Doctoral intelligence: a framework for developing mindsets for doctorateness in changing doctoral contexts

ABSTRACT

Shifting doctoral contexts disrupt conventional doctoral educational practice. A research development framework is thus necessary; one that can advance quality research but also enhance skills for social impact beyond the qualification. The doctoral intelligence framework has been conceptualised to provide a map of the doctoral terrain and represents the knowing, doing, thinking and willing mindsets or mental tools necessary for success. The article reports on a study to enrich this research development framework through an empirical exploration among a sample of 22 mainly part-time PhD students and graduates. The aim of the study was to identify mindsets for developing doctorateness. The findings extend insights into the four key mindsets related to scholars’ cognition regarding the process and product of the PhD (knowing), self-management for ownership when stuck (doing), the process that extends various thinking mindsets, and the willing mindset for sustaining momentum during the doctorate. This enriched perspective of the doctoral intelligence framework will guide educators regarding pedagogical realignment for the modern context to enhance the quality of research and also better develop the knowledge makers of the future.

KEYWORDS:

• Doctoral education
• postgraduate supervision
• pedagogy
• doctoral mindsets
• doctoral intelligence
• research development

Introduction

Increased focus on social impact in the current doctoral climate calls for insights into the doctoral mindsets needed for quality research and development not only for the PhD but for reach beyond the qualification. Researchers have noted that the emphasis on accountability and efficiency has resulted in a focus on timely completion of the doctorate and on the outcome or product of PhD research with possible detrimental effects on the quality of research and researchers (Brodin, 2016; Fredua-Kwarteng, 2023; Torka, 2018). In their study, Bengtsen and McAlpine (2022) noted that supervisors were more likely to be giving students advice on how to, that is on the instrumental level of development, rather than on risk-taking and finding their own voice as researchers. They add that skills-training and publishing are increasingly the focus during doctoral education, rather than the novelty of the research, which could result in less bold and creative PhD projects. Elliot et al. (2020) note that educational developers can often guide students toward the PhD product, but the strategies to guide students to the independence needed during the doctoral process remain elusive. Supervisors are, however, not only tasked with facilitating completion and graduation with a focus on the PhD product but also with providing the means to help students navigate the PhD process for the development of ‘doctorateness’ (Trafford & Leshem, 2009; Yazdani & Shokooh, 2018). These authors indicate that demonstrating doctorateness refers to students displaying high levels of innovation, development, scholarliness and interpretation during the doctoral process. These attributes need to be nurtured and skills developed through research development strategies (Åkerlind & McAlpine, 2017).

Social impact is an important quality marker of the PhD as graduates have a potential leadership role in addressing relevant contextualised problems to produce innovative solutions to contribute to social transformation (Bieschke, 2006; McKenna & van Schalkwyk, 2023; Nerad et al., 2022). This social impact imperative implies that doctoral education moves beyond a novel doctoral product towards the development of the next generation of researchers with transferable skills to make a sustainable contribution to the workplace and society beyond the doctorate (Senekal et al., 2022). In an era where dominant knowledge formations are challenged, Fritzsche (2022) calls for a contemplative pedagogy – introspection for greater insight and connection.

A more holistic approach to doctoral education is needed due to the purpose of the contemporary PhD being plagued with epistemological ambiguities, which present challenges to both students and supervisors (Mowbray & Halse, 2010, p. 653). Lee (2018, p. 13) affirms the importance for ‘even experienced supervisors to keep up to date’ in a fast-changing world. Bastalich and McCulloch (2022, p. 11) claim that ‘the stakes are high for today’s doctoral candidates both financially and psychically and they remain vulnerable to exploitation and neglect within increasingly toxic institutions.’ Howard and Turner-Nash (2011) refer to democratic doctoral education encompassing the pedagogy, curriculum and mentoring (supervision) as a dialogic process both to engage and liberate students.

