Navigating Your International Doctoral Experience (and Beyond) 1032220503, 9781032220505

Citation preview

Navigating Your International Doctoral Experience (and Beyond) Focused on understanding the journey of international doctoral and early career scholars, this key book provides insight and guidance for those whose country of origin differs from where they have chosen to pursue a doctorate. Drawing on the experiences of PhD students, it harnesses invaluable insights to support a deepening appreciation of a chosen subject of study, manage research and make the most of what intercultural interactions can offer within a doctoral experience. Each carefully considered part uses researchinformed evidence drawn from a wide range of experiences and observations, providing various, and at times contrasting, perspectives. This book has been written to: • Offer new insights into the PhD abroad experience • Equip international scholars for their doctoral journey • Help the reader optimise institutional support with help from supervisors and other staff members Filled with evidence-informed suggestions and advice, this book offers support to doctoral scholars and early career researchers as they navigate their international doctoral journey. Dely Lazarte Elliot is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Glasgow, UK.

Insider Guides to Success in Academia Series Editors: Helen Kara,

Independent Researcher, UK and

Pat Thomson, The University of Nottingham, UK.

The Insiders’ Guides to Success in Academia address topics too small for a full-length book on their own, but too big to cover in a single chapter or article. These topics have often been the stuff of discussions on social media, or of questions in our workshops. We designed this series to answer these questions in to provide practical support for doctoral and early career researchers. It is geared to concerns that many people experience. Readers will find these books to be companions who provide advice and help to make sense of everyday life in the contemporary university. We have therefore: (1) invited scholars with deep and specific expertise to write. Our writers use their research and professional experience to provide well-grounded strategies to particular situations. (2) asked writers to collaborate. Most of the books are produced by writers who live in different countries, or work in different disciplines, or both. While it is difficult for any book to cover all the diverse contexts in which potential readers live and work, the different perspectives and contexts of writers goes some way to address this problem. We understand that the use of the term ‘academia’ might be read as meaning the university, but we take a broader

view. Pat does indeed work in a university, but spent a long time working outside of one. Helen is an independent researcher and sometimes works with universities. Both of us understand academic – or scholarly – work as now being conducted in a range of sites, from museums and the public sector to industry research and development laboratories. Academic work is also often undertaken by networks which bring together scholars in various locations. All of our writers understand that this is the case, and use the term ‘academic’ in this wider sense. These books are pocket sized so that they can be carried around and visited again and again. Most of the books have a mix of examples, stories and exercises as well as explanation and advice. They are written in a collegial tone, and from a position of care as well as knowledge. Together with our writers, we hope that each book in the series can make a positive contribution to the work and life of readers, so that you too can become insiders in scholarship. Helen Kara, PhD FAcSS, independent researcher https://helenkara.com/ @DrHelenKara (Twitter/Insta) Pat Thomson PhD PSM FAcSS FRSA Professor of Education, The University of Nottingham https://patthomson.net @ThomsonPat Books in the series include: Getting Research Funded Five Essential Rules for Early Career Researchers Tseen Khoo, Phil Ward and Jonathan O’Donnell Thriving in Part-Time Doctoral Study Integrating Work, Life and Research Jon Rainford and Kay Guccione

Navigating Your International Doctoral Experience (and Beyond)

Dely Lazarte Elliot

Designed cover image: © Getty Images First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Dely Lazarte Elliot The right of Dely Lazarte Elliot to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Elliot, Dely L., author. Title: Navigating your international doctoral experience (and beyond) / Dely Lazarte Elliot. Description: New York: Routledge, [2023] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022060773 (print) | LCCN 2022060774 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032199535 (hbk) | ISBN 9781032220505 (pbk) | ISBN 9781003271000 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Universities and colleges—Graduate work—Cross-cultural studies. | Doctor of philosophy degree. | Doctoral students—Handbooks, manuals, etc. | Multicultural education—Cross-cultural studies. | Education and globalization. Classification: LCC LB2386 .E55 2023 (print) | LCC LB2386 (ebook) | DDC 378.1/55—dc23/eng/20230329 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022060773 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022060774 ISBN: 978-1-032-19953-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-22050-5 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-27100-0 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003271000 Typeset in Helvetica by codeMantra

