and provide critical evidence for the justification of resources allocated to them. We recommend that any new collaborations build elements into international experiences that maximise institutional rewards and support diverse students and researchers, creating a more reciprocal and equitable endeavour. To accomplish these goals will require efforts beyond that which a single research institute in any one nation can muster. It will also require that research results pay attention to ongoing asymmetries in academic knowledge production. Existing measures of international collaboration like citation indices, currently reliant on only Englishlanguage publications, need to be updated in order to accurately reflect the scale and scope of collaboration, and to adequately reward scholars for publishing in non- Endnote Throughout this article, the term `academic staff' is used to describe research professors and other teaching staff, often those who supervise students. Its equivalent term in North American usage is `faculty.' References Ackers, L., Gill, B. & Guth, J. (2008). Doctoral mobility in the social sciences. University of Liverpool, UK: Norface Era-Net, European Law and Policy Research Group. Adams, J., Gurney, K., & Marshall, S. (2007). Patterns of international collaboration for the UK and leading partners (Summary Report). Report commissioned by the UK Office of Science and Innovation. Leeds, UK: Evidence Ltd. Altshuler, L., Sussman, N.M. & Kachur, E. (2003). Assessing changes in intercultural sensitivity among physician trainees using the intercultural development inventory. In R. M. Paige (Guest Ed.), Special issue on the Intercultural Development, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 387-401. Avveduto, S. (2002). International Mobility of PhDs. National Research Council, Institute for Studies on Scientific Research and Documentation. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/49/2096794.pdf vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 80 Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Beddoes, K., Jesiek, B. K. & Borrego, M. (2010). Identifying opportunities for collaborations in international engineering education research on problem- and project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 4(2): 7-34. Berka, S. (2011). Added value of an international graduate dual degree program � a closer look at its gains for engineering students. Special volume in honor of John Grandin, `Making the Odd Couple Work: Bridging Languages with Engineering,' Online Journal for Global Engineering Education, 6(1). Bordia, R. (2011). Cultural differences and values of a science research professor. Presentation to National Science Foundation and Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education Workshop, `Investigating the International Experiences in STEM Graduate Education and Beyond: A Workshop to Develop a Research Agenda,' Arlington, VA, 7 February 2011. Breslow, S. & Blumenfield, T. (2011). Studying pandas: challenges to interdisciplinary international research during doctoral education. Skit presented to the National Science Foundation and Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education workshop, `Investigating the International Experiences in STEM Graduate Education and Beyond: A Workshop to Develop a Research Agenda,' Arlington, VA, 8 February 2011. Cantwell, B. (2009). International Postdocs: Educational Migration and Academic Production in a Global Market. Ph.D. diss., Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Arizona. Deardorff, D.K. (2009). The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Durham, NC: Duke University. Deardorff, D.K. (2006). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241-266. de Wit, H. (2011). Trends, Issues and Challenges in Internationalization of Higher Education. Amsterdam: Centre for Applied Research on Economics and Management, Hogeschool van Amsterdam. de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: a historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing. Denecke, D. (2011). The Graduate Collaborations Project: Some Findings that Suggest Directions for Outcomes Measurement. Presentation to National Science Foundation and Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education Workshop, `Investigating the International Experiences in STEM Graduate Education and Beyond: A Workshop to Develop a Research Agenda,' Arlington, VA, 8 February 2011. Denecke, D. & Kent, J. (2010). Joint degrees, dual degrees, and international research collaborations: a report on the CGS graduate international collaborations project. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Downey, G., Lucena, J. Engineering Cultures Online 2.0. Online course developed at Virginia Tech and Colorado School of Mines. Lectures available in Purdue University's online portal GlobalHub, http://globalhub.org/resources/11. Downey, G., Lucena, J., Moskal, B., Parkhurst, R., Bigley, T., Hays, C., Jesiek, B., Kelly, L., Miller, J., Ruff, S., Lehr, J. & Nichols-Belo, A. (2006). The globally competent engineer: working effectively with people who define problems differently. Journal of Engineering Education, 95 (2), 107-122. Dwyer, M. & Peters, C. (2004). The benefits of study abroad. Transitions Abroad, March/April. Finley, J. B., Taylor, S. L. & Warren, D. L. (2007). Investigating graduate business students' perceptions of the educational value provided by an international travel course experience. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 19 (1), 57-82. Gaskins, F. E. (1997). The development of intercultural sensitivity in students: A journal study. Unpublished master's thesis, Intercultural Communication Institute (ICI)/McGregor School of Antioch University, Portland, OR. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Gl�nzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific coauthorship relations. Scientometrics, 51 (1), 69�115. Global Hub, Advanced Global Engineering. (2008). Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN. http://globalhub.org/ Grandin, J.M. & Hedderich, N. (2009). Intercultural competence in engineering � global competence for engineers. In Darla K. Deardorff (ed.), The SAGE Book of Intercultural Competence (pp. 362-373). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Graybill, J. & Shandas, V. (2011). Navigating cross-cultural experiences in international fieldwork. Skit presented to the National Science Foundation and Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education workshop, `Investigating the International Experiences in STEM Graduate Education and Beyond: A Workshop to Develop a Research Agenda,' Arlington, VA, 7 February 2011. Great Lakes Colleges Association. (2008). Liberal Education and Study Abroad: Assessing Learning Outcomes to Improve Program Quality. Final report to the Teagle Foundation. Greenholz, J. (2000). Assessing cross-cultural competence in transnational education: The Intercultural Development Inventory. Higher Education in Europe, 15(3), 411-416. Guerin, C. & Green, I. (2009). The transcultural academic: Cosmopolitanism and the imagined community of the global academy. Journal of the World Universities Forum, 2(3), 17-24. Gullahorn, J.E. & Gullahorn, J.T. (1996). American students abroad: professional versus personal development. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 368(1), 43. Heg, D. & Nerad, M., with assistance from Blumenfield, T. (2004). Innovation in PhD Training: An IGERT at the University of Washington Mid-Term Program Evaluation. Seattle, WA: Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education, University of Washington. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/ cirgeweb/c/research/innovative-graduate-programs-igerts/ Hesse, J. G. & Gobel, K. (2003). Evaluation and quantitative methods in global learning: A contribution from the field of intercultural sensitivity. Paper presented at the Global Education Network Europe (GENE) expert meeting. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/T/E/North-South_Centre/Programmes/3_Global_Education /c_GENE/GENE%20 Web-page%20-%20(3)%20 Hsse%20article.asp. Hogan, A., Zippel, K., Frehill, L. & Kramer, L. (2010). Report of the International Workshop on International Research Collaboration. Report prepared with funding from the National Science Foundation OISE-0936970 and HRD0811170. Retrieved from http://www.dac.neu.edu/zippel/nsf-workshop/docs/ FinalReport_Oct22_2010.pdf Holm, J.D. & Malete, L. (2010). Nine problems that hinder partnerships in Africa. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/ Nine-Problems-That-Hinder/65892/. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation. (2010). Australia's International Research Collaboration. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Jesiek, B.K. & Beddoes, K. (2010). From diplomacy and development to competitiveness and globalization: historical perspectives on the internationalization of engineering education. In G. L. Downey and K. Beddoes (eds), What is Global Engineering Education For?: The Making of International Educators (pp. 45-76). San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool. Jons, H. (2007). Transnational mobility and the spaces of knowledge production: a comparison of global patterns, motivations and collaborations in different academic fields. Social Geography 2, 97-114. Retrieved from http://www.soc-geogr. net/2/97/2007/sg-2-97-2007.html Kenway, J. & Bullen, E. (2003). Self-representations of international women postgraduate students in the global university `contact zone'. Gender and Education 15 (1), 5-20. Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad 81 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Kirk, E. (2008). Developing evaluation approaches to international collaborative science and engineering activities. Research Triangle Park, NC: Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society. Klein, J. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures 36 (4), 515. Knight, J. (2008). Joint and double degree programmes: vexing questions and issues. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (September). Retrieved from http://www.eahep.org/web/images/Malaysia/joint_and_double_ degree_programmes_vexing_questions_and_issues_september_2008.pdf Kuder, M., & Obst, D. (2009). Joint and double degree programs in the transatlantic context: A survey report. Report to the EU-US Atlantis Program of the US Department of Education's Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) and the European Commission's Directorate General for Education and Culture. Lynn, L.H. & Salzman, H. (2006). Collaborative Advantage: Globalization of Innovation and Engineering. Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 74-82. Macklin, S. (2011). Telling stories in creating international communities as a method in media for international collaborations. Streaming video presentation to the 2011 CIRGE NSF workshop, Washington, DC, 7 February. Marginson, S. 2011. It's a long way down: The underlying tensions in the education export industry. Australian Universities' Review 53(2): 21-33. Martin, J.N., Bradford, L. & Rohrlich, B. (1995). Comparing predeparture expectations and post-sojourn reports: A longitudinal study of US students abroad. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 19 (1), 87-110. Mayuzumi, K., Motobayashi, K., Nagayama, C. & Takeuchi, M. (2007). Transforming diversity in Canadian higher education: a dialogue of Japanese women graduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 12 (5-6), 581-92. Morris, S. & Hudson, W. 1995. International education and innovative approaches to university teaching. Australian Universities' Review 38(2): 70-74. Nerad, M. & Heggelund, M. (2008). Toward a global PhD? Forces and forms of change in doctoral education worldwide. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Nerad, M. (2009). Confronting Common Assumptions: Designing Future-oriented Doctoral Education. In R. Ehrenberg (ed.), Doctoral Education and the Faculty of the Future (pp. 80-89). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Nerad, M. (2010). Globalization and the Internationalization of Graduate Education: A Macros and Micro view. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 40(1), 1-12. Nerad, M. & Blumenfield, T. (2011). Investigating the International Experiences in STEM Graduate Education and Beyond: Report from a Workshop to Develop a Research Agenda. Report prepared with funding from the National Science Foundation, #105029. Nerad, M. (2011a). The Internationalization of Doctoral Education- A Two-Way Approach: Promoting Productive Educational Experiences for PhD Students. In K. Yu & A. Stith (eds), Competition and Cooperation among Universities in the Age of Internationalization: Proceedings of the AC21 International Forum 2010. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press. Nerad, M. (2011b). It takes a Global Village to Develop the next Generation of PhDs and Postdocs. In Acta Academia special issue (forthcoming). Norris, E. M. & Gillespie, J. (2009). How Study Abroad Shapes Global Careers. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13 (3), 382-397. Olson, C. L. & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education 5(2), 116-137. Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing intercultural sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the Intercultural Development Inventory. In R. M. Paige (guest ed.), special issue on the Intercultural Development. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 467-486. Pfotenhauer, S. (2010). Portuguese Partnerships Seek to Tackle European Higher-Education Reform Challenges. The Chronicle of Higher Education (June 24). Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Portuguese-PartnershipsSee/66043/. Qin, D. & Lykes, M.B. (2006). Reweaving a fragmented self: a grounded theory of self-understanding among Chinese women students in the United States of America. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19 (2), 177-200. Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. Royal Society Policy Document 03/11. London, England: The Royal Society. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/ Royal_Society_Content/Influencing_Policy/Reports/2011-03-28-Knowledgenetworks-nations.pdf. Ryan , M. E. & Twibell, R.S. Concerns, values, stress, coping, health and educational outcomes of college students who studied abroad. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24 (4), 1 July 2000, 409-435. Sadrozinski, R. (2005) Evaluative Framework for International Collaboration. Report to the National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/cirgeweb/c/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/evaluative-framework.pdf. Sisco, L. A. & Reinhard, K. (2007). Learning to see what's invisible: the value of international faculty exchange. Business Communication Quarterly, 70 (3), 356-363. Stanford Research Institute. (2002). International Outcome Assessment of the Fulbright Scholar Program. Stanford, CA: SRI Report. Storti, C. (1997). The Art of Coming Home. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc. Sussman, L. R. (1992). The culture of freedom: the small world of Fulbright scholars. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (eds), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Takai, J. 2011. `Cross-cultural Exchange: Intergroup or Intragroup?' Presentation to National Science Foundation and Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education Workshop, `Investigating the International Experiences in STEM Graduate Education and Beyond: A Workshop to Develop a Research Agenda,' Arlington, VA, 6 February. Trice, A. G. & Yoo, J. E. (2007). International graduate students' perceptions of their academic experience. Journal of Research in International Education 6 (1),41-66. Universities UK. (2009). Researcher Mobility in the European Research Area: Barriers and Incentives. Research Report, London: Universities UK. Verbik, L. (2007). International student mobility: patterns and trends. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www. eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/newsletter/International_Student_Mobility_-_Patterns_and_Trends.pdf. Wilson, S. (2009). Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Winnipeg, Canada: Fernwood Press. Yamamoto, S. (1994). Qualitative study of Japanese students' intercultural experiences in the US in relation to the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. Unpublished master's thesis, Portland State University. Zippel, K. (2011). Preliminary findings from research on inclusiveness in international research collaborations (7 February 2011). Presentation to National Science Foundation and Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education Workshop, `Investigating the International Experiences in STEM Graduate Education and Beyond: A Workshop to Develop a Research Agenda,' Arlington, VA. 82 Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W A new era for research education in Australia? Helene Marsh James Cook University, Queensland Bradley Smith James Cook University, Queensland Max King Monash University, Victoria Terry Evans Deakin University, Victoria Use of the Australian research assessment exercise, Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) to influence the policy and practice of research education in Australia will undoubtedly have many consequences, some of them unintended and potentially deleterious. ERA is a retrospective measure of research quality; research education is prospective. There is a lack of alignment between the 2- and especially the 4- digit Fields of Research used for ERA and university organisational units. While numerous Fields of Research were rated as world class in multiple institutions in the capital cities of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, the other states and regional Australia have significant gaps. The Sciences, Technology, Engineering and Medical (STEM) fields were generally rated higher than the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (HASS) disciplines. Thus using ERA results to allocate higher degree by research places will have highly variable consequences in different disciplines and locations, given the obstacles to the mobility of the largely mature-aged doctoral cohort and the forecast impending academic skills shortage. ERA provides an incentive for Australian academics to eschew publishing in low impact journals and is likely to disadvantage some research students for whom co-authorship in a lower impact journal is more advantageous than no publication. There are many ways in which ERA results could be used to improve the quality of research education in Australia. Nonetheless, simplistically limiting doctoral education to Fields of Research where an institution scored at or better than national or world averages in ERA is unlikely to be in the national interest because our future research and academic workforce needs to be well prepared to operate across the nation in areas of emerging research, including cross-disciplinary and applied research. Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) is designed to provide a comprehensive review of the quality of research undertaken in Australian higher education institutions at regular intervals. The first ERA was conducted in 2010 (Australian Research Council 2011a), the second will be conducted in 2012 and the third is planned for 2016. ERA was a successor to the Research Quality Framework vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 (RQF) (DEST 2005); an initiative prompted by political scepticism about the claims/assertions that universities made about the value of and returns on national investment in research. In implementing ERA, Australia follows several other countries, including the United Kingdom (RAE 2008), New Zealand (PBRF 2012), Hong Kong (French, Massy & Young 2001), which have conducted A new era for research education in Australia?, Helene Marsh et al. 83 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W national assessments of the quality of research based on various criteria.These overseas assessment exercises have been used to guide research funding in response to concerns about the affordability of funding all higher education institutions for research as higher education has moved from an elite to a mass system (Elton 2000). However, the outcomes have not always been as policy makers intended. For example, in the United Kingdom, the exercise, which was aimed at concentrating research in fewer institutions and departments, confirmed that many of the newer universities were producing quality research and many universities used their freedom of virement to fund lower-rated departments at the expense of higher-rated ones (Elton 2000). In ERA 2010, each of the 41 Australian Higher Education Providers was invited to provide evidence of research quality, volume, application and esteem across eight disciplinary clusters: (1) Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences; (2) Humanities and Creative Arts; (3) Engineering and Environmental Sciences; (4) Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences; (5) Mathematical, Information and Computing Sciences; (6) Biological Sciences and Technology; (7) Biomedical and Clinical Health Sciences; (8) Public and Allied Health Sciences. The disciplines within each cluster were defined by the 2 and 4-digit Fields of Research identified by the Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC 2008). ERA 2010 was an academic rather than an end-user evaluation of Australia's research. The evaluation was undertaken by eight Research Evaluation Committees, each of which was broadly representative of its discipline cluster group. Each committee's assessment was based on a `dashboard' of indicators of research quality, research volume and activity, research applications and recognition (Australian Research Council 2011a). Each Field of Research was evaluated on a five-point scale ranging from `1' (well below world standard) to `5' (well above world standard) with a rating of `3' representing world standard. If an institution did not meet the low volume threshold for critical mass for a Field of Research, it was rated as `not assessed' for that field. The indicators were largely metric-based with an emphasis on citation analysis the vast majority of Sciences, Technology, Engineering and Medical (STEM) disciplines and peer review by international experts in the remaining discipline clusters. Thus the range of disciplines was split into peer-review disciplines and citation disciplines. The evaluation processes were not transparent and attempts to determine the relative importance of the input factors through retrospective analysis have largely failed. Some bodies including the Australian Academy for the Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE 2009) expressed concern that applied and cross-disciplinary research would be undervalued, a concern supported by analyses of British Research Assessment Exercises (e.g. Elton 2000). The ways in which ERA will be incorporated into the drivers that determine the Research Training Scheme, the block grant provided to Australian universities to fund research training, have yet to be determined. In `Research skills for an innovative future' (DIISR 2011a), the Australian government stated that the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative will support the `identification and recognition of research strengths within universities' as a vital component of research education (page 23). Despite intuitive appeal, this approach may have the unintended consequence of reducing research education in areas of national or regional importance, especially areas of applied, cross-disciplinary or emerging research. The purpose of our paper is to explore possible consequences of ERA for research education in Australia and to suggest ways in which ERA results could be used to enhance research education in Australia while minimising deleterious, unintended consequences `before they become apparent, let alone researchable' (Elton 2000). Methods Our analysis is largely based on the National Report of ERA 2010 (Australian Research Council 2011a). ERA 2010 scores were based on 25 2-digit and 157 4-digit Fields of Research as defined by the ANZSRC classification (ANZSRC 2008), a pragmatic taxonomy of research across all research and development sectors in Australia and New Zealand including industry, Government agencies, private not for profit organisations and universities. This classification was not designed as a taxonomy of university research per se and includes Fields of Research that are largely undertaken outside the sector e.g., automotive engineering and medical biotechnology. Thus it is questionable whether an analysis such as ours should include all these fields.Twenty-two of the 4-digit codes are `XX99' or `other' codes e.g., 699 Other Biological Sciences and 1499 Other Economics. There were only 28 Units of Evaluation (a 2-digit or 4-digit Field of Research for one institution) across the 22 `other' Fields of Research compared with 1708 Units of Evaluation for the substantive Fields of Research (Commonwealth of Australia 2011a). The purpose of the `other' codes is to pick up research not adequately captured by the main 4-digit Fields of Research.Therefore, including these 22 Fields of Research vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 84 A new era for research education in Australia?, Helene Marsh et al. A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W in an analysis of ERA distorts consideration of breadth, as a `not assessed' within these codes simply indicates there is adequate alignment of research codes and actual activity, whereas a `not assessed' for a substantive code indicates that either there is no research activity at that Higher Education Provider, or if there is, it has not produced the requisite outputs to meet the threshold for assessment. There is also an argument that 1802 Maori Law should not be included in Australian assessments as the inclusion of this code in ANZSCR is a function of ANZSRC being a joint classification for Australia and New Zealand. No Higher Education Provider met the threshold for assessment for Maori Law in ERA 2010. In addition, nine 4-digit Fields of Research did not record any assessment. Whether that result indicates real gaps in the fabric of Australian Higher Education Research is beyond the scope of this paper.Thus ERA 2010 was not, in practice, an analysis of 157 4-digit Fields of Research but of 125 � 134 Fields of Research depending on whether the fields for which no returns were received are included.We used 134 Fields of Research in our analysis below by omitting the 22 `other' Fields of Research and Maori Law. nary research. Experience in the United Kingdom suggests that these areas may not rate well (or at all) in ERA (Elton 2000). Organisational scale mismatch There is a lack of alignment between the 2- and especially the 4- digit Fields of Research used for ERA and university organisational units. Most Australian universities are now organised in large multi-disciplinary schools that conduct research in many Fields of Research (e.g., Environmental Science staff at Griffith University contributed to 82 Fields of Research in ERA 2010 (Tony Shiel, pers comm 2011). Similarly at James Cook University, all of the assessed Fields of Research relied on inputs from at least two and typically five to eight of that institution's 25 academic organisational units (Chris Cocklin, pers comm 2011). In ERA 2010, this organisational scale mismatch was exacerbated by the inevitable attempt by every university to optimise its ERA returns. As a result, many staff, particularly those undertaking cross-disciplinary research, contributed to their university's return in several different Fields of Research, which may have received very different ERA evaluations. Alternatively, some institutions score well in Fields of Research not represented by their organisational units. For example, the Australian National University was rated as world class in Education at the 2-digit level without having a unit in this discipline (Margaret Kiley pers comm. 2011). Although ERA 2012 will incorporate changes designed to improve the capacity to accommodate cross-disciplinary research (Australian Research Council 2011b), the changes are unlikely to improve this mismatch of organisational scale.The revised methodology will allow each institution to code journal articles with significant content (66 per cent or greater) not represented by a journal's Fields of Research to another appropriate Field of Research code of its choice (Australian Research Council 2011b). However, institutions will still code publications to maximise their ERA scores rather than to align with organisational units. Thus using ERA results as a blunt instrument to define the fields, in which a university may offer doctorates or award Australian Postgraduate Awards for example, will almost certainly increase the perverse incentive to `optimise' the coding of the Fields of Research in which research higher degree candidates are working, reducing the robustness of the data on this important topic. Results and Discussion Challenges of ERA for research education Temporal scale mismatch ERA is a retrospective measure of research quality, volume, application and esteem aggregated into an overall performance rating. Based on data from eligible staff from each institution employed at the census date of 31 March 2010, ERA 2010 applied to research outputs from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2008; research income, commercialisation and esteem measures between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2008; citation measures from 1 January 2003 to 1 March 2010.Thus some of the research assessed must have predated the publications reference period by several years. The reference periods for ERA 2012 will be updated, for example publications will be limited to the period 1 January 2005 � 31 December 2010, however, the exercise is inevitably retrospective. Most universities are investing in emerging areas of research to meet perceived future needs in the context of their institutional mission. Current doctoral candidates are the researchers of the future and their research should be aligned with research needs of the future rather than the research strengths of the past. Doctoral candidates should be well represented in an institution's areas of emerging research including applied and cross-disciplivol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Perverse incentives ERA 2010 produced at least one perverse incentive that anecdotal evidence indicates has had an impact on A new era for research education in Australia?, Helene Marsh et al. 85 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W research training already. Because ERA 2010 was focused on all publications (or research outputs), it was perceived as emphasising publishing in highly ranked (A* and A) journals in the case of the peer-review disciplines or journals with high impact factors in the case of citation disciplines. The Research Evaluation Committees were presented with percentages of A*, A, B and C publications in their dashboards, along with other research indicators. Consequently until recently, some Australian academics were strongly encouraged to publish only in A* and A journals by senior university staff concerned that any publications in lower ranked journals inevitably reduced the percentages of publications in A* and A journals for the relevant ERA Unit of Evaluation. Thus some academics, particularly in the peer-review disciplines, perceived a strong disincentive to publish with a research higher degree candidate in a B or C journal. For the citation disciplines, there was a similar disincentive to publish in low impact journals. ERA 2012 will not use the controversial system of ranking journals used in ERA 2010 (Australian Research Council 2011b). Rather the Australian Research Council will use a refined journal quality indicator and evaluation committees will use their expert judgement to assess the appropriateness of the journals for the disciplinary unit concerned. This new approach is less transparent than its predecessor and is unlikely to change the unwillingness of some supervisors to publish with their research students if it means publishing in low impact journals or their equivalent. Showing a research higher degree candidate how to publish is very much part of good practice in research training. Consequently, some doctoral programmes require all research students to publish a paper (or in some cases two papers) in order to satisfy the requirements for the degree. Research does not always work out as planned � there is an element of risk. When research does not work out or yields negative results, it is typically not possible to publish the results in high impact journals. This practice reflects the interest in the results to the readers of the journal, rather than the quality of the research. Journals are ranked on the basis of impact factor and it is inevitable that this information will be used in ERA 2012. Because ERA is cur- rently an assessment of all publications, any publication in a journal with a relatively low impact factor (including most journals in emerging fields and many journals that publish cross-disciplinary research) will still have the potential to dilute the quality of publications in the eyes of a Research Evaluation Committee. Thus many supervisors may be reluctant to publish in such journals with their research students, a practice that is likely to disadvantage the student. In addition, established journals can be quite conservative and reluctant to publish new work in emerging, cross-disciplinary or applied areas. Systemic variables affecting the use of ERA in Research Education There are three broad variables associated with ERA outcomes that will have consequences if ERA is used to allocate higher degree by research places or government funded stipend scholarships: institutional grouping, geography and discipline.We consider each of these variables below. Institutional Grouping The performance of Australia's 41 Higher Education Providers was predictably uneven in ERA 2010 (Table 1), although all but two universities were rated as at world class or better in at least one Field of Research indicating that as in the United Kingdom (Elton 2000; RAE 2008), some of the newer universities are producing some `outstanding' research (at least one university outside the Group of Eight universities achieved a maximum score in eight of the 18 2-digit Fields of Research). As expected, ERA confirmed the research standing of the Group of Eight universities which were collectively assessed in 692 Units of Evaluation of which 91.3 per cent were rated at world standard or better. The seven Innova- Table 1: ERA 2010 performance by institutional grouping Grouping # Institutions # Field of Research assessed /134 5 8 7 21 14 41 78 121 95 98 96 # Units of Evaluation rated world class 134 632 185 213 189 1126 # Units of Evaluation assessed 224 692 296 496 387 1708 % Units of Evaluation rated world class 59.8% 91.3% 62.5% 42.9% 48.8% 65.9% Australian Technology Network Group of Eight Innovative Research Universities Non-aligned Regional Total Data Source: Australian Research Council (2011a). Excellence in Research for Australia 2010 National Report. Retrieved from www.arc.gov.au/era/. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 86 A new era for research education in Australia?, Helene Marsh et al. A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Table 2: ERA 2010 performance by institutional state of origin State # Units of Evaluation rated world class 359 273 205 107 107 38 65 6 4 1164 # Units of Evaluation rated % Units of Evaluation rated world class 70.9 69.1 70.4 53.2 69.9 70.4 82.3 37.3 30.8 65.9 # Fields of Research not evaluated 17 22 24 37 48 80 65 118 n/a # Fields of Research with only 1 unit of evaluation 19 18 29 38 38 54 59 16 n/a # Fields of Research offered /134 117 112 110 97 86 54 69 16 n/a 134 of Evaluation across the seven 4-digit codes in the Commerce cluster were considered world class. There are no world class providers in Western Australia in Law. There was only one institution (Murdoch) rated at world class in Studies in Human Society at the 2-digit level and only three of 15 Units of Evaluation were rated as world class across the eight 4-digit Fields of Research in the Commerce discipline-cluster. We analysed the performance of 14 `regional' higher education providers; Ballarat, Batchelor, Central Queensland, Charles Darwin, Charles Sturt, Deakin, James Cook, Newcastle, New England, Southern Cross, Southern Queensland, Sunshine Coast, Tasmania NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS ACT NT Multistate Total 506 395 291 201 153 54 79 16 13 1708 Note: Data Source: Australian Research Council (2011a). Excellence in Research for Australia 2010 National Report. Retrieved from www.arc.gov.au/era/. tive Research Universities collectively had 62.5 per cent of 296 Units of Evaluation rated at world class or better, a result similar to that of the five Australian Technology Network universities (59.8 per cent of 225 Units of Evaluation rated at world class or better). The performance of the 21 non-aligned institutions (42.9 per cent of 496 Units of Evaluation rated at world class or better), was more diverse, ranging from Macquarie with 75.6 per cent of 45 Units of Evaluation rated as world class, to Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, University of Notre Dame and the University of the Sunshine Coast with none. The lowest performing 15 universities were assessed for 234 Units of Evaluation although only 20.9 per cent of these were at world standard or better with the discipline of Nursing being the strongest performer with four of six universities being rated at or above world class in this Field of Research. and Wollongong. This grouping is a heterogeneous mix as it includes four institutions with no or one worldclass ratings, three members of the Innovative Research University grouping (Charles Darwin, James Cook and Newcastle) while Tasmania and Wollongong are wellestablished non-aligned research universities. There were 15 Fields of Research where the `regional' universities scored relatively well, including Analytical Chemistry and Environmental Science and Management. Of the 33 world class Units of Evaluation across these 15 Fields, all but five Table 3: ERA 2010 results for the five 4-digit Fields of Research with the highest number of Units of Evaluation in 14 `regional' institutions 4-digit Fields of Research # Units of Evaluation rated world class 4 3 1 2 0 # Units of Evaluation % Units of Evaluation rated world class 30.8 23.1 8.3 18.2 0.0 Geography Geography matters. While New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have numerous Units of Evaluation rated as world class in their capital cities, the other States (Table 2) and regional Australia have significant gaps. South Australia does not have any institutions rated world class in two 2-digit Fields of Research: (1) Education and (2) Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services. In the three 4-digit Fields of Research in the discipline of Education, only two of the eight South Australian Units of Evaluation were rated as world class and only three of the nine Units vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Curriculum & Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education Education Systems Sociology Business & Management 14 13 12 11 13 Note: Data Source: Australian Research Council (2011a). Excellence in Research for Australia 2010 National Report. Retrieved from www.arc. gov.au/era/. A new era for research education in Australia?, Helene Marsh et al. 87 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Table 4: ERA 2010: world class assessments for various Fields of Research 2-digit Field of Research 2-digit Fields of Research # Units of Evaluation world class Chemical Sciences Earth Sciences Agricultural & Vet Sciences Physical Sciences Environmental Sciences Mathematical Sciences Engineering Built Environment & Design Biological Sciences Philosophy & Religious Studies History & Archaeology Medical & Health Sciences Information & Computing Sciences Language, Communication & Culture Technology Law and Legal Studies Psychology & Cognitive Sciences Education Studies In Creative Arts & Writing Economics Commerce, Management, Tourism & Services Studies In Human Society Total 26 19 22 20 20 18 22 16 23 16 21 46 14 21 4 17 14 15 14 12 13 10 403 # Units of Evaluation 26 21 25 24 25 24 31 23 34 25 33 73 24 36 7 35 31 39 38 35 39 38 686 Aggregate of 4-digit Fields of Research per 2-digit code % Units of # Units of Evaluation Evaluation world class world class 100.0 90.5 88.0 83.3 80.0 75.0 71.0 69.6 67.6 64.0 63.6 63.0 58.3 58.3 57.1 48.6 45.2 38.5 36.8 34.3 33.3 26.3 58.7 73 57 32 51 25 50 96 32 108 36 33 184 21 66 7 17 20 42 63 21 60 70 1164 # Units of Evaluation 84 57 36 60 30 58 111 50 132 50 43 237 23 100 8 35 39 105 95 49 148 158 1708 % Units of Evaluation world class 86.9 100.0 88.9 85.0 83.3 86.2 86.5 64.0 81.8 72.0 76.7 77.6 91.3 66.0 87.5 48.6 51.3 40.0 66.3 42.9 40.5 44.3 68.1 Note: Data Source: Australian Research Council (2011a). Excellence in Research for Australia 2010 National Report. Retrieved from www.arc.gov.au/era were located at the older institutions: Deakin, James Cook, Newcastle,Tasmania or Wollongong.The five 4-digit Fields of Research with the highest number of Units of Evaluation in regional institutions are listed in Table 3; only 10 of 61 (16 per cent) Units of Evaluation were rated as world class or above. The result for Business and Management was particularly concerning; this Field of Research was not rated as world class at any of the 13 regional institutions that claimed critical mass. Social Sciences (HASS). The extent to which this result is an artefact of ERA methodology or reflects levels of maturity and/or investment in those fields is beyond our consideration. Thus using ERA results to allocate higher degree by research places will have highly variable consequences in different disciplines (Table 4). All Units of Evaluation were rated as world class or better for 40 (32 per cent) of 4-digit Fields of Research; 66 Fields of Research (49 per cent) had >80 per cent of Units of Evaluation rated at world class or higher (Commonwealth of Australia 2011a). For example, both Chemical Sciences (100 per cent world class or better at the 2-digit level) and Earth Sciences (100 per cent world class or better at 4-digit level), would be largely unaffected vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Discipline Matters One feature of ERA 2010 was the generally higher rating of the Sciences, Technology, Engineering and Medical (STEM) fields compared with the Humanities, Arts, and 88 A new era for research education in Australia?, Helene Marsh et al. A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W by limiting higher degree by research students to institutions rated as world class in these disciplines. The alternative approach of limiting higher degree by research places to institutions performing at or above national average in these disciplines would deprive world class groups of research students, policy that could not be in the national interest. Table 5: Age distribution of Australian Doctorate by Research enrolments 2009 Age Under 19 20-24 25-29 30+ Total Enrolments 3 5213 11649 27427 44292 significantly affect Economics, Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services and Studies in Human Society. Limiting access to Australian Postgraduate Awards to institutions scoring a world class ERA rating would clearly be problematic, especially as 61.9 per cent of doctoral candidates in 2009 were older than 30 (Table 5) and often have family arrangements that limit mobility. Although institutions could award university scholarships to doctoral candidates in the disciplines in which they did not score well in ERA, this practice would reduce the attractiveness of Australia to international research students because of the consequential reduction in the number of scholarships available to them. This approach would be counter-productive public policy because of the well documented impending shortage of academics in Australia (Edwards 2010; Edwards, Bexley & Richardson 2011; Edwards, Radloff & Coates 2009; Edwards & Smith 2010; Hugo 2008; Hugo & Morriss 2010), the planned expansion of the sector (DEEWR 2009; DIISR 2009) and the increased international competition for the best and the brightest doctoral students. This problem is exemplified by the discipline of Education in which 3415 doctoral candidates were enrolled in 2009; 7.7 per cent of all Australian doctoral candidates (Table 6). Nearly 60 per cent of research students in Education surveyed in 2010 (Edwards, Bexley & Richardson 2011) were aged above 40, suggesting limited mobility. Only 15 of 39 institutions scored at or above the world average for the 2-digit Education Field of Research; no unit of evaluation received a maximum score. Thirty to 50 per cent of the Units of Evaluation for each the four 4-digt codes were also assessed at less than world average (Table 7). Our comparison of the ERA 2010 data at Data Source: http://www. deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/ Publications/HEStatistics/ Publications/Pages/2009FullYear. aspxAll However, less than half the Units of Evaluation were rated as world class for 18 Fields of Research, including some fields that were offered by numerous institutions: 13 of these 18 low-rated Fields of Research were offered by between 27 and 39 institutions, one was offered by 22 institutions and four were offered by between five and 13 institutions (Australian Research Council 2011a). The 4-digit Fields of Research with the lowest percentage of world class ratings were Policy and Administration (18.5 per cent - 27 Units of Evaluation), Marketing (27.6 per cent - 29 Units of Evaluation), Education Systems (31.3 per cent - 32 Units of Evaluation),Applied Economics (33.3 per cent - 33 Units of Evaluation), and Business and Management (33.3 per cent - 39 Units of Evaluation). Thus any mechanistic application of ERA to research education is likely to Table 6: Broad Field of Education and gender of Australian Doctorate by Research enrolments 2009 Broad Field of Education Natural & Physical Sciences Information Technology Engineering & related Technologies Architecture & Building Agriculture, Environmental & related Studies Health Education Management & Commerce Society & Culture Creative Arts Total Male 4693 1164 3825 339 1087 2116 1187 2049 4515 800 21775 Female 4470 438 1222 278 1034 3861 2228 1557 6366 1064 22517 Total 9163 1602 5047 617 2121 Table 7: ERA 2010: results for Education Fields of Research Field of Research # Units of Evaluation world class 15 10 15 17 # Units of Evaluation % Units of Evaluation world class 38.5 31.3 40.5 47.2 Education (2-digit) 5977 3415 3606 10881 1864 44292 Education Systems (4-digit) Curriculum & Pedagogy (4-digit) Specialist Studies In Education (4-digit) 39 32 37 36 Note: Data Source: http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/ Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/2009FullYear.aspxAll vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Note: Data Source: Australian Research Council (2011a). Excellence in Research for Australia 2010 National Report. Retrieved from www.arc. gov.au/era/. A new era for research education in Australia?, Helene Marsh et al. 89 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W the 2-digit level and official higher education statistics purchased from the Australian government indicate that about one third of the total research students in Education were enrolled at institutions that were not rated as world class in ERA 2010, including 80 per cent of the domestic research students studying at regional institutions. Thus limiting research education in Education to institutions rated as world class at the 2-digit level will not only require the world class institutions to service a significant additional supervisory load (>1000 extra doctoral students) but would risk seriously downgrading Education research outside the mainland capital cities, particularly in Tasmania and regional Queensland. Given the importance of Australian educational practice being evidence-based and the impending shortage of academics in this field (64.9 per cent of staff are aged above 50; Edwards, Bexley & Richardson 2011), we consider that it is important to introduce mechanisms to promote high quality doctoral training in Education across the nation rather than to limit it based on past performance, a conclusion that we consider applies to many other disciplines as well. In ERA 2010, world-class critical mass was limited to five or fewer institutions in 39 4-digit Fields of Research (Australian Research Council 2011a). Nine 4-digit Fields of Research including Classical Physics had only one institution with a world class ERA rating. Only seven institutions were rated as world class in Atomic, Molecular, Nuclear, Particle and Plasma Physics, a Field that is likely to be very important to Australia's clean energy future and in which doctoral study should presumably be encouraged. To ensure that there was a `meaningful amount of data' to be evaluated, ERA 2010 had a low volume threshold for each Unit of Evaluation (Australian Research Council 2009). This threshold meant that an unknown number of `isolated scholars' were not assessed, particularly in the Humanities where single scholars are the norm and in small institutions. There is anecdotal evidence that at least some of these scholars are very successful doctoral supervisors. Critical mass is very important in doctoral education to protect the interests of research higher degree candidates, especially if the principal supervisor becomes unavailable, institutional supervision using virtual technologies and visits is an increasingly-recognised practice, recently endorsed by changes to the Research Training Scheme to allow the recognition of joint completions (DIISR 2011b). We question the wisdom of excluding high performing scholars who were not rated in ERA from research supervision and suggest that they should be encouraged to engage in cross-institutional supervision as discussed further below. Possible solutions Changes to ERA to reduce the perverse student publication incentive A simple solution to overcome the negative impact of ERA on research student publications would be to require institutions to submit all publications (or research outputs) as at present, but to present the data on only the top 80 per cent of publications for each Unit of Evaluation to the Research Evaluation Committees. Such a change would enable supervisors to publish a less interesting paper with a research student in a low impact journal without a negative consequence when the relevant Unit of Evaluation is assessed for ERA. This reform could be introduced for ERA 2012. Using ERA to improve institutional practice in research education. The research environment is a necessary but not sufficient component of quality research education as acknowledged by the basket of indicators of doctoral training quality being developed by the Australian Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies (Table 8). We consider that the planned revision of the Research Training Scheme, the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA), and the Compacts Process, together offer an opportunity for the Australian Government to require universities to explicitly take the quality of the research environment into account in developing their policy and practices for research education and to audit their response. However, any policy change that uses the data from ERA should be designed to explicitly address the challenges outlined above. Mission-based Compacts are three-year agreements that show how each university's mission contributes to the Australian Government's goals for higher education, and include details of major higher education and research funding and performance targets (DEEWR & DIISR 2009). Requiring universities to stipulate how they plan to take their ERA results into account when awarding Australian Postgraduate Awards in their Compact Agreement and to audit this through the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency would enable Higher Education Providers to respond in a more nuanced and positive way than if they were banned from awarding Australian Postgraduate Awards to doctoral candidates in Fields of Research that had been retrospectively evaluated by ERA as below world standard. Universities should also be able to identify emerging Fields of Research that currently are `not assessed' or assessed below world standard, provide stravol. 54, no. 1, 2012 90 A new era for research education in Australia?, Helene Marsh et al. A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W tegic reasons why they wish to accept research higher degree candidates or allocate Australian Postgraduate Awards to those Fields of Research, indicate how the research students will be provided with an appropriate research environment and negotiate how their performance should be evaluated. Several recent initiatives could be used in conjunction with ERA to improve doctoral education in fields of research in which there is a national or regional lack of critical mass. ERA offers a mechanism to identify such fields. Groups of universities can now share completions under the Research Training Scheme (DIISR 2011b).Although this initiative has removed a significant barrier to cross-institutional co-operation in research education in Australia, it is Table 8: Conceptual framework for the basket of indicators of the quality of research education developed by the Group of Eight chapter of the Australian Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies. The relative importance of these indicators has not yet been debated and the Council acknowledges that the transaction cost of collecting the data for some indicators may be impracticably high. The indicators that could be informed by ERA are marked* Component Graduates Outputs � � � � Admission criteria Student load Number completed Graduate Destinations Outcomes � Student satisfaction � Completion rates/attrition � Employer satisfaction � Examination outcome � Quality of Examination � Quality of Outputs � Student satisfaction � Employer satisfaction � Student satisfaction � Research environment * Contributions � Thesis to knowledge � Publications � Inventions � Exhibitions/major works Training programmes Research education environment � Availability of Programmes � Programme Quality � Critical mass in areas of research strength* � Mentoring and supervising structures � Infrastructure for research and research education � International engagement � Interdisciplinary research experience likely to provide a niche rather than an institutional solution to the problems identified here. For example, over the last seven years, the Australian National University has developed several Memoranda of Understanding regarding joint PhDs with other Australian universities. To date, there has only been one cross-institutional PhD enrolment (Mandy Thomas, pers comm 2011) although recent Collaborative Research Network agreements should improve this situation. Experience with developing joint degrees between Australian and overseas institutions indicate that the uptake and success of these arrangements is dependent on established individual collaborations rather than institutional Memoranda of Understanding. Institutional improvements to the quality of research education in a discipline could be achieved using structures that are less formal than joint degrees: � Joint arrangements for embedded students with other providers e.g. CSIRO. � Sharing of physical and virtual resources; � Incentives to encourage cross-institutional supervision and mentoring. � International collaboration with established research centres. � On-going collaboration (joint grants, papers, students, Collaborative Research Network agreements). � External input to milestones e.g. Confirmation of Candidature proposals. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 � External input into courses/skills development for research students. Nonetheless, such initiatives are likely to be expensive and need to be factored into the revision of the funding for research training. In particular, research higher degree candidates may need assistance to travel between geographically separate institutions when distances are large, an inevitable feature of arrangements involving institutions in different states, especially the isolated regional institutions. Doctoral Training Centres are an increasingly-recognised approach to improving the quality of doctoral education by training cohorts of students while emphasising transferable skills. In the United Kingdom, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council have committed to fund more than 70 such centres, many in cross-disciplinary and applied areas. The five Australian Technology Network (ATN) universities (only three of which were rated as world class in 2-digit Mathematics) have recently established a national Industry Doctoral Training Centre in Mathematical Sciences (ATN 2011) and its initial cohort of 20-25 PhD students will commence in early 2012, in nodes across the five ATN universities. Cross-institutional supervision can also be achieved using less formal structures but research higher degree candidates will need travel assistance as explained above. A new era for research education in Australia?, Helene Marsh et al. 91 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W ERA as a block fund moderator The Australian government has indicated that the results of ERA will inform the allocation of funding to support the costs of research through the Sustainable Research Excellence Programme and research education through a modified Research Training Scheme.The Research Training Scheme is the most valuable of the research block funding schemes, representing 41 per cent of the total allocation in 2011. For the Research Training Scheme, Australian Postgraduate Awards, and International Postgraduate Research Scheme, the calculation methodology (DIISR 2011c) is relative institutional performance in research income (40 per cent), publications (10 per cent) and research student completions (50 per cent) and it expected that ERA results will be used to moderate these drivers. However at present, there is no agreed method of assessing overall institutional performance in ERA and some of the measures used are simplistic, including the measures such as percentage of Fields of Research at world standard or better used here. Of particular concern, especially for the large research intensive universities, is the failure of the present ERA rating scheme to include any measure of critical mass provided that the institution meets the low volume threshold. An institution that achieves an ERA rating of `5' based on 50 publications in a Field of Research will provide a very different environment for research high degree candidates to an institution that achieves the same rating based on 1000 publications. Nonetheless, bigger is not necessarily better, which is why a basket of indicators of research education quality is needed (Table 8). However, the volume of output that has gone into achieving an ERA rating has to be taken into account in the funding formula. It will be challenging to develop an agreed measure of overall institutional performance in ERA and use it to have a positive impact on research training while taking the following additional factors into account: (1) most universities in Australia produce some excellent research outputs as ERA 2010 demonstrated, (2) as in the United Kingdom (Elton 2010), universities are likely to use their freedom of virement to fund lower-rated department at the expense of higherrated ones, (3) the challenges of Australia's dispersed geography, (4) the impending shortage of academic staff identified by various scholars (Edwards 2010; Edwards, Bexley & Richardson 2011; Edwards, Radloff & Coates 2009; Edwards & Smith 2010; Hugo 2008; Hugo & Morriss 2010), and (5) the need for quality academic staff to service the planned expansion of the sector (DEEWR 2009; DIISR 2009). Conclusions ERA 2010 was a comprehensive academic evaluation of the research conducted by Australia's higher education providers in the first decade of the 21st century and subsequent rounds promise similar insights. Nonetheless, use of ERA to influence the policy and practice of research education in Australia will undoubtedly have many unintended consequences, some potentially deleterious. It is important to anticipate deleterious consequences before they become apparent. Our analysis of the results of ERA 2010 demonstrates a lack of alignment between the Fields of Research and university organisational units and that using ERA results to allocate higher degree by research places will have variable consequences in different locations as a result of Australia's geography and in different disciplines. In addition, ERA provides an incentive for Australian academics to eschew publishing in low impact journals, a practice which is likely to disadvantage some research students for whom co-authorship in a lower ranked journal is more advantageous than not publishing. Given these challenges, simplistically limiting doctoral education to Fields of Research where an institution scored at or better than national or world averages in ERA is unlikely to be in the national interest, especially given that ERA is retrospective and will not reflect the current situation. Doctoral students should be well represented in areas of emerging research including applied and crossdisciplinary research. There are many ways in which ERA results could be used to improve the quality of research education in Australia. We suggest that requiring Higher Education Providers to describe how they plan to deliver quality research education in all disciplines relevant to their mission in their Compact Agreement with the Commonwealth would be a positive reform. Institutions could also be required to report on their research education inputs and outcomes against an agreed basked of quality training indicators for each of these disciplines to the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency. Helene Marsh is Distinguished Professor of Environmental Science and Dean Graduate Research Studies, James Cook University, Queensland. Bradley Smith is the Manager of Research Strategy, Division of Research and Innovation, James Cook University, Queensland. 92 A new era for research education in Australia?, Helene Marsh et al. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Maxwell King is Pro Vice-Chancellor(Research and Research Training) and a Sir John Monash Distinguished Professor at Monash University, Victoria. Terry Evans is a Professor of Education at Deakin University, Victoria. DIISR (2011b). Principles for Joint Higher Degrees by Research between Australian Education Providers May 2011. Retrieved from http://innovation. gov.au/Research/ResearchBlockGrants/Documents/Principles_Joint_HDR.pdf. DIISR (2011c). Research Block Grant � Calculation Methodology. Retrieved from http://www.innovation.gov.au/RESEARCH/RESEARCHBLOCKGRANTS/ Pages/CalculationMethodology.aspx. Edwards, D. (2010). The future of the research workforce - estimating demand for PhDs in Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32, 199-210. Edwards, D., Bexley, E. & Richardson, S. (2011). Regenerating the Academic Workforce. The careers, intentions and motivations of higher degree by research students in Australia. Findings of the National Research Students Survey. ACER. ISBN: 978-0-642-33242-4. Edwards, D., Radloff, A. & Coates, H. (2009). Supply, demand and characteristics of the Higher Degree by Research population in Australia. Canberra: Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Edwards, D. & Smith, T. F. (2010). Supply issues for science academics in Australia: now and in the future. Higher Education 60, 19-32. Elton, L. (2000). The UK Research Assessment Exercise: unintended consequences. Higher Education Quarterly 54, 274-283. French, N.J., Massy, W.F. & Young, K. (2003). Research assessment in Hong Kong. Higher Education 42, 35�46. Hugo, G. (2008). The demographic outlook for Australian universities' academic staff. CHASS occasional paper no. 6. Adelaide: Council for Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences. ISBN: 978-0-9757701-6-0. Hugo, G. & Morriss, A. (2010). Investigating the Ageing Academic Workforce: Stocktake. GISCA . The National Centre for Social Applications of Geographic Information Systems: University of Adelaide, Adelaide, S.A. Australia. Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) (2012). PBRF Quality Evaluation Guidelines 2012 November 2011 Retrieved from http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Publications/PBRF-Quality-Evaluation-Guidelines-2012.pdf Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) (2008). RAE 2008: the outcome. Retrieved from http://www.rae.ac.uk Acknowledgements We thank Tony Shiel and Michael Barber for valuable insights into ERA 2010, Laura Poole-Warren and the Group of Eight Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies for their work on the basket of indicators of research education quality, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. References Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) (2008). ANZSRC, 1297.0, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ 0/4AE1B46AE2048A28CA25741800044242. Australian Technology Network (ATN) (2011). ATN in Profile. New centre to build next generation of industry-engaged researchers. ATN Newsroom 7(2) March 2011. Retrieved from http://www.atn.edu.au/inprofile/2011/March/ March_2011_New_centre_to_build_next_generation_of_industry-engaged_ researchers.htm. Australian Research Council (ARC) (2009). ERA Submission Guidelines 2010, December 2009. Australian Research Council. Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov. au/era/era_2010/outcomes_2010.htm. ARC (2011a). Excellence in Research for Australia 2010 National Report. Retrieved from www.arc.gov.au/era/. ARC (2011b). ERA 2012 Submission Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.arc. gov.au/pdf/era12/ERA2012_SubmissionGuidelines.pdf. ISBN978-0-9807997-3-6. Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) (2009). Response to the ERA Indicators Consultation paper by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering September 2009. Retrieved from http://www.atse. org.au/resource-centre/func-startdown/166/. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2009). Transforming Australia's Higher Education System. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. DEEWR and Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR) (2009). Mission-based compacts for universities a framework for discussion July 2009. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/ Documents/CompactsDiscussionPaper.pdf. Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2005). Research Quality Framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia. The preferred model. September 2005. ISBN 0 642 77547 8. Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/AF74E4A9-C7DD-48A4-8D94847FF35C6B97/7845/RQFPreferredModelPaper.pdf. Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR) (2009). Powering ideas: An innovation agenda for the 21st Century. Canberra: Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. DIISR (2011a). Research Skills For An Innovative Future: A Research Workforce Strategy To Cover The Decade To 2020 And Beyond, ISBN 978 0 642 72563 9. Retrieved from http://www.innovation.gov.au/Research/ResearchWorkforceIssues/Documents/ResearchSkillsforanInnovativeFuture.pdf. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A new era for research education in Australia?, Helene Marsh et al. 93 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W PhDs in Australia, from the beginning Ian R Dobson Monash University, Victoria The Australian PhD is a relatively recent phenomenon, the first three being awarded in1948. Before that, most Australian scholars typically went to Britain (predominantly) or the USA to undertake their doctoral studies. The aim of this research note is to provide a brief statistical history of the Australian PhD, noting changes over time between study fields, universities, genders and citizenship groups. Introduction and background The life of the Australian PhD has been a relatively short one, with Australian institutions first granting PhDs in 1948 (CBCS 1952). Collation of official statistical sources undertaken to prepare this paper reveals that by 2009, more than 94,000 PhDs had been awarded. The PhD is one of the three research degrees offered by Australian universities, the other two being the masters by research and the higher doctorate. The purpose of this paper is to provide an enumeration the number of PhDs awarded by Australian universities, augmented by additional information available in official statistics.These official statistics come from the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics (CBCS) (for data from 1948 to 1972), its successor, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (1973 to 1982), the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) (1976�1986), and the Commonwealth government's `education' ministry (in its various guises, 1987 to the present). The overlapping dates are a reflection of the fact that more than one source was available in some years. Finding the sources of the statistics used in this paper was the principal challenge. A list of the sources is attached as Appendix 1. Few studies have reported on the number of Australian PhDs awarded, but many reports and studies have reported on PhD graduations for particular periods. However, at least two scholarly studies on the Australian PhD have had a statistical slant. A paper by Evans, Macauley, Pearson and Tregenza (2003) reported on Australian PhDs by `reviewing the evidence from the bibliographic data held in library catalogues of PhDs in each Australian university' (p. 1).The other major source is a PhD thesis from the University of Adelaide, the principal aim of which was to describe the history of postgraduate education in Australia from 1851 to 1993 (Dale 1997). The latter provides a detailed history of the development of the PhD and other postgraduate education right from the founding of Australia's first universities in the 1850s. It is interesting that these works confidently cite different PhDs as being the first awarded in Australia. Evans et al. (2003) state that the first was awarded by the University of Melbourne to a Joyce Stone, for her work entitled `Virus haemagglutination: a review of the literature'. However, Dale says `The first PhD at Melbourne [University] (and in Australia) was an arts PhD awarded to Erica Wolff (in French)' (Dale 1997, p. 114). The second PhD, says Dale, was in science, awarded to Rupert Myers. CBCS statistics report that all of the PhDs awarded in 1948 were in arts (CBCS 1952). In looking to describe the brief history of the Australian PhD, it is reasonable to suggest that the main push came from `science', and in the early years of the award in Australia, well over half were in science. After the first 20 years, science PhDs comprised 60 per cent of all PhDs awarded. Over time, other disciplines/fields also started to award PhDs and the proportion that were in science vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 94 PhDs in Australia, from the beginning, Ian R Dobson A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W gradually declined. By 2009, fewer than 30 per cent were in science.The importance of science at the advent of the Australian PhD is further affirmed in an Australian ViceChancellors' Committee publication: `The introduction of PhD courses in Australia resulted in discussions in the Faculty of Science of the University of Melbourne.....By 1946 Melbourne had published its rules and three of its candidates (including two women) were awarded the degree in 1948. By 1949, all Australian universities were offering the degree' (AV-CC 1990). The initial push from `science' is also suggested by an Australian Academy of Science (AAS) report that states that in the absence of well-established honours degrees, `bright young scientists' worked on for an additional year after their BSc to for an MSc. After this, they competed for travelling scholarships, and then went to Britain for research and a PhD. In the absence of a local PhD, the AAS said that `The immediate post-war period saw the extension of the masters degree...to a two-year period of research... Local theses began to appear from these extended masters studies that were clearly of comparable standard to those that were awarded a PhD abroad...' (AAS 1974, p. 14). The AAS added that `In the beginning, research studies for the PhD... universities clearly had in mind the need to provide within themselves the training that would formally equip persons to become university staff in Australia' (AAS 1974, p. 14). The situations described above present the early days of the development of formal doctoral research in Australia.A decade later, research training was boosted by two major examinations of universities and higher education: the Murray Report in 1957 and then the Martin Commit- tee Report in 1965.The former noted `a disquieting factor' within Australian universities to be `the general weakness of honours and postgraduate research schools' (cited in AUC 1972, p. 57), whereas the latter said `In view of future staffing needs, the universities cannot be complacent about the size of their postgraduate schools. Expansion and development off these schools should be given high priority' (cited in AUC 1972, p. 57). Dale (1997) has also noted the importance of the Murray Report in expansion of postgraduate education in Australia. The reports outlined above go some of the way to explaining growth patterns in the number of PhDs produced by Australian universities (and other institutions in recent years). However, the real growth spurt started from the early 1990s, following the so-called Dawkins Reforms that saw radical changes in Australian higher education and a rapid expansion in student numbers at all levels. The `modern' Australian PhD was described by the National Board of Employment, Education and Training thus:`...it should be planned as a research degree of about three calendar years' full-time study following a four year undergraduate programme which itself includes research preparation' (NBEET 1989 p. 26).The fact that PhDs often extend to a fourth year was noted. Lies and damned lies: How many PhDs? Australian universities produced 94,423 PhD graduates between 1948 and 2009. Arriving at this figure came after laborious analysis of statistics from `official' sources. The figure 94,423 is as accurate as any that can be produced from official statistical sources. The reason why it might Figure 1: PhDs Awarded by Australian Universities 1948 � 2009 and Proportion of All PhDs Awarded to Women 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Total PhDs Awarded vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 Female % of Total PhDs in