PhD Students’ Perceptions of Research Seminars in Doctoral Education: A Case Study

References

• Abma, T. A., Ruissen, A., den Oude, E., & Verdonk, P. (2020). The personal motif in naturalistic case study research: Developing ”innerstandings” in woman's compulsive behaviour. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 15(1), 1730552. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1730552
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman, D. S., Dommeyer, C. J., & Gross, B. L. (2017). The effects of source, revision possibility, and amount of feedback on marketing students’ impressions of feedback on an assignment. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(1), 17–18.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, K. (2004). Modelling success: Enhancing international postgraduate research students’ self-efficacy for research seminar presentations. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000206618
   Google Scholar
• Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education 3–13, 34(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270600898893
   Google Scholar
• Adcroft, A. (2011). The mythology of feedback. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(4), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.526096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2017). Researching feedback dialogue: An interactional analysis approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amirian, S. M. R., & Tavakoli, E. (2016). Academic oral presentation self-efficacy: A cross-sectional interdisciplinary comparative study. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1095–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1160874
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307
   Google Scholar
• Bhandari, N. A., MacDonald, B. L., Martin, J. M., Modena, A., Simmons, J. M., Turner, W. D., & Asselin, S. (2013). Professional seminar: Valuing a one-credit course through the lens of doctoral students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(3), 346–357.
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (eds). (2013). Feedback in Higher and Professional Education: Understanding It and Doing It Well. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700116000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Can, G., & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Res High Educ, 52, 508–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9204-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, D. (2013). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molly (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well (pp. 90–103). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cotterall, S. (2015). The rich get richer: International doctoral candidates and scholarly identity. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(4), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.839124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of Graduate Schools. (2005). The doctor of philosophy degree: A policy statement.
   Google Scholar
• De Grez, L. (2009), “Optimizing the instructional environment to learn presentation skills”, dissertation, University of Gent
   Google Scholar
• De Stefano, J., Hutman, H., & Gazzola, N. (2017). Putting on the face: A qualitative study of power dynamics in clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 36(2), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2017.1295893
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowle, S. (2022). Are doctoral progress reviews just a bureaucratic process? The influence of UK universities’ progress review procedures on doctoral completions. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2022.2077855
   Google Scholar
• Duitsman, M. E., van Braak, M., Stommel, W., Ten Kate-Booij, M., de Graaf, J., Fluit, C. R. M. G., & Jaarsma, D. A. D. C. (2019). Using conversation analysis to explore feedback on resident performance. Advances in Health Sciences Education : Theory and Practice, 24(3), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09887-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eyres, S. J., Hatch, D. H., Turner, S. B., & West, M. (2001). Doctoral students’ responses to writing critique: Messages for teachers. Journal of Nursing Education, 40(4), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-20010401-04
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frick, L. (2012). Pedagogies for creativity in science doctorates. In A. Lee & S. Danby (Eds.), Reshaping Doctoral Education International approaches and pedagogies (pp. 113–127). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, C. E., & Yao, C. W. (2019). The role of an online first-year seminar in higher education doctoral students’ scholarly development. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, S. K. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, S. K., & Barnes, B. J. (2007). Graduate student involvement: Socialisation for the professional role. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669–700 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2005.11772304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gravett, S., & Petersen, N. (2002). Structuring dialogue with students via learning tasks. Innovative Higher Education, 26(4), 281–291. https://di.org/10.1023/A:1015833114292
   Google Scholar
• Green, P., & Usher, R. (2003). Fast Supervision: Changing Supervisory Practice in Changing Times. Studies in Continuing Education, 25(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/.01580370309281
   Google Scholar
• Gunnarsson, R., Jonasson, G., & Billhult, A. (2013). The experience of disagreement between students and supervisors in PhD education: A qualitative study. BMC Med Educ, 13, 134. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-134.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 18(1), 2017. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.1.2655
   Google Scholar
• HEFCE. (2003). Improving standards in postgraduate research degree programmes: Formal consultation.
   Google Scholar
• Heylighen, F. (1993). Epistemology, introductionin Principia Cybernetica Web. In F. Heylighen, C. Joslyn, & V. Turchin Eds., Principia Cybernetica Web. Brussels: Principia Cybernetica. http://cleamc11.vub.ac.be/REFERPCP.html
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The Conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, K. H., & Devine, K. (2016). Doctoral students’ emotional exhaustion and intentions to leave academia. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 35–61. https://doi.org/10.28945/3396
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Interaction Book Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, K. M. (2018). Academic socialization of doctoral students through feedback networks: A qualitative understanding of the graduate feedback landscape. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(8), 963–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1449741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701415433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007). Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 511–526.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386–399.
   Google Scholar
• Li, L. Y., & Vandermensbrugghe, J. (2011). Supporting the thesis writing process of international research students through an ongoing writing group. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(2), 195–205, https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2011.564014.
   Google Scholar
• Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Mainhard, T., Van der Rijst, R., Van Tartwijk, J., & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the supervisor—Doctoral student relationship. High Education, 58, 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9199-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2011). To be or not to be? The challenges of learning academic work. In L. McAlpine & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 1–13). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McMichael, P. (1992). Tales of the unexpected—supervisors’ and students’ perspectives on short-term projects and dissertations. Educational Studies, 18(3), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.28945/3396
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Nerad, M., & Miller, D. S. (1996). Increasing student retention in graduate and professional programs. In J. G. Haworth (Ed.), Assessing graduate and professional education: Current realities, future prospects (pp. 61–76). Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods Volume, 16, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odena, O., & Burgess, H. (2017). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: A qualitative approach. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 572–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1063598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olmos-López, P., & Sunderland, J. (2017). Doctoral supervisors’ and supervisees’ responses to co-supervision. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(6), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1177166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham, T. N., Lin, M., Trinh, V. Q., & Bui, L. T. P. (2020). Electronic peer feedback, EFL academic writing and reflective thinking: Evidence from a Confucian context. SAGE Open, 10(1), 2158244020914554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyhältö, K., & Keskinen, J. (2012). Doctoral students’ sense of relational agency in their scholarly communities. International Journal of Higher Education, 1(2), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v1n2p136
   Google Scholar
• Schaaf, M. V., Baartman, L., Prins, F., Oosterbaan, A., & Schaap, H. (2013). Feedback dialogues that stimulate students’ reflective thinking. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(3), 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.628693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, M., & Umans, T. (2014). Experiences of well-being among female doctoral students in Sweden. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.23059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shabani, K. (2016). Applications of Vygotsky’s soociocultural approach for teachers’ professional development. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1252177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shavers, M. C., & Moore, J. (2014). Black female voices: Self-presentation strategies in doctoral programs at predominately White institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 55(4), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen-Utheim, A., & Wittek, A. L. (2017). Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning. In Learning, Culture and Social Interaction (Vol. 15, pp. 18–30). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LCSI.2017.06.002
   Google Scholar
• Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2020). Encouraging dialogue in doctoral supervision: The development of the feedback expectation tool. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 15, 265–284. https://doi.org/10.28945/4568
   Google Scholar
• Sun, X., & Trent, J. (2022). Promoting agentive feedback engagement through dialogically minded approaches in doctoral writing supervision. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(4), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1861965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd) ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2015). The impact of the feedback source on developing oral presentation competence. Studies in Higher Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1117064
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, T., & Li, L. Y. (2011). ‘Tell me what to do’ vs. ‘guide me through it’: Feedback experiences of international doctoral students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154
   Google Scholar
• Xu, L. (2017). Written feedback in intercultural doctoral supervision: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1237483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd) ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar