Advertisement

Tiptoeing Around the Institution? Doctoral Supervision in the Knowledge Economy

  • Atholl Murray
  • Cecily Jensen-Clayton
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods book series (PSERM)

Abstract

Students’ doctoral experience can be seen as a journey of mystery, of working in the dark, of allowing the purpose of the research to lead the process. Contrary to this view, students’ experiences of supervision described in this chapter are ones of being expected to follow a pre-determined path, a path that negates student engagement and agency. Using a case-study methodology and critical discourse analysis, this chapter explores two students’ experiences, describing some unsuccessful efforts to engage their supervisors. It interprets these experiences in the context of their growing realisation of the constraints for students and supervisors working within the corporate university, and within the knowledge economy. This analysis conceptualises new possibilities for the supervisory relationship in this unique journey within the context of the knowledge economy.

References

  1. Altbach, P. (2013). Advancing the national and global knowledge economy: The role of research universities in developing countries. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 316–330.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.773222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastalich, W. (2010). Knowledge economy and research innovation. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 845–857.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903406533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, 544–558.Google Scholar
  4. Brancaleone, D., & O’Brien, S. (2011). Educational commodification and the (economic) sign value of learning outcomes. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32, 501–519.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2011.578435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denzin, N. L., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Fairclough, N. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 9–20). Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Gibbs, P. (2010). Heidegger: Time, work and the challenges for higher education. Time & Society, 19, 387–403.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463x09354438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haigh, M. (2008). Internationalisation, planetary citizenship and Higher Education Inc. Compare, 38, 427–440.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920701582731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harder, H. (2010). Explanatory case study. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 371–372). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n138.
  10. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Häyrinen-Alestalo, M., & Peltola, U. (2006). The problem of a market-oriented university. Higher Education, 52, 251–281.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2749-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kauppinen, I. (2012). Towards transnational academic capitalism. Higher Education, 64, 543–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kearns, H., & Gardiner, M. (2012). The seven secrets of highly successful research students. Adelaide: Flinders Press.Google Scholar
  14. Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: The European Commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education, 41, 203–223.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2006.00256.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implications for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lynch, K. (2014). New managerialism: The impact on education. Concept, 5, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52, 1–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-7649-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 313–345.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rizvi, F., & Walsh, L. (1998). Difference, globalisation and the internationalisation of curriculum. Australian Universities Review, 41(2), 7–11.Google Scholar
  22. Robertson, R. (2012). Globalisation or glocalisation? The Journal of International Communication, 18, 191–208.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2012.709925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tadaki, M., & Tremewan, C. (2013). Reimagining internationalization in higher education: International consortia as a transformative space? Studies in Higher Education, 38(3), 367–387.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.773219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yemini, M. (2014). Internationalisation discourse what remains to be said? Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 18(2), 66–71.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2014.888019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atholl Murray
    • 1
  • Cecily Jensen-Clayton
    • 2
  1. 1.WooloowinAustralia
  2. 2.CashmereAustralia

Personalised recommendations