Contents Preface Acknowledgements Introduction

ix xii 1

1 Socialised learning, academic acculturation and Self-Determination Theory: An intersection of conceptual frameworks27 2 Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond: Scholars’ aspirations, the PhD genre and socialised learning experiences

53

3 In the midst of two or more academic cultures80 4 Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

103

5 Interacting factors in understanding a metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations

128

6 A metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations: A new model for international doctoral scholars153

viii  Contents

7 Managing, harnessing and promoting positive intercultural engagement

176

Appendix A: Organising resources for reviewing the literature I’d like to hear from you.... Index

213 215 217

Preface The world is your oyster There has been an observable steady surge in the number of scholars who travel overseas year after year in pursuit of doctoral education. Such enthusiasm is self-explanatory as it opens up a wide variety of opportunities on many fronts – for PhD scholars the world is truly their oyster. There is also the associated prestige. By and large, a ‘PhD abroad’ tends to be highly valued as demonstrated by the investment of time and resources by scholars, their families, institutions and governments. It is recognised that the impact often goes beyond the doctoral qualification achieved. Upon return to their home country, it may cascade further to other personal, career and societal benefits. Depending on the discipline and line of work, it may even influence significant decisions at the levels of the institution, educational policy or government. Coming from Southeast Asia, my own stint of coming to British shores initially to do a PhD and subsequently to be employed in academia has placed me in a privileged position to work closely with many international doctoral scholars and early career scholars or researchers (ECRs) as a supervisor, a mentor or a colleague. This stirred in me an intense fascination with a nuanced area that I strongly believe is deserving of greater attention. By focusing on intercultural engagement within the PhD context, I would like to make it more explicit with visible examples of overlooked strengths, mismatched intentions and even

x  Preface

missed opportunities in doctoral interactions. These are key to ‘decoding’ the intercultural elements in the doctoral supervision process and other interactions by digging deeper into the distinct rewards, opportunities and challenges often encountered by many international scholars during their transient but unique PhD experience. A sound understanding of the value of intercultural interaction is crucial for scholars whose intercultural interplay not only forms part of their day-to-day experience but, more importantly, it potentially makes a significant difference in enriching their overall learning experience, as well as in contributing to their holistic PhD development. Drawing from established psychological theories and over the years, wearing different hats – a doctoral supervisor, a thesis examiner, a progress review convener, a mentor, a Community Building Team Leader for our doctoral community and a researcher of doctoral wellbeing – I will discuss, clarify and offer examples to help elucidate the value of intercultural interactions in the doctoral context. Such interactions are crucially integrated into international post-doctoral scholars’ experiences. If you are a current or an aspiring international doctoral scholar, this book is for you, first and foremost. So, I would like to invite you to join me on an introspective type of journey – encouraging you to reflect on your intercultural engagement and interaction. Likewise, if you are an early career researcher who is either continuing or starting afresh in your post-doctoral scholarship abroad, many of the discussions are likely to be pertinent to your circumstances, too. Furthermore, effective doctoral supervision of international scholars typically begins with supervisors’ cultural competence and appreciation of the unique context affecting their supervisees’ personal circumstances,

Preface  xi

academic progress, research productivity and wellbeing. While a more focused discussion on this subject would be invaluable, this book could serve as a starter for you. While my purpose in writing this book is to help readers reflect on what they might encounter during the international PhD journey, each journey is distinct. And so, there will always be uncertainties. Embrace them and learn many more lessons along the way. I wish you an intentionally reflective, meaningful and well-navigated international doctoral experience – and beyond! Dely Lazarte Elliot