Apart from a clear vision of the standard appropriate for the PhD, it is vital to have a strategy to achieve it (Hodgson, 2020). This was the purpose of the research development framework to guide both students and supervisors concerning developing doctorateness which was previously reported. This framework is built on the notion of doctoral intelligence (DI), a meta-perspective of the broad mental tools (behavioural and cognitive traits) used for problem-solving during the doctorate (Albertyn, 2022). As the ability to capitalise on strengths and improve on or compensate for weaknesses is an aspect common to all intelligent people in all cultures (Sternberg, 2000), research development activities have a role to play in promoting doctorateness and the development of researchers. While this conceptualisation of doctoral intelligence as a research development framework has been made theoretically, it has not been explored empirically, nor have the circumstances within which these doctoral mindsets develop. This article reports on a study describing students’ and graduates’ experiences of the four doctoral mindsets and elucidates the considerations to guide interventions for producing quality research and researchers. Considering the scholars who experience learning and the mindsets conducive to the development of doctorateness provides a stimulus for critical thinking about practice and a guide for pedagogical realignment. Furthermore, it addresses the call for more responsive and innovative doctoral interventions for holistic support and the development of doctoral intelligence for lifelong researchers, who contribute to society after graduation.

In what follows, the literature related to doctoral intelligence is presented before the qualitative study is described. Next, findings related to the four doctoral mindsets are discussed providing guidelines for doctoral pedagogical realignment for sustainable long-term development in modern contexts.

Literature review

Calls for innovative doctoral education place the spotlight on educational and research development. Educational development refers to the ‘power of higher education to transform students through their engagement with bodies of academic knowledge’ (Ashwin, 2022, p. 895). Research development is defined as being a process of improving skills while improving the quality of research on various levels (Evans, 2011). The doctoral intelligence (DI) framework could thus guide research development (Albertyn, 2022).

The term ‘intelligence’ refers to the knowledge and abilities to accomplish a task and solve a problem, and the mindsets that will contribute to success in a specific context (Earley & Ang, 2003; Nisbett et al., 2012; Sternberg, 2000). Mindsets refer to the identification of tasks and the cognitive mechanisms to successfully achieve the task (French, 2016). This author describes how mindsets can be positioned on a continuum between a fixed and a growth mindset. Mindsets can thus be developed during the PhD illustrating the importance of awareness of the tasks appropriate for the doctorate. Table 1 indicates the doctoral mindsets.

Table 1. Mindsets for success.

Doctoral Intelligence
Knowing:	Foundational expertise in discipline and research
Doing:	Application in practice of research for the research product
Thinking:	Higher level of mental processing for quality research work
Willing:	Open-minded for continuing development

Knowing refers to the foundational knowledge acquisition, which takes place as the scholar develops a common lexicon appropriate to the discipline (Horta, 2018) and implies the amount or type of knowledge accumulated; situated somewhere between being a novice or an expert. The cognitive dimension has been proposed as a foundational educational development domain (Ahern & Manathunga, 2004; Evans, 2011; Hodgson, 2020). Although the knowledge acquisition component is regarded as a lower-order mental process (Davidson & Downing, 2000), it is essential that this fundamental base is in place (Terenzini, 2013). Sternberg (2000) emphasises the need for knowledge about a field in order to move it forward. Students thus develop competence in their scholarly discourse and become legitimate knowers in their field (Bieschke, 2006). However, Hay (2022) notes that learning or acquiring knowledge is not a straightforward process but takes place amid the vicissitudes of unknowing thus reflecting incremental development of the knowing mindset on various levels.

Doing in the doctoral context reflects skills to apply their theoretical and research knowledge in their research projects thus affirming their doctoral identity. Benmore (2016) links identity development to cognitive development and autonomy as researchers increasingly gain control over the content and direction of work. This mindset aligns with the PhD programme outcomes mentioned by Hodgson (2020), namely independence in the application of procedural methodological knowledge. One way to enhance confidence in application is to be exposed to ideas being challenged in collaborative spaces (Barnacle & Dal’Alba, 2017) which stimulates critical and higher-order thinking, which could lead to the novelty expected in the doctoral process (Haggard et al., 2018).