Australia, from the beginning, Ian R Dobson 95 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W not be perfect is because those responsible for collecting university statistics have changed the twelve-month period the statistics refer to several times. `Year' has meant variously calendar year (1948-1961 and 1986 ff),August to July 1962-1968), and July to June (1969-1985). The figures for 1961 and 1962 were published in such a way that it is not possible to know exactly how many PhDs were awarded in each of those years, but we do know the total for both years, and a similar situation holds for 1985 and 1986. The fascination some of us have for counting and measuring things is not shared by all, but keeping statistics can prove useful for many purposes, such as for various aspects of social planning. The scope of this paper, however, goes no further than merely establishing how many PhD graduates there have been and how the composition of the PhD graduate population is changing over time. However, compositional changes in the PhD graduate population might be of wider interest. This paper examines the expansion of the Australian PhD, noting particularly from whence that expansion emanated. Who? Figure 1 summarises the number of PhDs awarded in Australia since 1948, and the steady increase in the number of women among Australia's PhD graduates. The figure shows that PhD output started to top the 1,000 per year mark from the second half of the 1980s, and by the mid-1990s, annual awards exceeded 2,000 per year. This period from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s was also the time during which the number of PhD-granting institutions increased, one of the results of the so-called Dawkins reforms that saw the creation of a number of `new' universities from antecedent `teaching-only' colleges of advanced education. In the most recent years, a few PhDs have been awarded by small private non-university institutions, such as theology colleges. Apart from 1948, when two-thirds of PhDs were awarded to women, they were in the minority until 2009. By 2009, ten more women than men were among the 5,796 PhD recipients (a female majority of 0.17 per cent). Of course, having climbed over the half-way barrier, it is likely that in future women will continue to be numerically superior as PhD recipients, just as they are at other qualification levels. The gender distribution is shown in Figure 1, a graph which allows the proportion of women being awarded a PhD to be compared with the total number of PhDs awarded in each year since the inception of the degree.The number of PhDs awarded to women in 1976 and 1977 has been estimated, because statistics did not provide a gender breakdown in those years. One of the main areas in which the Australian higher education sector has expanded has been in numbers of overseas students. Looking at the sector overall, the proportion of overseas students enrolled at all course levels Who, what and where? The number of PhD graduates has increased, and the composition of PhD graduates has changed over time. The charts and tables that follow summarise the growth, particularly strong since the 1990s, and the changing study field mix and universities, and the expansion in the number and proportion of women an overseas students. The recent history of Australian higher education is also the history of increasing participation by women and overseas students. Figure 2: PhDs Awarded by Australian Universities 1988 � 2009 by Citizenship Status 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 96 PhDs in Australia, from the beginning, Ian R Dobson Overseas Domestic OS % of Total vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W had increased to 321,000 or 28.3 per cent by 2009, up from about 63,000, or about 12 per cent a decade earlier. Numbers of PhD candidates from overseas also expanded. For the first 40 years of the history of the Australian PhD, information on citizenship status was not available. However, this information has been available since university statistics became more sophisticated in the late 1980s. Figure 2 summarises the situation between 1988 and 2009, with the columns showing the number of PhDs awarded to domestic and overseas students (the darker column), respectively, and the line indicating the proportion of the total made up by overseas students. In 1988, 31 overseas students were awarded a PhD. By 2009, 1,375 or almost one-quarter of all PhDs were awarded to overseas students, replicating the pattern in the first half of the 1990s. The statistics shown here provide no explanation for the high proportion of PhDs awarded to overseas student in the 1990s, but analysis of DEEWR aggregated data sets reveals that a relatively high proportion of the PhDs awarded between 1992 and 1995 in health disciplines were awarded to overseas students. onstrate the changes over time in the number and proportion of PhDs awarded, Table 1 shows snapshots taken every ten years from 1949 of the PhDs awarded. It is necessary to offer a comment on the classification used here, because the reported classification of awards into faculties, disciplines and fields of study and/or education have also changed over time. Between 1948 and about 1971, it would seem that universities reported PhD completions according to the faculty in which students had been supervised. Subsequently, this grouping morphed into an unofficial `field of study' classification. By 1988 and the advent of electronic reporting, universities reported according to defined `fields of study', and from 2001, fields of study became `fields of education', another defined, but different classification. Unfortunately, discrete fields of study such as `law' and `veterinary science' were wound into fields of education `society and culture' and `health' respectively. Further,`information technology' was split away from `science', and economics, formerly linked with business and commerce, became part of `society and culture'.This latter classification persists today. Therefore, a hybrid `study field' time series has been created to allow for the range of groupings that have been used over time (Dobson, unpublished). By adopting this approach, it is possible to link tabulated data back to the What? The Australian PhD started out as a product of science. However this has changed over time. In order to dem- Table 1: PhDs Awarded by Australian Universities 1949 � 2009 by Study Field Year Agriculture Architecture Arts, Law, Creative Arts 1 16 2 4 6 40 61 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 1.1% 1.1% 60 177 263 782 1546 12.5% 14.8% 12.2% 20.3% 21.8% 21.3% 26.7% 1 5 39 43 264 446 0.0% 0.9% 1.0% 4.5% 3.6% 7.2% 7.7% 5 32 90 275 374 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 3.7% 7.4% 7.5% 6.5% 9 50 87 106 430 704 0.0% 8.3% 10.2% 10.0% 8.8% 11.7% 12.1% 9 35 103 165 549 802 0.0% 8.3% 7.1% 11.8% 13.6% 15.0% 13.8% Business & Commerce Education Engineering Health Science Total No. PhDs Awarded 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 2 4 35 71 62 172 278 25.0% 3.7% 7.1% 8.2% 5.1% 4.7% 4.8% 5 69 298 358 474 1152 1585 62.5% 63.9% 60.8% 41.1% 39.2% 31.4% 27.3% 8 108 490 871 1209 3664 5796 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % PhDs Awarded Source: Dobson (unpublished) vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 PhDs in Australia, from the beginning, Ian R Dobson 97 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Table 2: PhDs Awarded by Australian Universities 2001 � 2009 by Study Field and Proportion of Women Study Field Agriculture Architecture Arts, Law & Creative Arts Business & Commerce Education Engineering Health Science Total - Per Cent Total - No. 2001 33.9% 34.4% 52.7% 38.8% 56.1% 19.1% 57.2% 40.4% 44.2% 3884 2002 44.6% 42.2% 51.1% 39.4% 53.1% 16.7% 58.8% 40.4% 44.5% 4291 2003 38.9% 37.8% 54.5% 38.1% 61.1% 21.1% 57.5% 43.5% 46.5% 4728 2004 41.3% 47.2% 56.8% 37.2% 61.4% 19.6% 57.8% 43.4% 46.9% 4900 2005 41.1% 41.3% 55.0% 40.0% 59.2% 20.0% 63.7% 41.6% 46.8% 5244 2006 45.9% 48.8% 56.6% 42.3% 59.5% 19.1% 63.8% 45.9% 48.5% 5519 2007 43.6% 42.9% 59.8% 41.8% 65.3% 20.3% 61.4% 45.1% 48.5% 5721 2008 42.4% 45.0% 57.2% 43.2% 62.8% 22.4% 63.1% 43.6% 48.6% 5,786 2009 51.1% 42.6% 61.3% 40.8% 64.7% 20.7% 64.0% 44.4% 50.1% 5,796 Source: DEEWR: Aggregated Data Set UPAG, various years original published statistics. It should also be noted that published statistics did not identify the study field of degrees awarded was in years 1983 � 1986. In 1949, five of the eight PhDs awarded were in science, representing 62.5 per cent of all PhDs awarded. A similar proportion of PhDs were awarded to science candidates in 1959 and 1969, but in the 1970s, and 1980s, science PhDs declined in proportion to about 40 per cent. The most spectacular growth has been in arts, law and creative arts PhDs, which by 2009 the 1,546 PhD graduates represented 26.7 per cent of all PhDs awarded by Australian universities, just slightly fewer than were awarded to science candidates (1585, or 27.3 per cent of the total). PhDs awarded in health disciplines and engineering are the next two largest. Health numbers increased from nine in 1959 (8.3 per cent) to 802 (13.8 per cent) in 2009, whereas engineering PhDs increased from nine (8.3 per cent) to 704 (12.1 per cent) over the same period. This information on study fields can also be broken down by gender and citizenship status. Change takes time to effect, and the PhD has been perhaps the last bastion of male majority in university education. The female majority in PhD completions in 2009 has been built on sixty years of increasing university enrolments by women, and a gradual expansion in the disciplines that tend to have a higher female enrolment. Of course, women's presence among PhD awardees is not uniform across study fields. Examining gender distributions for the past decade, Table 2 shows that the relative female presence at award ceremonies increased in all but business and commerce, and engineering, in which the proportion of women remain at approximately the same levels. Similarly, the participation by overseas students in PhDlevel programmes is not consistent across all study fields. Table 3 shows that there has been strong growth in the proportion of overseas students being awarded an Australian PhD in all study fields. Overall, 16.4 per cent of all PhDs were awarded to overseas students in 2001, rising to 23.7 per cent by 2009. Growth between 2001 and 2009 was particularly strong in awards in education, growing by about 17 percentage points. By 2009, the proportion of PhDs awarded to overseas students in business and commerce, engineering and education was particularly high, approaching one-third. Where? There has also been considerable change in the number of PhDs awarded by different universities. Of course, there were only seven universities when the first PhDs were awarded, but in 2009, 41 institutions granted PhDs, ranging from 577 by the University of Melbourne, to eight by Bond University. Large universities award more PhDs than small ones, but access to individual universities' records would be necessary to work out exactly how many each had awarded. Despite the best of efforts, it has not been possible to establish from centrally available sources the number of PhDs awarded by individual universities for years 1949, 1950 and 1987. One way to examine these changes is by comparing the self-designated major research universities with the others. The Group of Eight (Go8) major research universities received over 70 per cent of ARC and NHMRC funding in 2006, and their academics produced about 52 per cent of all publications (calculated from tables produced by vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 98 PhDs in Australia, from the beginning, Ian R Dobson A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Table 3: PhDs Awarded by Australian Universities 2001 � 2009 by Study Field and Proportion of Overseas Students Study Field Agriculture Architecture Arts, Law & Creative Arts Business & Commerce Education Engineering Health Science Total Per Cent Total Number 2001 22.3% 21.9% 11.5% 23.6% 13.2% 23.4% 11.7% 18.1% 16.4% 3884 2002 21.2% 22.2% 10.9% 25.7% 13.9% 20.7% 11.3% 16.5% 15.4% 4291 2003 19.1% 31.1% 12.4% 30.9% 21.3% 20.5% 12.1% 16.1% 16.7% 4728 2004 27.4% 35.8% 15.0% 32.5% 21.2% 26.4% 11.8% 18.5% 19.5% 4900 2005 27.3% 32.0% 13.8% 30.3% 24.1% 29.1% 11.1% 17.1% 19.0% 5244 2006 23.1% 41.9% 17.2% 29.9% 29.0% 29.9% 16.1% 19.6% 21.6% 5519 2007 29.5% 30.2% 15.9% 35.9% 22.3% 32.8% 16.9% 22.6% 23.0% 5721 2008 31.4% 31.3% 17.9% 33.5% 28.6% 26.4% 15.3% 21.4% 22.3% 5786 2009 27.7% 27.9% 18.4% 33.2% 30.5% 32.1% 15.2% 24.4% 23.7% 5796 that the Go8's proportion of PhDs awarded could have stabilised at about this level. The major producers of PhD graduates are all members of the Go8, with the Universities of Melbourne and Sydney having awarded over 500 PhDs in 2009, and the University of Queensland just under 500. The growth in the number of PhDs awarded by Go8 universities between 1989 and 2009 was strong, at 285.1 per Source: DEEWR: Aggregated Data Set UPAG, various years Universities Australia 2008). Up until the end of the 1960s, most of Australia's universities were eventual Go8 universities (the exceptions being the universities of Tasmania, New England, Newcastle and Flinders University). In 1989, 69.4 per cent of PhDs were awarded by the universities that subsequently made up the Go8, but with the expansion of the sector in the post-Dawkins years, the proportion had dropped to 55.7 per cent by 2009. However, it appears cent, but it is overshadowed by the growth of 593.2 per cent at other institutions. Conclusion The salient points that come out of this analysis are the growth in the number of women being awarded the PhD, the increase in the proportion of PhDs awarded to overseas students, the relative expansion of the non-science disciplines, and the strong growth in the number of PhDs awarded by universities other than those in the Group of Eight. Going back to 1988, women received about 27 per cent of all PhDs awarded, and they were in the minority in all study fields. The highest proportions of female PhD recipients were in education (43.2 per cent) and health (39.5 per cent). By 2009, there were more women than men among PhD recipients in agriculture, arts, law and creative arts, education and health. Women represented more than 40 per cent of PhD recipients in architecture (42.6 per cent � up from 33.3 Table 4: PhDs Awarded by Australian Universities 1989 � 2009 by Go8, Other and All Universities Go8 Universities Adelaide ANU Melbourne Monash Queensland Sydney # UNSW UWA Sub-total Go8 % of Total Other Institutions Other % of Total Total Number Total Per Cent 1989 81 130 168 121 168 5 88 78 839 69.4% 370 30.6% 1209 1994 142 139 206 182 235 244 213 114 1475 67.0% 726 33.0% 2201 1999 170 219 339 278 340 342 284 167 2139 58.4% 1525 41.6% 3664 2004 191 231 496 330 419 444 368 231 2710 55.3% 2190 44.7% 4900 2009 213 291 577 411 493 535 451 260 3231 55.7% 2565 44.3% 5796 4587 379.4% 2195 593.2% Growth 1989 - 2009 132 161 409 290 325 530 363 182 2392 412.5% 233.3% 285.1% 163.0% 123.8% 243.5% 239.7% 193.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: DEEWR: Aggregated Data Set UPAG, various years. The Go8, operating as an informal network of vicechancellors since 1994, formally incorporated in September 1999. # The figure for the University of Sydney in 1989 hardly seems feasible, but that is what is in DEEWR's aggregated data file for that year vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 PhDs in Australia, from the beginning, Ian R Dobson 99 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W per cent), business and commerce (40.8 per cent � up from 17.1 per cent) and science (44.6 per cent � up from 22.0 per cent). Only in engineering are women still grossly under-represented (at 20.7 per cent), but it is interesting to note that women received only 15.5 per cent of the undergraduate degrees awarded in engineering in 2009 (DEEWR 2011). One might therefore argue that women are over-represented as recipients of PhDs relative to the rate at which they are awarded undergraduate qualifications in engineering! Looking at overseas students as PhD recipients, the figures indicate that an average of about one-quarter of the `effort' by Australian universities is devoted to education of overseas students. It is not possible to establish from the data used to write this paper whether these PhD graduates add to the supply of Australia's so-called knowledge workers by applying for and being granted permanent residency in Australia, or whether they go elsewhere to apply their skills. Although at least some of the overseas PhD graduates in Australia will have been fee-paying students, perhaps losing up to a third of highly-trained engineers (for example), could be seen as a major drain. However, the Australian situation with overseas doctorate recipients is behind the situation in the US. In 2007, 57.3 per cent of all US doctorate recipients were US citizens (down from 82.6 per cent in 1977), with only 28.9 per cent of PhD recipients in engineering and 43.4 per cent of those in the physical sciences being US citizens (Welch 2088:Table 5). Having identified the official data sources of statistics on PhD degrees awarded, it will be possible for more detailed analyses to be undertaken. Data such as these and are the starting point for dealing with issues relating to the supply and demand for PhDs in one or several study fields, the need to replenish the ageing academic workforce, and whether or not there is a PhD brain drain from Australia. Future researchers should also refer to the work by Evans et al. (2003) if they wish to examine the nature and development of PhDs in Australia and to Dale (1997) and the Australian Academy of Science (1974) for a deeper understanding of the history. Ian R Dobson is a research director at the Network for Higher Education and Innovation Research, University of Helsinki, an adjunct researcher at Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research and editor of the Australian Universities' Review. References AAS (Australian Academy of Science). (1974). PhD education in Australia. The making of professional scientists. Report Number 7. AUC (Australian Universities Commission). (1972). Fifth Report of the Australian Universities Commission. AV-CC (Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee). (1990). The progress of higher degree students. 1983 cohort. Canberra. CBCS (Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics). (1952). University Statistics. Part 2. Degrees Conferred, Universities 1947 to 1952 (Table 3). Dale, A. (1997). Wrestling with a fine woman: the history of postgraduate education in Australia 1851 � 1993. PhD thesis submitted to the University of Adelaide. (The introduction to this thesis can be retrieved from http://digital.library. adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/19120/1/09phd139.pdf ). DEEWR (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations). (2011). Award course completion 2009: selected higher education statistics tables. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/ HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/Students.aspx Dobson, I. R. (unpublished; work in progress). Doctor, doctor! An enumerated history of the PhD in Australia. Evans, T., Macauly, P., Pearson, M. & Tregenza, K. (2003). A decadic review of PhDs in Australia. Retrieved from: http.//www.aare.edu.edu.au/03pap/ eva030090.pdf NBEET (National Board of Employment, Education and Training). (1989). Australian Graduate Studies and Higher Degrees. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Universities Australia. (2008). Higher Education Research Data Collection Time Series Data 1992 � 2006. Retrieved on from http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu. au/page/australia-s-universities/key-facts---data/research-activities/ Welch Jr, V. (2008). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Selected Tables 2007. Chicago: National Opinion Research Centre. Abbreviations ABS CBCS DEET Australian Bureau of Statistics Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics Department of Employment, Education and Training DEETYA Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations DEST DETYA Department of Education, Science and Training Department Youth Affairs of Education, Training and 100 PhDs in Australia, from the beginning, Ian R Dobson vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Appendix 1: Data Sources Publication / Reference Year 1952 - 1956 Document Name CBCS University Statistics. Part 2. Degrees Conferred, Libraries and Finance. Various tables CBCS University Statistics. Part 1. Staff, Students and Degrees Conferred Various tables CBCS University Statistics. Part 1. Staff, Students and Degrees Conferred Various tables CBCS University Statistics. Part 1. Students and Degrees Conferred Various tables CBCS University Statistics. Part 1. Students (Part A) Degrees Conferred (Part B) Various tables CBCS University Statistics. Part 1. Students and Degrees Conferred Various tables ABS University Statistics. Part 1. Students and Degrees Conferred Various tables ABS University Statistics. Part 1. Students Various tables. Tertiary Education Commission Selected University Statistics. Table 8 (or 9) Courses Completed by Level and University 1976 - 1979 ABS University Statistics Cat. No. 4208 During this period, ABS statistics included PhDs and Higher Doctorates as `Doctorates'. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Selected University Statistics. Table 9 Courses Completed by Level and University DEET Selected Higher Education Statistics 1988 Various tables DEET / DEETYA / DETYA / DEST / DEEWR Aggregated Data Set `UPAGyyyy' (where yyyy is the year of reporting). File for 1988 was a customised data set in UPAG format supplied by DEEWR. Files for some years between 1989 and 2007 were downloaded from the DEST website. Files with additional data elements relating to country of birth were purchased from DEST/DEEWR PhDs in Australia, from the beginning, Ian R Dobson 1957 - 1960 1958 - 1960 1961 - 1964 1965 - 1967 1968 - 1972 1973 - 1975 1976 - 1979 1979 - 1982 1980 - 1986 1987 - 1993 1988 � 2009 vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 101 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W REVIEWS Thanks to the Yanks! A Cohort of Pioneers: Australian postgraduate students and American postgraduate degrees 19491964 by Sally Ninham ISBN 9781921421853 (paper) Connorcourt, Ballan, Victoria, 2011, pp 313. Review by Paul Rodan This book deals with the story of Australian postgraduates who pursued higher degrees in the United States from 1949 to 1964. In so doing, these `pioneers' broke new ground, both educational and cultural, given the Australian academy's historical attachment to the United Kingdom as the gold standard in matters of academic excellence. The author's interest, she tells us, was stimulated by her father's experiences as one such student and by the detailed letters kept by her mother (during a year of separation, before joining him) in that most traditional of Australian archives, the shoebox. In addition to the letters, Ninham was able to secure the cooperation of a hundred plus ex-students in completing a questionnaire. Thirty-three respondents were also interviewed, along with scholarship administrators and wives of scholars. Initially, the author sketches a largely familiar narrative: the ultra-elite nature of Australian university education till at least the post-WWII period, minimal masters enrolments, the lack of doctoral study options until the 1940s or 1950s (depending on discipline) and the suffocating deference to Britain in matters of academic structures, practices and appointments.A doctoral qualification from other than the mother country was simply doomed not to be taken seriously. Between the wars, there had been some research contacts between Australia and the US, most in science and some in education. But, the end of WWII and the onset of the Cold War saw an explosion in the opportunities for foreign students to undertake postgraduate study in the US, as epitomised by the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt initiatives. While the former scheme had more educational motives, the latter was blatantly political, with one proponent observing that if it was America's destiny to help serve the world with its educational system, `then destiny needs a little shove'. Ninham sees this difference as nonproblematical, since the long-term outcomes were intertwined: Smith-Mundt opened opportunities to a wider range of nationalities than had Fulbright. While for some of the Australians in this study, the US postgraduate application followed rejection for a preferred UK scholarship, this was not universally so. Some students made shrewd and informed choices about locations of disciplinary strength and potential for research collaborations while others proudly identified an element of rebellion in choosing the new world over the old. For the small number of female applicants, it was also relevant that American institutions were less discriminatory. Several of the (overwhelmingly male) students were accompanied by wives, with some marriages brought forward to facilitate travel and cohabitation (this was the 1940s and 1950s). The challenges for such young women were understandably substantial and some coped better than others. For the email generation, the sheer time lag with communication in the period under review (international phone calls were expensive and hence rare) must be virtually incomprehensible. If the main aim of the US scholarship schemes was (at least for some American policy-makers) to indoctrinate foreigners and enlist them as cold warriors back home, then it was less than successful with Ninham's cohort. The features of America that appealed to them most were the country's pluralism, its diversity of voices, public debate, the emergence of the civil rights movement and for several in the later years, the anti-war movement. McCarthyism (when mentioned by respondents) was seen as repugnant. Those who identified their own political awakening as occurring at this time were invariably on the progressive side of the spectrum, regardless of academic discipline. Some were motivated to pursue political activism back in Australia. As the staid Eisenhower years gave way to Kennedy's New Frontier, the sense of excitement and engagement vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 102 Thanks to the Yanks!, Review by Paul Rodan A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W was, for many of these visiting students, palpable. It is doubtful whether the traditionalists, on the other side of the Atlantic, felt similarly engaged by Harold Macmillan! Upon return to Australia, many in this study found academic work in the newly emerging universities: the laws of doctoral supply and demand were on their side, although that did not ensure a smooth transition. Several experienced hostility to their US credentials and opposition to their efforts to effect change in curriculum and teaching methods. (The empire was not going without a fight). Later, many would revisit the US under the generous sabbatical leave provisions of the time. Outside the academy, others used their qualifications and experience to pursue very successful careers in a range of fields, with this cohort including two High Court judges. While most reported some challenges in readjustment to Australia and in employer acceptance of an exotic US qualification, the postgraduates identified their time overseas as a positive life and career-changing experience, which saw them retain an enduring fondness for the US. Perhaps by today's standards, this volume has fewer editing/proofing problems than most. Zelman Cowen's surname is mis-spelt (as Cowan) in some sections of the book, but not in others; Perth is identified as lacking a bridge over the Swan River (till the Narrows was built by one of Ninham's `cohort' in 1959), but this is (accurately) contradicted in the following paragraph; the plural of `moratorium' is given as both `moratoria' and `moratoriums'. Ninham has JFK assassinated in December (instead of November) 1963 � an error which should not have survived the most cursory editing. A strength of this book is Ninham's location of the study in the broader context of Australia's loosening cultural, social, economic and political ties with Britain in the post-war period, in which cause she assembles an extensive and impressive bibliography. In summary, this account is a readable and engaging one, dealing with an important post-war higher education phenomenon, the effect of which is evident in our institutions today. Paul Rodan is Adjunct Professor at Swinburne University of Technology's Institute for Social Research and a member of the AUR editorial board. Gender, power, management... and higher education Gender, Power and Management � A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Higher Education, by Barbara Bagilhole & Kate White (eds). Palgrave Macmillan, NY. ISBN: 978-0-230-23225-9, ISBN10: 0-230-23225-6 Review by Michelle Wallace This eight-chapter book presents collaborative research on gender, power and higher education management in eight countries. The book makes a major contribution to the women in higher education management literature as it offers a nuanced, comparative analysis across a range of countries in relation to the factors that have shaped their gender dynamics and higher education systems and gives voice to perspectives from contemporary higher education managers. The book is invaluable for those teaching and researching gender, leadership and management. It well deserves close and multiple readings to appreciate the range of theoretical perspectives used to analyse reasons for the vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 lower number of women in higher education management and senior managers' perspectives on their roles and the management cultures of their institutions. In their Introduction, Barbara Bagilhole and Kate White explain the genesis of the Women in Higher Education Management (WHEM) Network and provide practical examples of how the research collaboration operated.This is an inspiring example of feminist informed research practice. The aims of the research were to collate statistical and other secondary data to map the representation of women in higher education management, undertake empirical research with senior higher education managers across the eight countries and identify interventions to support Gender, power, management... and higher education, Review by Michelle Wallace 103 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W women's advancement in higher education management. The eight countries in which the research took place were the United Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. While the choice of countries clearly stems from current WHEM membership it would be wonderful to see other countries, for example from Asia, included in future research. Early chapters by Kate White and Anita Goransson offer a country-by-country analysis of the relevant statistics regarding women's labour market participation and equal opportunity legislation and their impact on careers. Each country's higher education system and the percentage of women in senior management roles are examined. In addition, the ongoing theme of collegial versus managerial higher education cultures is introduced. Male dominance in collegial models is noted because of informal, male networks, however in managerial systems gender equality is seen to be very much dependent on the views of central management. Jenny Neale and Oslem Ozkanli explain that the qualitative research, informed by a feminist standpoint perspective, involved extensive interviews with 86 female and 75 male senior managers (deans to vice-chancellors). Interview questions focussed on getting into higher education management and progressing through management hierarchies, the dynamics of senior women and men working together, the roles of vice-chancellors/rectors /presidents in higher education, leadership styles and the aspects of organisational culture that foster or do not support gender diversity in senior higher education management in each country. Teresa Carvalho and Maria de Lourdes Machado identify differences and similarities in the development of the higher education systems in the eight countries. They maintain that university systems most closely built on the UK model have followed its managerialist direction with senior managers recruited through external, competitive processes. However, universities in Turkey, Ireland, Sweden and Portugal have more collegial methods of appointing their senior managers. In these systems their most senior managers tend to have a more internal focus. However, in systems such as the UK or Australia there is a more outward orientation and managerialist aspect to senior roles. Utilising Le Fevre's (1999) interpretive framework to examine interview data from each country, the authors conclude that, while there are examples of new visions of gender relations in universities, gender-stereotyped views on leadership styles and a patriarchal approach dominates. Sarah Riordan examines the career trajectories of women and men into higher education management in the light of career development theory. Similarities are identified between all countries with a traditional academic career pathway of promotions through the academic hierarchy to senior management. Both individual and structural factors that facilitate or hinder success are examined and different management competencies are linked to the collegial/ managerial and internal/external orientation required of senior managers in the different countries. Jenny Neale examines the dynamics of women and men working together in senior management and highlights the gendered discourses around skills and expectations of behaviour. While many interviewees of both sexes offered stereotypes views of others' managerial skill sets, a number also saw women and men choosing from a range of styles. Most saw male and female ways of managing as complementary and as producing better management decisions. Pat O'Connor examines gendered organisational culture and her chapter pulls a number of threads in the preceding chapters together. She uses Sinclair's (1998) typology regarding gendered cultures (denial, problem is women, incremental adjustment, commitment to a new culture) to analyse interview responses. In several of the more collegial higher education cultures, she identifies denial as the predominant approach. Commitment to a new culture is most strikingly seen in South Africa and to a lesser extent Sweden and Australia. Universities in South Africa are seen as highly political spaces where race subsumes gender with a government supported commitment to change. However, in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland women are often identified as `the problem' through reticence or not being able to put work as centrepiece. In their conclusion Bagilhole and White cite a number of issues including rethinking of leadership styles, achieving a broader understanding of the advantages of gender diverse management teams and challenging the `undoable' nature of some senior management jobs. They highlight the seeming disconnect between what universities say are the required competencies and behaviours for successful senior management and what is actually rewarded. This is an area ripe for further research. The section on interventions is somewhat underdeveloped; however, the WHEM Network is now committed to developing and evaluating interventions for women seeking to move into senior higher education management. There is a clear research pathway ahead and further publication promises to be as thought provoking as this excellent volume. Michelle Wallace is an associate professor at the Southern Cross Business School, Southern Cross University, Australia 104 Gender, power, management... and higher education, Review by Michelle Wallace vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W It's one for the money, two for the show Australian Higher Education Research Policies and Performance 1987-2010 by Frank Larkins Melbourne University Press, Carlton, 2011; ISBN 9780522858273 Review by Pam Herman In this book, Professor Frank Larkins argues that in the last 20 years, successive Australian governments have sought to mould a research policy framework very different from the somewhat laissez faire model prior to the creation of the unified system of higher education in 1988. Whatever government has tackled this issue at various times during that period, the underpinning assumption seems to have been that a clearly articulated research policy should bring with it social, economic and cultural benefits. Between 1987 and 2010, dramatic changes in government policy have certainly affected each university's approach to resourcing its research. While it is true that there have been many twists and turns in government policy during this time, as Larkins observes, there have nevertheless been recurring themes. Universities have been encouraged to be more entrepreneurial and to seek a broader range of research funding sources. As Larkins notes: Much has been written about such topics as national research priority settings, research collaboration, performance accountability, concentration and selectivity of resources... and international competitiveness. Despite the many reports over two decades, such core issues as lack of funding for research infrastructure, low research student stipends, inadequate career paths for researchers and lack of effective avenues for knowledge transfer to business to promote economic