Acknowledgements Writing this book has long been my dream. It consolidates nearly ten years of research and scholarship on international doctoral scholars’ experiences. Despite my enthusiasm, a solo book project would have not happened if not for the trust and support of so many people around me. Many thanks Helen Kara and Pat Thomson for giving my book a ‘home’ – as part of the Insider Guides to Success in Academia book series. To the whole Routledge team – thank you for your prompt and kind assistance from the beginning. My appreciation also goes to the book proposal and beta reviewers for all their helpful suggestions. I am grateful to Margery (former Head of School) and Sally (former College Dean of Research) for my research leave to write this book. Thank you so much for your trust. I am indebted to two promising early career scholars: to Qiming Xia, who brought my thoughts to life with her quirky illustrations and Rui Elin He who patiently crafted my conceptual drawings. Thanks to my MSc Psychological Studies ‘family’ for their collegiality and assistance, especially to Yvonne for convening my courses in my absence and to Catherine, Leyla, Kate and Dong, who regularly enquired about me and my progress – I treasure these kindnesses. A very special thanks to my colleague and PGR group co-leader – Kara – and our own doctoral group, past and present for a warm, supportive and caring community.

Acknowledgements  xiii

Our meetings and social gatherings are good ways to learn, relax and get to know each other better. Lisa, Tarig, Nasatorn, Cathy, Emily-Marie, Elin, Dangeni, Kim, Liexu, Moss, Chip, Dayana, Jianshu, Idris, Xin, Karen, Melissa and Zhihan – you all enriched each other’s journeys and ours, too. I continue to learn from other scholars and mentors – Sofie, Søren, Kay, Yusuke, Gina, Maria, Cally, Kun, Lili, Kelsey, Ayesha, Hyab, Libby, Trang, Gaele, Zyra, Rabaha, Wafa, Mary Beth, Queralt, Nai, Ellen, Bob, Bonnie, Paul and many more. Our ‘discussions’ about what really matters about a ‘PhD abroad’ are simply fascinating. Despite the geographical distance, my conversations with my family and close friends around the world – Uncle Pablo and Auntie Ofel, Auntie San, Anthony, Tukta, Arnice, Rowena, Myra, Heidi – were always a source of joy and lifted me up during this period of writing. I dedicate this book to Raymond for your love and great patience all these years. It is no small feat being married to an academic. Huge thanks for all the cups of tea and meals arriving just in time, particularly when I was lost in my writing. I am grateful to you all. Any shortcomings in this book are mine alone.

Introduction

An international scholarly adventure has its distinctive twists and turns. Be prepared to expect the unexpected.

Overview and aims of this book This is a book on PhD experience, yet, distinct from other books on doctoral education, its main focus is on understanding the journey of international doctoral and early career scholars or researchers1, and particularly the crucial role played by intercultural engagement. While we recognise the different challenges confronting various doctoral groups, e.g. part-time, distance learners, those with disabilities or chronic disorders and those with caring responsibilities, inter alia, this book is concerned with doctoral groups whose country of origin differs from where they choose to pursue a doctorate. While each international journey is unique, their shared experience of leaving their country, family, friends, culture, values and everything they are familiar with and even their initially different understanding of how academia works serve to form a natural affinity within this group. DOI: 10.4324/9781003271000-1

2  Introduction

The general aim of this book is to make more widely known some key academic concepts that describe this group’s experience of crossing cultures in order to raise implications for practice, manage the situations they find themselves in and in turn, maximise what a PhD abroad experience can offer them. I have three reasons for writing this book: a) To offer new insights into the PhD abroad experience b) To equip international scholars for the journey c) To optimise institutional support with help from supervisors and other staff members I look at academic concepts through psychological lenses to help elucidate international scholars’ experiences, given their unique qualities, as well as the novel and unforeseen situations they generally encounter when crossing cultures. I have drawn from Self-Determination Theory (SDT), metacognition and the hidden curriculum – with these three strands forming the guidance and considerations offered to culturally diverse doctoral scholars and to those who support them. This book is a move away from the ‘culture shock’ that dominated previous acculturation studies (see e.g. Brown & Holloway, 2008; Pacheco, 2020; Zhou et al., 2008). My intention is to shed light on the impact when differing academic cultures meet and the ramifications for international scholars should there be a need to manage major transitions or reconcile differences. Therefore, in examining the acculturative process, the focus will be on the ‘intercultural’ rather than the ‘cultural’ to avoid implying that one culture is superior to another (Tian & Lowe, 2013). Whereas international literature has been mined in preparing this book, most of the research data for

Introduction  3

illustrative purposes came from UK-based projects that I was involved in, where developmental and positive psychology theories were typically employed as lenses. This also explains the approach taken in presenting this book, i.e. a move away from the deficit model. The evidence presented was largely drawn from experiential and anecdotal accounts of doctoral scholars from various geographical regions.2 While complexity and challenges were recognised as part and parcel of the general doctoral experience, this book features and stresses the inspirational accounts of how participants overcame the challenges they faced. While generalising concepts in this book is neither my intention nor is achievable, this book offers insightful nuances into how international scholars perceive, interpret and respond to intercultural encounters. By highlighting such encounters, I intend to raise greater awareness and reflection that can stimulate more appropriate or alternative responses, especially in the face of ‘tricky’ intercultural doctoral scenarios (Amery et al., 2020). In inviting you to navigate your international doctoral experience, please note that this book offers a ‘compass’ rather than a ‘map’. It is not a typical ‘how to’ book. My aim is to present the psychology behind doctoral learning, particularly international doctoral learning, with a view to making the doctoral journey much more manageable. This means encouraging you as readers to identify and develop your own strategies for this particular journey. As you will observe, you will receive many forms of support and resources along the way. Through this book, I would like to encourage you to reflect on your personal approach to harnessing and managing these resources more effectively. Each journey is distinct. While the aim is not to be too specific with suggestions, my intention is to

4  Introduction

help you work it out and find the best way forward. This is vital since each international scholar has a unique combination of strengths and weaknesses and encounters a wide range of experiences – both positive and negative. Therefore, the question that this book constantly raises is ‘What would it look like for you?’. Throughout the book, you are asked to consider what is practised in your former and new environment to help you consider, evaluate and even internalise this book’s lessons. These lessons promote the psychological principle of empowering learners by focusing on their role in this journey. Using your sense of agency (or sense of control), this book highlights your accountability when making the countless decisions involved in the hustle and bustle of a PhD – via meaningful interactions with people around you. Conversely, this book does not cover several related concepts. It does not give a detailed account of different cultures and customs. Instead, it encourages you to reflect on your own culture and personal context. It is also outside the scope of this book to guide potential doctoral scholars which doctoral route to choose. Also, while it is recognised that your supervisors are your key co-travellers in this journey, it is not their role but yours that is discussed in greater depth. This book advocates the necessity of being highly motivated for anyone aspiring to do a PhD. In terms of maintaining and enhancing motivation, however, this book’s approach is aligned with the principle of developing intrinsic learner empowerment rather than merely giving specific suggestions. As Skipper (2022) argues, the best way to develop genuine motivation for yourself as a learner is to help you acquire and develop your own skills and strategies. Doing so then enables you to understand what can stimulate real motivation.

Introduction  5

This book caters primarily for international scholars on the verge of an international doctoral or postdoctoral journey or even those in the midst of such a journey. The Introduction and the first six chapters speak to these readers. Chapters are organised to build upon various concepts that lead to a new model – the psychology of the international doctoral scholars’ journey. Chapter 7, however, takes a different approach drawing all the preceding chapters to a conclusion by raising the implications for key stakeholders in doctoral education. This chapter is filled with guidance and considerations for international scholars, doctoral supervisors and higher-education institutions. Equally, I highlight key resources relevant to the implementation of the concepts discussed in this book. Although most examples are drawn from PhD experiences, the book is aimed at scholars doing all kinds of doctoral study abroad. The lessons conveyed can be extended to other similar groups, e.g. those undertaking Professional Doctorate or DPhil in another country. Readers are invited to take into account their own contexts when applying the book’s lessons. Given the time that this book may require for reading and reflection, you may consider reading first the chapters most relevant to your circumstances. The chapter abstracts later in this chapter will help you decide which chapters to prioritise. If this book becomes instrumental in encouraging deeper reflection, and in turn, inspires you to be more interculturally strategic, raise your intercultural awareness, nurture relationships in scholarly and non-scholarly communities, enhance the quality of cross-cultural supervision and prompt personal initiatives to make the most out of your international experience, it will have served its purpose. I hope that you find the metaphorical