This higher-order thinking reflects the thinking DI mindset. Rockstuhl et al. (2011) refer to meta-cognition as using higher-level cognitive strategies based on deep-level information processing. Santelmann et al. (2018) describe meta-cognition as thinking about own thinking. During this thinking process, mental models are adjusted, based on questioned assumptions (Rockstuhl et al., 2011). Constant questioning during critical reflection serves to undermine attachment to principles (Song, 2018). As such, students experience problems in this (un)learning process as they need to move from the linear scientific process to scientific thinking, combined with skills of critical thinking, using meta-cognitive strategies (Dawson, 2000). Meta-components related to meta-level thinking are higher-order mental processes used by intelligent people to guide their problem-solving (Davidson & Downing, 2000). Evidence of metacognitive knowledge (for example, critical self-reflexivity) was reported as a PhD programme outcome (Hodgson, 2020). Critical thinking is acknowledged as central to the doctorate (Brodin, 2016; Hodgson, 2020; Lee, 2018).

The willing mindset reflects the intellectual or epistemic humility and open-mindedness needed for excellence, and quality engagement and is integral to all doctoral mindsets (Cheng et al., 2016; Ortwein, 2015; Song, 2018). This deeper level of learning ties up with personal transformation as a quality marker in PhD students mentioned by Cheng et al. (2016) and wisdom reflecting excellence (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000). Transformation requires being open-minded, defined by Song (2018) as having the disposition to be appropriately responsive to new evidence. Song adds, being open-minded reflects a willingness to correct or improve beliefs to come up with imaginative solutions not considered before. Haggard et al. (2018) assert that a person with intellectual humility has a love of learning, a desire to gain more knowledge to bring about more understanding; an important ingredient in the acquisition of wisdom. Intellectual humility involves one ‘owning one’s intellectual limitations’ on a continuum between intellectual arrogance and intellectual servility: an accurate self-appraisal of abilities (Haggard et al., 2018, p. 184). Cheng et al. (2016) note that a quality learning experience may not always be comfortable. In line with the first step in the transformative learning theory of Mezirow (2000), a triggering event is a stimulus for deeper levels of learning, growth, and development.

Formal training programmes and doctoral support focus mainly on knowing and doing, but often not actively on thinking and willing DI. As higher-level thinking is essential for developing doctorateness, a more holistic approach to facilitating growth in all four mindsets in both the formal and the hidden curriculum is vital for the development of current and future knowledge-makers (Elliot et al., 2020; McChesney, 2022; Trafford & Leshem, 2009).

Methodology

The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of students and graduates and to identify the mindsets conducive to the development of doctorateness. The study context is a South African research-intensive university’s triple-accredited Business School which is a member of the European Doctoral Programmes Association in Management and Business Administration. This context was selected as a site for research as it reflects the reality of many students in the modern doctoral context. Students mainly study part-time and their motivation for studying is largely not for a career in academe, but for vocational utility (McKenna & van Schalkwyk, 2023; Tymon & Batistic, 2016), in line with characteristics of modern PhDs (Barnacle et al., 2020; Bastalich & McCulloch, 2022). Most participants were part-time students, and two were full-time employed academics (one in the finalisation stage of his second PhD and one in the proposal phase). Most participants indicated that they did not register for the doctorate with the motivation to get a job in academe. This business school offers three traditional PhD programmes with initial formal block courses, followed by mainly traditional one-on-one supervision of research by full-time academics.

In line with the qualitative descriptive cross-sectional design within the interpretivist paradigm, in-depth interviews were conducted to explore students’ and graduates’ experiences of doctoral education (Doyle et al., 2020). Purposive sampling was applied to invite business school PhD students and graduates from the three PhD programmes at various stages of their studies to participate. There were seven students busy with the proposal phase (conceptualisation until proposal acceptance), six busy with implementation (data collection in progress after proposal acceptance), three finalising their studies (writing up) and six graduates (up to three years after graduation). These four groupings of scholars represented a range of experiences in line with similar categories in other studies (Frick et al., 2014; Stubb et al., 2014). The study aimed to understand conceptions at a collective level and not to compare within the groupings. Twenty-two participants agreed to be interviewed.