competitiveness are as topical today as in earlier times. There is no one better placed than Professor Larkins to explain government policy and its impact upon research performance in Australian universities during the last 20 years. As Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of Melbourne for 15 of those years, he was responsible for that university's research profile and its administration. A distinguished scholar and researcher, Larkins is the author of over 200 learned papers. During his long research career he has variously been elected to the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Academy of Technical Sciences and Engineering, the Royal Australian Chemistry Institute, vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 the Australian Institute of Physics and the Australian Institute of Energy. He was closely involved in the building of the Australian Synchrotron, the nation's most significant investment thus far in scientific infrastructure. Each chapter is arranged in numbered sub sections, making for ease of reference. Tables and graphs are judiciously selected to support key findings. All chapters have an introductory section and most conclude with a discussion of possible future outcomes.A detailed list of references also invites the reader to explore issues in greater depth. Throughout the book complex research policy matters, and the universities' response to them are dealt with crisply and cogently. An introduction identifies the key issues to be discussed while the first chapter outlines the broader context of the very different pre-1987 era. The following three chapters outline the key research-related higher education policies of successive governments: Labor (1987-96), the Coalition (1996-2007) and then Labor again (2007-10). The application of these policies and institutional responses are then reviewed in subsequent chapters on research training and performance; competitive research funding frameworks; research collaboration, innovation and commercialisation policies; policy costings and the benefits arising from new approaches to higher education research; and ethics policies and compliance. Chapter 10 reviews the broader outcomes of two decades of profound change in the approach to research output. In particular, performance indicators and their application to rankings, at national and international levels are examined. It would have been helpful if the timeline of events could have been extended to include the outcomes of responses to the first Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) assessments. It is hoped that any subsequent edition will include a discussion on adjustments that may be made to the assessment process and whether, as the author himself asks, to what extent assessment results will influence the distribution of research funds. It's one for the money, two for the show, Review by Pam Herman 105 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Again in any further edition, the author might consider broadening the scope of the book by giving more examples of institutional responses to the ever changing government regulations and initiatives. For example, the chapter on ethics, research conduct and compliance is in some ways the least satisfying, comprised as it is of little more than a summary of government-initiated codes of practice. That said, there is brief reference to the University of Melbourne's reaction to this via its own codes, policies and procedures and it is understandable that Larkins would select examples from the institution he served for so many years. It is acknowledged that it may be beyond the remit of the book to examine how universities developed approaches to deal with the new challenges before them. Nevertheless there are some interesting schemes and programmes that may have been profiled to extend this examination of government policy and research performance. Why, for example, have universities in Great Britain been able to improve research training completion rates and reduce completion times when similar outcomes appear to have eluded Australian universities. And yet this is of critical importance as funding in part is determined by completions. The confirmation assessment at the conclusion of the first year of candidature is thus now generally an altogether more rigorous examination of the student's capacity to pursue research in a timely and effective manner. Improvement in completion times and rates is disappointingly slow despite innovative approaches which have included, for example, the creation of research centre accommodation to reduce the sense of isolation felt particularly by humanities and social science students and provision of appropriate work spaces especially during the final stages of thesis writing. Short term writing-up awards to allow writing full time is another device introduced in some universities. Comprehensive generic training programmes to assist students with various aspects of their candidature, including, for example, strategies for dealing with writers' block, how to present at conferences and how to work effectively with one's supervisor, are again standard practice in most universities. Theses by publication, especially in the sciences, encourages students to write up progressively from the start of their research. Many universities have also instigated quite rigorous mandatory training and accreditation of research supervisors in the hope that more students will submit in a timely manner. Universities have approached these challenges in innovative and imaginative ways, and inclusion of examples in the book may perhaps have been instructive. Australian Higher Education Research Policies and Performance 1987�2010 provides an extraordinarily comprehensive and perceptive overview of Government policy during the last 20 years. In many ways, it is the last chapter which is the most thought provoking as the author reflects upon past policies, current developments and the future. In an impressive final section Larkins refers to the present Australian university sector as a `diverse, deregulated and accountable HE system'. The key to the future success of university research activity lies in achieving an appropriate balance between a deregulated environment in which universities are free to pursue innovative, entrepreneurial and independent paths while remaining accountable for their performance. For the first time in Australia, the ERA assessment exercise provides `institutions, researchers, industry and students with a sound evidence-based means of identifying areas of strength and potential as well as areas where we need to do better' (Senator Carr, 30 May 2011) While the second ERA round is already underway for 2012 and fine tuning of the assessment model has been announced, there has been as yet no unequivocal statement as to the weight which its results will be given in the disbursement of research funding to the sector. Larkins notes however, that `universities have high expectations that ERA results will provide the basis for a strong case for increasing government investment in HE research'. The assessments have been made against international benchmarks using indicators developed by the disciplines themselves. The author has no doubt that `research concentration has already occurred, and it will need to continue for Australia to remain competitive in international rankings'. He continues: A number of benefits accrue from having some universities of high international standing. International collaborations are enhanced, companies have more confidence in investing in institutions, staff recruitment and retention is facilitated, and international students...are assured of the quality of education they are likely to receive. Larkins sees current pressures on student: teaching staff ratios as a serious threat to the teaching- research nexus, and maintaining the quality of higher education. A recent interview given by Val�rie P�cresse, Minister for Higher Education and Research in France underlined these principles. In commenting upon changes to the French higher education system she said: Nearly everything in France has been built outside the universities...the grandes �coles...[a system of elite engineering and professional schools]...[and] at vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 106 It's one for the money, two for the show, Review by Pam Herman A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W the same time we have research institutions ...that do research outside the universities. And the problem is that the world model is a university. (Global Edition of the New York Times, Monday May 23, 2011, p. 15) So it may be said that a diverse system in which universities provide a wide range of courses where teaching and research come together is accepted by most as the ideal. Nevertheless, as Larkins has noted, it may be expected that concentration of high level research will continue, especially within the Group of Eight, in order that Australia remains globally competitive.That leaves the government and the universities with little option but to direct funding to the higher performing academic units.Thus for example, government and university funded postgraduate research scholarships may increasingly be directed to academic departments, schools and faculties on the basis of their research performance, especially their postgraduate research completion rates.And within the student population a greater proportion of scholarship funding may also be earmarked for the international student cohorts who traditionally have performed better than domestic students in terms of completion rates. What is clear is that in a globally competitive environment academic units with a poor performance record in research whether it be undertaken by academic staff or postgraduate research students, can no longer be indulged as they may have been done in the past. Senior management staff responsible for setting institutional research agendas, and public service personnel undertaking the development and implementation of government research policy in particular, will find this a timely and valuable reference. Pam Herman is an independent reviewer. Us and them: multiculturalism in the classroom Negotiating Political Identities: Multiethnic Schools and Youth in Europe by Daniel Faas ISBN 9780754678441 (hbk), 9780754696643 (ebk) Ashgate, Surrey, England 2010 Review by Neil Mudford This book by Daniel Faas of Trinity College Dublin concerns the development of political identities by teenage school students in Germany and England and the social interactions, the class and ethnic origins and educational experiences that affect this development. The work focuses largely on the students' views of themselves as Europeans and whether or not they subscribe to multiculturalism. This well researched and carefully analysed work would be of considerable interest under any circumstances. The fact that its publication and dissemination has coincided with a crescendo in the European ramifications of the Global Financial Crisis multiplies its interest and importance. The question of whether the European Union survives the GFC or flies apart under its tensions will depend in part on the strength of its citizens' commitment to being European. In turn, this is intimately tied up with multiculturalism through the universal and age-old question of where the boundary lies between `us' and `them'. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 The fieldwork for this book consisted of interviews and observations of staff and students in four secondary schools, two in Germany and two in England in 2004.The results should be highly relevant to the present times with Faas' subjects now in their early 20s. In each country, one school draws its students from middle class families and the other from working class families. All the schools involved have significant populations of the children of Turkish immigrants who arrived as guest workers from the 1960s onwards. A prominent aim of the study was to compare and contrast the development of the identities of these students with those of the ethnic majority who came from families resident in the area for generations. Turkey is an Associate Member of the EU. The process of working towards full EU membership for Turkey has been ongoing for decades. The choice of the Turkish minority for the study is thus an interesting one. One wonders where this move towards membership Us and them: multiculturalism in the classroom, Review by Neil Mudford 107 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W will go now that there is such an air of instability about the EU. In setting the scene for his discussion of his data and findings, Faas presents an extensive and informative overview of the forces and developments that have created the prevailing general attitudes to Europe in the two countries concerned. In broad terms, Faas contends that Germans are inclined to think of themselves as European, coupled with a parallel identification with the culture of their local area within Germany. Sometimes their identification as European is stronger than their view of themselves as German. The English, by contrast, think of themselves as English and as International citizens but have only a vague sense of themselves as European. This English perspective seems almost deliberately to overlook or avoid the middle distance of Europe perhaps coupled with wishing it would go away. This last tendency may have increased lately! Faas explains that the stimulus for attracting guest workers to Germany was the need for labour for national reconstruction. It was assumed at the time that these immigrants would return shortly to their countries of origin. The persistence of the need for the extra labour extended their stay and produced the need to educate their children plus growing pressure to deal with the question of granting citizenship to the immigrants and their children. Immigration to England was driven by similar forces but much of the non-UK immigration was from former British colonies. Political and social questions of education and citizenship status for the immigrant families arose, just as they did for Germany. In these environments, Faas' student interviewees have developed their sense of identity. The central comparisons Faas makes are of the attitudes held by the various student groups concerning their identities in relation to their local region, to their country of residence, to Europe, and to the orld as a whole. In the case of the immigrant groups there is the extra factor of their attitudes to identifying with their parents' country of origin. Faas shows that this last component of identity is moulded by a complex interaction of parental and peer group influences and the general political environment in which the students find themselves. I must admit, when I first read the book, I was not overly impressed with the research results. It seemed to me that the students adopted the attitudes and allegiances of their cultural surroundings, including the emphasis and messages promoted by their schools. As this is what I would expect, I did not think of it as a significant outcome. Later, when I reflected further, I began to think that one important outcome is the possibility that the student atti- tudes have been strongly influenced by their studies.That is, there seems to be a good chance that education makes a difference. Certainly, the deliberate post-war policies of the German government to build a European identity in their citizens seems to have succeeded. I thought that an example of where this might be occurring is the contrast between student attitudes in the schools to a sense of European identity and to multiculturalism. At both German schools, a European perspective features strongly in the curriculum. At the middle class school, multiculturalism is another strong theme but, at the working class school, resources are insufficient to include a strong multicultural component to the studies. The student interviews reveal that students at both schools empathise with a European perspective but the working class school suffers from ethnic tensions and some racial intolerance. Running counter to the notion that formal education has a strong influence on identity and attitude is the fact that the major effort in promoting multiculturalism in the English working class school has not prevented high levels of ethnic tension. My position at the time of writing this review is that Faas' work provides us with a window into the many influences and attitudes of contemporary youth in Europe.The more you look into it, the greater the complexity of the mix appears to be and the greater the fascination with the maelstrom of influence and reaction he describes. It has certainly stirred my imagination about what sort of Europe these young people will create as they grow older and influence European political development. An interesting feature of the style and structure of the book is the liberal use of direct quotes from the interviews. This certainly gives the work immediacy and a particular flavour. I am puzzled, however, about the considerable range of abilities the students appear to have in expressing their views. The German students seem to be noticeably more articulate than the English, with the latter seeming to use more colloquial expression such as `innit'. I wonder whether this derives from the German students having generally superior language ability or from the German responses having been translated into English. It was sometimes a trial having to translate the responses of the English students into the English that I understand. I would also be interested to know why Faas includes so many student responses that indicate ignorance on their part. I imagine this is to show that, often, the students are ignorant. If it is true, then it is indeed an important point to make and for the reader to understand and remember that these are people emerging into adult life and grappling with national and international politics. vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 108 Us and them: multiculturalism in the classroom, Review by Neil Mudford A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W All social studies stimulate question of what this means for us, the readers. It is interesting to speculate on the form a similar study might take if conducted here in Australia where the Anglo ethnic majority are themselves quite recent immigrants whose struggles to find a collective identity are legendary. The Australian Indigenous people are very much in the minority. They have a rock solid certainty of belonging to the country but are suffering cultural stress from the dominant group, including heavy pressure over their efforts in defining a positive self-image. The Australian counterpart of Faas' question of a European aspect to the identity of his subjects might be the question of how we reconcile a predominantly `Euro-like' culture in an Asian and Melanesian neighbourhood. To what extent do we consider ourselves Asian or have we retreated into an identity that revolves around mateship and a `she'll be right' approach that extends, geographically, no further than the low water mark? In summary, Faas' book provides us with a fascinating array of thoughts and insights into the lives of young people growing into their environment and developing a sense of themselves. In my opinion, Daniel Faas should consider following up on the students to find out how they have developed since 2004, in the style of Granada Television's highly acclaimed Up series. Neil Mudford is a Visiting Fellow at the University of New South Wales and a Research Associate at University of Queensland, both honorary positions. He is also an editorial board member of the Australian Universities' Review. South-east of the border, down Asia way Education in South-East Asia, by Colin Brock and Lorraine Pe Symaco (eds). Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Oxford: Symposium, 2011, 348 pages, (paperback). ISBN 978-1-873927-56-4 Review by Andrys Onsman Although it is variable in the quality of writing, Brock and Symaco's edited collection of papers outlining the current state of education in South-East Asia is rich in information and analysis.As an introduction to the current state of play, the issues, the problems and the ambitions that are shaping education in area, it is invaluable to anyone who is looking for a concise overview of the history, present and likely future of the major issues facing, education in the region, as well as some detailed but very readable analyses. The collection is divided into two sections. The first section offers a summary of each of the ASEAN countries and Timor Leste. The second section consists of five discursive essays. It is profitable to read the first section first as the data and insights therein provide solid grounding for the essays that follow. The chapters on the individual countries make for fascinating and at times startling reading. Technically however some are not quite up to the standard one would expect but I suspect that that is not the fault of the editors who have done a superb job in vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 collecting and collating chapters about countries where there is often little in the way of precedent. In a way, the unevenness of the writing reflects the variation in both the education structures and systems in the region and the scholarly analysis thereof. The first chapter briefly outlines what the book is about, identifying the key themes of social upheaval and cultural disparities affecting the past, the present and the future of school based education as it is shaped to meet the needs of an increasingly de-colonial and international region. It's a very brief chapter � simply an introduction to the book rather than to the issues contained in it. The second chapter summarises what has been happening in Brunei Darussalam: an intriguing snapshot of a country about which very little has been written in terms of scholarly analysis. The chapter introduces many of the themes that recur in succeeding chapters: post-colonial reconstruction of the education systems, engaging more the population in education, especially higher educa- South-east of the border, down Asia way, Review by Andrys Onsman 109 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W tion, and searching for a place within the ASEAN region and indeed the world. In Chapter 3 Martin Hayden and Richard Martin consider Cambodia and do not shy away from the controversial issues such as corruption and an autocratic government. Moreover, Cambodia is the poorest country in the region and it suffers from a `lost generation', which means that the next generation had nothing in the way of reference. Their analysis shows that the children of uneducated parents generally have little in the way of schooling themselves. In some cases, children are needed to gain income; in others they simply lack the perceived pathways � education is seen as important. The education system in Cambodia is critically underresourced, corruption is rife because of the poverty, and the future seems bleak. Indonesia on the other hand has achieved near universal primary education, which Baunto in Chapter 4 argues is due to the post-revolution restructuring of the education system from ad-hoc and autonomous to centralised and prescriptive. Certainly the colonial rulers had little interest in establishing any meaningful schooling structure for the local people for as long as the country was the Dutch East Indies. The idea of universal education arose during the Soekarno years (1942-1965); was made manifest during the autocratic rule of Soeharto (1966-1998) and was re-enforced during the next decade of ostensibly democratic rule. Probably the most influential factor during this time was the development of Bahasa Indonesia � a national (and nationalising) language. On the one hand, autocratic centralist government allowed national implementation of education policies. On the other, Indonesia is now faced with the problem of decentralising its education system to address regional needs. That, Baunto argues, will take a generational shift. Richard Noonan's chapter on the Lao People's Democratic Republic makes for sobering reading. Colonised by the French (who regarded it as part of Vietnam), it began its struggle for independence in 1945, allied with the Viet Minh who were battling the French in Vietnam. In 1954, Laos gained its freedom. It marked the start of having to develop an education system that had relied on a French super-structure imposed on local Buddhist schools at a time when the country was undergoing a civil war that didn't end until the early seventies. During the decade following the communists gaining power, many of the country's educated people fled in fear of being `re-educated' to conform to party lines. Consequently it wasn't until 1986 when Laos initiated market economy reforms that any real progress towards an unfettered education system could be made. In real terms, one of the poorest countries of the region has had little over 25 years to make inroads into its woeful education system. Loke and Hoon's analysis of Malaysia's emergence as an educational power-house in the region is clearly written and well supported by impressive statistics. Malaysia is well on the way to being declared an advanced economy by the International Monetary Fund and its educational infrastructure from early childhood education to higher education is sound and productive. On the other hand it is unsurprising that Malaysia is concerned with its national identity. Principally the country has three main groups of citizens � each with a distinct place in its society. Two thirds are Bumiputra (which includes mostly Malays but � at least in theory � also includes the aboriginal people like the Dyaks and Orang Asli); one quarter is Chinese and less than ten percent is Indian. The authors' claim of universal approval of the education system is contestable: there is no doubt that in practice it favours the Malays. Nonetheless, their assertion that the Ministry of Education is focusing on using the system to create national unity as well as a skilled workforce is indisputably true. It is simply that the latter doesn't lead to the former. Further, their reference to The National Philosophy of Education being based on `a firm belief in and devotion to God' (p. 115) ignores that `the belief in God' is to be taught with the sixteen universal core values (cleanliness of body and mind, compassion/empathy, cooperation, courage, moderation, diligence, freedom, gratitude, honesty/integrity, justice, rationality, self-reliance, love, respect, public-spiritedness, and humility and modesty). While they are generically worthwhile characteristics, in effect they are Islamic � hardly surprising in a predominantly Islamic country.These values are to be taught across every secondary school subject as well as in every primary school, in the belief that character formation based on moral and religious values is as important as academic excellence. As Ishmael et al noted, `Islamic belief and values constitute the core of syllabus and aimed at producing Muslim students who are knowledgeable, competent and pious with moral and ethical values based on the teachings of the al-Quran and al-Sunnah. This is in accordance to Islam being the official religion in the country' (Ishmael et al. 2009: p. 163). Loke and Hoon's chapter understandably but ultimately unhelpfully avoids the impact on Malaysia's education system of the antipathies between the three major ethnic groups. The chapter on the most prosperous of the region's countries, Singapore is perhaps the strongest of the summaries. Tan's overview is clear, balanced and verifiable. The Singapore experience is a blueprint for educational development that is now being adopted by various other vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 110 South-east of the border, down Asia way, Review by Andrys Onsman A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W countries in the region, including most importantly the People's Republic of China. In overly simplistic terms, Tan's main line of argument concerns the use of the education structures to inculcate nationalist fervor amongst its citizenry and how that will help and hinder in terms of where the island nation heads to now. Specifically, the fact that more than three quarters of the population is Chinese will have a significant impact on future direction and development, particularly in terms of its minority Malay and sub-continental populations. Equal in quality to the Singapore chapter is the one on Vietnam by Pham and Fry.There is a substantial amount of literature about education in Vietnam, which the authors use carefully to develop a very clear line of argument. In essence, Vietnam is depicted as using its troubled history to build an appropriate education structure but running into a multitude of problems in doing so. Because of its high standard it was noticeable that there was no reference made to Jess Ford's (2010) report on Vietnam to the United States Government Accountability Office because the USA was part of that troubled history and is very much involved in current attempts to reconstruct the education systems in Vietnam. Nonetheless it is an excellent introduction and those wanting to know more could look at the Jonathan London (2011) edited volume Education in Vietnam. Each of the chapters providing an overview of a country's current educational environment is short, readable and illuminating. Of course, for some there is little extant data for the authors to work with � Timor Leste and Myanmar are two obvious examples. Nonetheless all offer significant insights and not a few tantalising glimpses. On the other hand, some of the chapters are pessimistic, almost foreboding in tone. Richard Martin begins the section on Myanmar's background by pointing that `Myanmar is a pariah state, shunned internationally because of its rejection of democratic institutions and its poor human rights record' (p. 123) and ends the chapter with the argument that the USA and its allies would do better to lift its embargo because China, Russia and India are using its aid to gain access to Myanmar's vast natural resources `and the population will never regain its prominence as an educated, culture and progressive nation' (p. 136). In between he offers some hope for the future, as well as some carefully collected and analysed data in this most secretive country. The second section of the book consists of five thematic, discursive essays, covering gender, language, sustainability, quality assurance and higher education. Brock and Hsieh consider the gender issue, an issue where the ASEAN countries are arguably doing better vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 than any other emerging area. As is the case in all the five essays, this one is brief and highly selective. Rather than draw on specific feminist theory (Stromquist for example) the authors examine the link between gender, social positioning and official policy: for example, women from indigenous peoples are more likely to be disadvantaged than women from the nation's dominant people. Nowhere is that more evident than in the case of the Karen people from the Golden Triangle. Brock and Hsieh's analysis of that context is pithily accurate and will hopefully encourage the reader to dig deeper. Other interesting angles included migrant workers, social capital and official policies. Anthony Welch's analysis of direction and ambition in terms of higher education in the region is perspicacious as well as clearly and engagingly written. Welch's chapter is highly recommended reading for anyone wanting an accurate pr�cis, and it also serves as a portal to his other published works; such as Higher Education in Southeast Asia (Welch 2011). Keith Watson's analysis of the use of English in the education systems of the region is a tight and focused introduction to the vexing issue, rich in detail but also very strong in presenting a coherent overall snapshot of how things actually are. These two are the highlights of the volume. Pitiyanuwat's chapter on quality assurance in the region is the least discursive and analytical. It consists of a quick snapshot of which country is using what system. It provides no data or discussion on the effectiveness of efficiency of the systems. The chapter is best read in conjunction with the next. Cantell and Elias' look at educational sustainability begins with a joke that is followed by the enigmatic claim that `In the deserts of Australia the acquisition of knowledge is not only the longest but the only road a person will travel'. Whether it is banal drivel or enigmatic perspicacity is up to the reader. The authors subscribe to Rosalyn McKeown's definition of sustainability as the intertwined and continued well-being of the environment, people and the economy, and warn that simply pumping resources into education is no guarantee of achieving that. Overall, the collection manages to achieve what it sets out to do, which is no mean feat. Each of the region's countries gets a solid summary chapter and together those chapters provide reference for the five thematically analytical chapters. The editors have chosen the analysts reasonably well: some are respected experts in their field, others are less academically versed but none is afraid to contest official rhetoric or offer at times controversial opinion. As a needed introductory text, it deserves a wide and international readership. South-east of the border, down Asia way, Review by Andrys Onsman 111 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ' R E V I E W Andrys Onsman works in International Higher Education at the University of Nottingham's campus in Ningbo, China References Ford, J. (2010) Vietnam Education Foundation: Recent Improvements Made in Internal Controls, But Weaknesses Persist, Washington DC: DIANE Publishing. Ismail, H., Yunus, A., Ali, W., Hamzah, R., Abu, R. & Nawawi, H. (2009) Belief in god based on the national philosophy of education amongst Malaysian secondary school teachers, European Journal of Social Sciences, 8 (1):160-170. London, J. (2011) (ed) Education in Vietnam, Singapore: Institute of South East Asian Studies. Stromquist, N. (2002) Education in a globalized world: the connectivity of economic power, knowledge and power, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. Welch, A. (2011) Higher Education in Southeast Asia: blurring borders, changing balance, London: Routledge. 112 South-east of the border, down Asia way, Review by Andrys Onsman vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 2nd Annual Quote the discount code CC*NTEU when registering to SAVE 10% OFF the standard registration fee Interconnected Tertiary Education Improving cross-sectoral pathways & increasing participation in an era of reform 28th & 29th March 2012, Central Pier, Docklands, Melbourne Benefits of attending: Unravel the complexities of legislation, regulation and workforce issues to build capacity for a strengthened tertiary sector into the future Learn how to strengthen cross-sectoral pathways to ensure student success Uncover models for sustainable collaboration and partnerships between Vocational Education and Training and Higher Education Develop strategies to improve access for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds Proudly Endorsed by: Media Partner: Join the conversation with: Professor David Battersby, Vice Chancellor University of Ballarat & Chair Regional Universities Network Michelle Canny, Manager Tertiary Education Policy, Skills Victoria Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, VIC Ann Doolette, Executive Director Australian Qualifications Framework Council Adrian Marron, Chief Executive Officer Canberra Institute of Technology Gi13920 Marilyn Hart Director Skills and Provider Policy Skills Australia To Register 1300 316 882 1300 918 334 firstname.lastname@example.org www.interconnectededucation.com #ITE12 to eads comes' l tion h out her ca `Edu r healtalth Researc e e bett Public H Rho nda , unistories.org.au www.investinuniversities.org.au Authorised by Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary, National Tertiary Education Union, 120 Clarendon St, South Melbourne. Photo: Andrew Curtis www.aur.org.au Since 1958, Australian Universities' Review (AUR) has been encouraging debate and discussion about issues in higher education and its contribution to Australian public life. AUR ISSN 0818-8068 aur Volume 49, Numbers 1 & 2, 2007 AUSTRAL IAN UNI VERSITI ES REVI EW The future face The Humaniti The crisis in our es: the poor of higher educatio universities: n who's to blame? n policy AUSTRALIA relations of innovatio teaching and N UNIVERSIT How not to fund learning IES REVIEW PUBLISHED BY NTEU ISSN 0818-8068 Higher Education Policy's Groundhog So farewell, Mr Robin Days son: The Monas h plagiarism debac le Volume 46, Number 2, 2004 Published by NTEU The Howard Era � In Retrospect? Published by NTEU vol. 54, no. 1, 2012 ISSN 0818�8068 ial Issue Contempora ry issues doctoral educa in tion Spec Australian Un iversities'Revi ew Want to receive your own copy of Australian Universities' Review? AUR is published by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) twice a year. NTEU members are entitled to receive a free subscription on an opt-in basis � so you need to let us know. If you are an NTEU member and would like to receive your own copy of AUR, please send us an email at email@example.com. Subscription rates for non-members are available at www.aur.org.au. If you would like to become a member of NTEU, please contact the local Branch office at your institution, or join online at www.nteu.org.au. AUR