6  Introduction

‘compass’ to be a great start, particularly if you are just about to start or find yourself already a little lost in the complex doctoral maze.

The longest journey begins with the first step Writing this book is a metaphorical journey in itself. It started with my ‘first step’, which involved learning pursuits outside my country of origin. Hailing from the Philippines, my contrasting experience of international postgraduate studies in Eastern (i.e. Thailand) and Western (i.e. UK) contexts3 was fascinating. More importantly, it was eye-opening. Not only did it provoke deeper scholarly interest and reflection, it also changed the course of my research – from the crucial role of emotions in learning to a quest for a deeper appreciation of academic acculturation (or effectively managing and reconciling differing academic traditions and learning experiences) in the PhD abroad context (see also Elliot, 2020; Lee & Elliot, 2020). (See Chapter 1 for a full discussion on this topic.) My personal observations and phenomenological understanding of international education served as the catalyst – sparking my inquisitiveness to examine intercultural interplay during a PhD abroad. Looking back on each of my postgraduate experiences has its benefits, but each could potentially result in a one-sided perspective of the international experience. However, comparing and contrasting the similarities in and insights from my Eastern and Western postgraduate ventures offered both a critical and a more holistic understanding. Doing so gave me a greater appreciation of the nuanced, the visible

Introduction  7

and the covert, as well as the easily taken-for-granted elements of the international learning experience. They inspired subsequent research studies where we sought international scholars’ voices to clarify, confirm or expand on these perspectives. These voices were crucial in helping to balance and to offset any temptation to represent solely my views, my story – or to treat my personal views as the only legitimate lens for understanding everyone’s experience. Working in international academic settings for over 15 years offered several advantages. First, my remit as a researcher helped nurture my intellectual curiosity on this topic through continuing involvement in scholarly activities. Second, my remit as a supervisor, mentor and project leader led to observations, interactions and spaces for working closely with numerous international (and local) scholars – doctoral and early career researchers (ECRs) – many of whom further stimulated, or even challenged both my former beliefs and my current thinking. In many ways, they helped validate or refute my arguments and extend my ideas. Altogether, they invaluably enriched my scholarship. This book takes an ecological approach and recognises that the doctoral and postdoctoral milieu are situated and practised in a joint and nested context – connecting the complementary roles that supervisors, departments and institutions play in shaping scholars’ experience (Bengtsen, 2020; Elliot et al., 2020). And so, you can expect the concepts of interdependence, relational trust-building, co-construction of knowledge and constellations of networks to be prominent in this book (Choy et al., 2017; Guccione, 2016; Hopwood, 2010). While we cannot and should not discount other doctoral stakeholders’ and institutions’ responsibilities, my

8  Introduction

aim is to inspire international doctoral scholars – this book’s primary audience – to reflect on how they may further strengthen their agentic engagement, be more equipped for intercultural encounters (both expected and unexpected), raise their levels of intercultural awareness, and in turn, gain more from their experience (Figure 0.1). An embedded theme in this book is to promote a ‘chess playing’ mindset – where each move is reflected

Figure 0.1  A chess player’s disposition.