The four questions used in the interviews were loosely guided by the doctoral mindsets of knowing, doing, thinking and willing (Albertyn, 2022). The interviews ranged between 40 and 80 min in duration. Verbatim transcriptions were reviewed twice, stripped of personal information to ensure anonymity, and sent to participants for checking. The steps of Braun and Clarke (2006) guided the thematic analysis for the larger study by applying line-by-line open coding to the dataset using ATLAS.ti to manage the data. Data analysis for this article focused on manifestations of DI and entailed applying a priori codes on a theme level based on the four mindsets. However, as the intention was not only to affirm the existing concepts but to uncover new concepts (Gioia et al., 2013), open-coding was applied next to capture qualities within the four mindsets. The codes were clustered into sub-themes to understand the underlying structures of DI and educational implications as they manifested in the data. This deeper analysis involved exploring the patterns reflecting participants’ experiences of the doctoral education process and considering the implications for supervision and pedagogical realignment with an interpretive focus in the light of literature (Gioia et al., 2013).

Table 2. Self-management techniques.

Brainstorming	Talking to others to test the waters Listening to others to get ideas (for example in colloquia) Mind-mapping/relevance tree/drawing of conceptual maps to connect the dots and see things from a different perspective Keeping notebook for ideas as they arise
Distancing	Taking a break, sleeping it off, slowing down the mind by being active (talking, swimming or cycling). Benchmarking, wide reading: ‘ … and then a lot of stepping away and then just say, okay, let us just render this for a while’ (Joan P)
Alignment	Continual checking of alignment and the golden thread by keeping the research question central Avoid getting side-tracked: ‘ … if you engage with it continuously, you start connecting with things’ (Norman P)
Distillation	Summarising and draft-upon-draft process helps with filtering to focus ‘Be comfortable with deleting … ’ (Nadine I) Three-minute speech as a tool Simplicity through drawing conceptual frameworks and ‘drilling down’ into the key concepts (Jerry F)
Structure	Putting systems in place for accountability Informal support from knowledgeable mentors or consulting coaches/psychologists Checking in and interacting with peers to counter loneliness, for sound-boarding and reciprocal support Promoting well-being and nurturing personal support networks (family and friends)

Pseudonyms were used, and the stage (P-proposal, I-implementing; F-finalising and G-graduated) is indicated where appropriate. Ethical clearance was obtained from the departmental screening committee (ref. 16878), institutional permission was granted by Stellenbosch University (ref. IRPSD-1828), and participants provided informed consent.

Findings and discussion

The findings suggest iterative loops of learning including both formal and hidden curriculum dimensions. There were nuanced insights regarding each of the four doctoral mindsets of knowing, doing, thinking and willing that provide guidance for research development.

Knowing: cognition of process and product

The findings revealed awareness of various levels of knowing during the doctorate other than theoretical and research methodology knowledge that is typically covered in traditional formal education programmes or emphasised by supervisors (Bengtsen & McAlpine, 2022; Torka, 2018). Participants referred to preparing for the doctorate by being aware of aspects like the scope, what it entails, expectations, politics, administrative aspects and available resources. Their reflections indicated the importance of knowing about the big picture or the golden thread throughout the research process: ‘the intertwinedness between your topic, research question and methodology’ (Norman I). This finding aligns with the reference to ‘grasp’ by Holbrook et al. (2015), which is the overarching connection and alignment between the use of theory, research design and research question. Furthermore, participants were aware of the depth of theoretical knowledge required.

Self-knowledge of their interests, working hours and environments, writing styles, motivation for doing the doctorate and awareness of strengths, was identified and linked to self-management. Interpersonal knowledge, such as how to interact, communicate and network with peers and supervisors was identified and there was evidence of knowledge related to social responsibility. Thus, awareness of the reported cognitive and meta-cognitive manifestations, illustrate that educational opportunities should encompass multiple levels of knowing.

Foundational discipline and research knowledge are covered in formal training programmes, but students’ meta-cognition, or thinking about their own thinking (Santelmann et al., 2018), reveals various other levels of knowing related to the doctoral process. Realignment of pedagogy should seek to balance the traditional skill training and instrumental focus of supervision with an increased emphasis on the doctoral process. This process, as proposed by Cheng et al. (2016) and Elliot et al. (2020) encompasses that programmes should include personal development planning with input regarding the process aspects of the doctorate. Hodgson (2020) also cautions that simply pointing out expectations of a PhD will not help the student to conceptualise, interpret and develop higher-order cognitive skills in their research, thinking and writing.

The implication for pedagogy is an awareness that knowing is multi-dimensional and encompasses both cognition and meta-cognition in the process and the product of the doctorate. It can be developed through group discussions, peer learning, journal clubs, lab groups, cohort groups, diversification of postgraduate training by using existing university offerings, in-house training interventions, colloquia, supervisory meetings and informal self-study (blogs, online and other training).

Doing: self-management for ownership

Participants indicated varying needs and challenges at different stages of the doctorate. The most common application focus mentioned by the total group was conceptualisation. Defence of decisions was the most frequently stated aspect during application in the implementation phase (noted 12 times by this group of six participants). Particularly the graduate group mentioned that defence and writing are important. The students are aware of the need to develop their own techniques when they are faced with problematic aspects as reflected in Table 2.

The implication for pedagogy is an awareness that scholars develop their own novel ways of working through their challenges: they self-manage and take ownership of their learning with skills they use in their daily workplace. Supervisors can thus explore ways to facilitate these identified self-management strategies during supervision as they reflect the process of taking ownership towards independence. Furthermore, supervisors and educators ought to be aware that application needs vary during the phases of the PhD. Support is required for these in-time needs. Boud and Lee’s (2005) distributed learning approach is suggested, as it focuses on self-management and empowerment of students to navigate their own individualised in-time learning needs. Guidelines for realignment of pedagogies relate to fostering self-management and can be enhanced through the accountability provided in the colloquia platform, timeous feedback and monitoring of quality, developing and using strategies for progressing through their own skills, use of mentors or coaches and other support networks (personal and collegial) and testing the waters through presentations (at the workplace, in laboratory groups, articles, conference presentations).

Thinking: process leads to extension of various thinking mindsets

The themes related to the thinking mindsets of creativity, criticality, independence and ownership are well known in the doctoral context (Brodin, 2016; Trafford & Leshem, 2009). These participants reported transferring problem-solving strategies that they apply in their workplaces during their studies. Examples include interpersonal connections through healthy debate and speaking to others, mind-mapping, conceptual maps, and pushing themselves through wide reading:

What the PhD is teaching me and what I am going through, is a process of structured thinking, because when you do academic reading, you do not necessarily have a template that you can just slot all this reading in and you create the perfect picture out of it. You have to figure out with all this reading, what is the picture that I am drawing from this? (Matthew I)

Evidence of participants’ reflection provides more nuanced insight into the process of development of thinking, indicating that criticality relates to being inquisitive with a mindset of continual exploration. They mentioned embracing external critique, self-criticism through reasoning and ‘arguing with yourself’ (Norman I). They noted the importance of being aware of confirmation bias and seeking contradictions in literature (Lucy P). These qualities are what Sternberg (2012, p. 3) refers to regarding the characteristics of creative individuals. They look ‘at problems in fresh and novel ways, rather than allowing themselves to respond mindlessly and automatically’. Participants also reflected on being comfortable with not knowing, not being perfect and deleting work (Matthew F). There seems to be vacillation between divergent and convergent thinking through generating and evaluating ideas by comparing and combining contrasting information in new ways (Acar & Runco, 2015; Basadur, 1995). This fluctuation represents dynamic learning, which is part of the creative process of finding useful solutions to identified problems. It is important that supervisors think of ways to facilitate students’ diverse thinking skills. Acar and Runco (2015) suggest that the more directions employed in thinking, the higher the probability of finding an original and creative idea needed for the doctorate. Scholars’ thinking thus seems to spawn various types of thinking during the process of learning.

