Responding to doctoral designers: Dilemmas and decisions

PP: 68 - 70

Article Text

This article synthesises selected aspects of the five articles in this special theme issue of the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning (Volume 4, Number 2). It then interrogates these articles for their potential as really useful responses to the questions posed by the editors around issues in decision making; legitimacy and trustworthiness; participants, stakeholders and gatekeepers; and the challenges and opportunities presented by the research design itself. First, I endorse the editors' (Henderson & Danaher 2008, this volume, p.1) claim that 'every step in the process involves a complex and sometimes controversial set of decisions and requires the exercise of finely honed judgment about the design and shape' - and the conduct - of a research project. Second, the new and experienced doctoral designers who have ventured to share their experiences via this medium are to be congratulated for their perspicacity in analysis and clarity of presentation in this special theme issue.

Research is a risky business (Harreveld 2004). Among 21^st century learning in the social science of education, research is still one of the few postgraduate professions learned primarily 'on the job'. In many instances, this has meant that the quality of one's capabilities as fledgling researcher is often judged by the perceived capabilities of one's doctoral supervisors as supposedly experienced researchers. Yet this view does not do service to the agency of the doctoral designer her/himself. Ultimately, doctoral students need to be accountable for their own decisions, to acknowledge their own dilemmas and, drawing strength from them, accept responsibility for their own doctoral project designs.

Designing a doctoral study is often postgraduate students' first exposure to doing research. There is the lure of doing really useful research that will contribute to knowledge of the field, and/or theoretical insights and/or methodological framework/s. Sincere hopes and lofty ambitions may be dashed upon the shoals of reality when someone asks, 'But what's your doctoral design?' Herein lie the decisions and dilemmas that these authors have shared as they positioned themselves as 'doctoral designers'. Each of the narrative strings that follow contains a set of quotations from one of the five papers in this collection. The intention of these strings is to provide a synthesis of the ways in which the authors go about the risky business of educational research.

These doctoral designers learn about their field and their craft when they:

They 'do' the research and test out their designs as they:

Most importantly, they also write because they must be seen to:

These designers understand their study and the craft of research through focusing on issues or problems, planning, conceptualising and using theory to design a project. Doing the research is part of being a doctoral designer. Here the authors recount the ways in which they engage with the tensions and dilemmas encountered, or potentially encountered, in being a researcher. As Trottier (2008 this volume) concluded, 'educational research is a managed and mediated process; it involves balancing the researcher's need for accurate data with the needs of various participants within the research context and beyond'.

Writing is perhaps one of the most undervalued, yet equally important, aspects of doctoral study design. Thesis writing begins at acceptance of candidature and continues until the final binding of the document and placement on the library shelf. Danaher's (2008 this volume) reflexive journey through his own thesis writing encapsulates the significance of Denzin's (1994) four writing issues in doctoral design: interpretation, representation, legitimation and desiring. It also demonstrates that, for many researchers who stay committed to learning their craft, the writing continues as a site of struggle and contestation throughout their professional lives.

These authors confirm the contingent temporality of their deliberations as phases or stages of the process are iteratively negotiated with research participants, colleagues and supervisors. Tyler's (2008 this volume) deliberate choice in sharing 'the more personal and emotional aspects...[of] the conceptions of impostorship, cultural suicide, lost innocence, roadrunning and community' not only depicts his allegiance to Brookfield's (1994) themes, but also makes explicit the subjectivities which may be otherwise implicit in his research design.

Thank you to the editors for the opportunity to respond to these worthy contributions to our profession. As educational researchers we are all in danger of consignment to the margins of what counts as really useful research unless we engage with people's real-time problems and dilemmas of everyday life. The diversity of these conceptually framed and theoretically and methodologically informed research designs has contributed to both individual and collective understandings of designing [and doing] doctoral educational research.

View references

Navigate: Archives | Contents | Top of page

Search

Translate

Related Publications from eContent Management