Participants were aware of the need to maintain an independent stance towards evidence, such as back-up thinking and defend your opinion; take full responsibility and control; be on ‘own discovery mission’ (Harry I); develop own style; demonstrate individuality and develop a research identity. Ortwein (2015) notes that the intellectual virtue of autonomy is related to the capacity for active, self-directed thinking. The following comment reflects this independence:

I was forced to create something which is my own and when I do that, my supervisors and other people can see, yes, this is now your own. I do not know how it’s picked up. (Malcolm G)

Findings thus suggest that the reported isolation during the doctoral journey encourages independent thinking and taking responsibility for the project and ownership thereof. However, too much loneliness can be alienating (McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020) and could counter the positive effects of peer learning and support reported by the participants. Elliot et al. (2020) also emphasise relational approaches rather than only focusing on skills training. Students may have contrasting emotions with positive and negative implications and these contradictions need to be embraced and managed to prioritise harnessing growth, depth and quality of work over student satisfaction and certainty (Albertyn & Bennett, 2021; Cheng et al., 2016). Being frustrated by feeling challenged during application may be a good impetus for deep learning associated with the starting point of transformative learning (Mezirow, 2000). This awareness and disruption could counter the effects of the echo chamber and confirmation bias in thinking mentioned by participants. An intentional, well-managed cohort system could facilitate the positive effects of support for the growth of critical thinking and serendipitous learning (Samuel & Vithal, 2011).

Participants shared insights related to thinking that is different: broader, more conceptual and at a deeper level. They noted that their thinking capacity changed, ‘became more liberated’ (Peter F), and that they developed contextual thinking skills. Furthermore, the participants noted that they started to see the big picture and observed that ‘thinking started developing because time had lapsed’ (Joan I).

Participants reported on the way that the process developed the mindsets for the doctorate:

And then it is, oh, my holy goodness, I have not even thought about this in this way. So, in the process of doing, and receiving feedback, you are also developing almost like that skill of thinking more contextually. (Harry I)

… once you get the ‘aha’ moment, the momentum moves along. (Norman P)

So, all this gymnastics make you resilient and it advances your level of abstraction. (Tom G)

The development of habits of mind that shape intellectual activity has been noted to contribute to intellectual excellence (Ortwein, 2015).

It appears that the doctoral process develops doctorateness. These processes seem to be an essential, albeit at times hidden part of the learning journey (Elliot et al., 2020). Therefore, guidelines for the realignment of pedagogies ought to embrace the experiences during the doctoral process that lead to the extension of thinking mindsets. Thinking can be encouraged through creative strategies in teaching and supervision and through critique in group presentations. Candidates should be exposed to various tools for developing critical thinking, such as mind-mapping and developing conceptual frameworks, but should also be encouraged to explore and use their own tools during the doctorate. The doctoral process, therefore, seems to form and develop various levels and types of thinking.

Willing: the key to sustaining the doctoral journey

Although participants emphasised passion, curiosity, interest, and motivation, it seems that motivation is not sufficient, and a clear purpose to sustain the journey is essential.

… your motivation might disappear … I think a combination of … your point of departure must be motivation, [and] also making a difference and contributing towards something. (Norman P)

If you start out with the idea of just a title, forget it. There must be a larger ambition, a meaning … It is about our contribution and potentially how that could be applied, making the world a better place. … Purpose for me would probably be at the arrow point. (Peter F)

Words commonly used related to personal characteristics are open-mindedness, humility, independence, resilience, tenacity, discipline, commitment, delaying gratification, enjoyment, excellence, mental maturity, and wisdom (‘There is a wisdom element that goes with the doctorateness’ – Matthew P).

Being open to critique and the link to humility is reflected in the following comments:

I am willing to learn. I am open to critique and guidance. I prefer critique and guidance. I do not always take it well, because I usually believe that I am right in the beginning, but if I let it cook for a day or two, then I go, oh, they may have a point. (Joan I)

… that ability to come back and try to see what is the point … So, I think basically, it is humility. You have to be humble. (Malcolm G)

So, colloquia definitely challenge one’s thinking in terms of, am I really as open-minded as I think I am? (Jerry F)

And then you must be open to suggestions … you must be malleable, you know, you shouldn't be rigid in your way. (Philip G)

The willing mindset enables the open-minded curiosity to maintain momentum during the doctorate. Sternberg (2012, p. 5) linked creativity to ‘willingness to overcome obstacles, willingness to take sensible risks, willingness to tolerate ambiguity and self-efficacy’. The various nuances of the doctoral process harness this development. Participants valued the freedom and responsibility to justify their own research decisions, based on expert knowledge of their context. They therefore display the growth mindset referred to by French (2016). Likewise, supervisors are challenged to have an open-minded, non-prescriptive, encouraging stance toward PhD candidates, since research has multiple and evolving modes, possibilities and manifestations (Guerin, 2021).

Two graduates indicated that the skills learned during the doctorate are useful to contribute to society after graduation:

You learn how to work by yourself … You have a very high level of abstraction. You can think, process, and create more. … many companies like that. They like people who can solve problems. (Tom G)

How can I now take this and make it useful to society? (Irene G)

Pedagogical realignment related to the willing mindset refers to focusing on the meaning and purpose beyond the goal of the qualification – social impact. Findings reveal awareness of the social impact expectations, which may be due to a focus on social responsibility and ethical leadership in the curriculum of this Business School. Baltes and Staudinger (2000) indicate the development of wisdom reflects excellence for individuals and society. Longer-term focus and the development of transferrable skills for application could contribute to greater social impact in society beyond the qualification. The student needs to be made aware of this willing mindset during orientation and development should be encouraged throughout the doctoral process. The willing mindset enables open-minded curiosity to maintain momentum and the various nuances of the doctoral process harness this development.

Conclusion

Development of doctorateness appears to advance through the interplay of mindsets at various stages, as the learning need appears and as the process unfolds. As indicated by Michael (I): ‘ … it is in the doing that you realise what is important’, reflecting the way that the mindsets develop over time or referred to by Hay (2022, p. 286) as ‘the emergent flow of knowing’. The educational focus should not only be on the instrumental aspects and skill development for a ‘safe’ doctorate through formal training, but on an approach that harnesses the risk-taking needed for creative doctoral products. Knowledge of strategies to enhance the higher-level thinking and willing mindsets could contribute to focused pedagogical practices to counter the ‘ordinary’ PhD.

The focus of the DI framework is not a list of defining attributes or progressive steps in the doctoral process but provides an anticipatory system representing a map of the doctoral terrain (Slaughter, 2008). Insights from the analysis of the doctoral mindsets of this group of scholars reveal four salient components to guide and inform realignment in doctoral education. These four insights relate to the willing mindset, which drives and sustains the PhD process, the importance of self-management for ownership (doing), cognition of process and product (knowing), and acknowledging that the PhD process leads to the extension of various thinking mindsets. These four domains of doctoral intelligence can provide a foundational structure for doctoral education: as a map of the field during the orientation of students and as a framework to reflect on action, progress and development during the doctoral journey. A growth mindset during the doctorate could nurture the development of doctorateness. There may be disciplinary variations in application, as well as various iterations and further research could focus on exploring mindsets in other disciplinary contexts.

A fresh approach may be needed to create an appropriate context for doctoral development and support. Educators should constantly seek ways to increase their repertoire of educational frameworks to enhance the development of the full range of doctoral mindsets. Awareness of the nuance within each mindset could contribute to a more contemplative pedagogy for an active engagement in the development DI. Innovative doctoral education beyond the often-under-theorised generic training programmes and the traditional approach to supervision would contribute to the responsible development of skills through not only the quality doctoral product and improved completion rates but also by way of the development of lifelong researchers for social impact beyond the qualification.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).