Introduction  9

on, considered and measured to increase one’s chances of winning. For every move, the focus is on the final outcome, with a keen eye on planning, assessing and ‘recalibrating’ plans depending on circumstances. Having a chess player’s disposition suggests embracing a holistic frame of mind and an inclination for metacognitive thinking (thinking about one’s own thinking processes) to bring together various options leading scholars to their desired destination, outputs or outcomes (Kuhn, 2021).4 Using these cognitive principles, you will be invited to pause and assess your strengths and weaknesses, recalibrate your progress from time to time and plan – whether working on your own or through socialised learning. Eventually, the aim is for you to tap into the vast learning opportunities from both formal channels of socialised learning and from other unstructured and unintended but genuine learning experiences – also referred to as the hidden curriculum (Elliot, 2022 Elliot et al., 2020).

What makes international scholarship appealing? In the past 20 years, international student mobility consistently expanded globally. At the doctoral level, the United States is the top contender for having the most doctoral graduates, followed by Germany and the United Kingdom (Hutt, 2019). Within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, 22% of those studying at the doctoral level are regarded as international. Countries with the highest shares of international doctoral scholars, i.e. with 40% or more of doctoral scholars coming from abroad, include Luxembourg, New

10  Introduction

Zealand, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators, 2021). Before digging deeper in the next seven chapters into how to navigate an international scholarly experience more strategically, it is worth first asking the question, what motivated you to embark on a doctoral challenge? More so, what underpins your decision to leave your family, friends and many things you are familiar with – your comfort zone – to pursue several years of doctoral or postdoctoral studies? General responses to this question may produce an exhaustive list, possibly with most responses pointing to how academic work promises to be both exciting and rewarding despite all its hurdles and challenges (Åkerlind & McAlpine, 2017; Sverdlik et al., 2018). Some may even argue that such challenges are justifiable for high-level academic performance. High stress levels tend to be associated with doctoral education, at times exacerbated by unsupportive, even toxic research environments. After all, a PhD5 is regarded as the ‘pinnacle of formal education’ or ‘the crowning achievement’ of the education journey (Berman & Smyth, 2015, p. 130; Rowe, 2021, p. 77). Such challenges are not necessarily seen as a deterrent, but rather as an encouragement, particularly by scholars who previously demonstrated scholastic acumen and capacity for excellent academic achievements (Lovitts, 2005; Skakni, 2018). Associated prestige linked to the title of ‘Dr’ and aspirations to work in academia, despite its reported increasing precarity, are recognised as having added appeal (Pretorius et al., 2019; Sverdlik et al., 2018; Wang, 2020) (Figure 0.2). These intentions are generally shared by international scholars who undertake a doctorate or take up postdoctoral research in another country – whether it is a move

Introduction  11

Figure 0.2  PhD as an adventure. from East to West, West to East, South to North or North to South. Moreover, personal advancement, career progression, access to globalised learning, development of intercultural effectiveness or longing for a novel educational experience can all be personal motives (Cai et al., 2019; Elliot, Reid, et al., 2016; Fantini, 2020). A learning experience at an international level is an experience like no other. Despite the relatively limited duration of this ‘sojourn’, it often has transformative effects lasting a lifetime (Jones, 2013).

12  Introduction

Strictly, a doctoral journey is more of an adventure! A PhD abroad could be a combined personal, academic and social adventure! You can expect excitement and risk in equal measure – filled with serendipitous, unforeseen encounters and possibly nasty surprises, too.6 On the other hand, such scholarly adventures offer generous opportunities for learning, re-learning and unlearning – common features of academic acculturation (Elliot, Baumfield, et al., 2016). As part of this adventure, it is essential for you not to rule out or underestimate the value of certain experiences. Even seemingly insignificant actions can serve as key jigsaw pieces in supporting international scholars to cope and thrive. Carefully reflecting upon actions can serve as enablers of your personal growth. More than that, it can lead to international scholars enjoying the experience and thriving, before successfully arriving at the journey’s end – not only with the desired doctoral qualification but also with doctoral-level knowledge and skills, acquired competences, transformed dispositions and sustained well-­being (Åkerlind & McAlpine, 2017; Boynton, 2021; Cai et al., 2019; Elliot, 2022 Elliot et al., 2020). Another idea is worth highlighting when it comes to the international doctorate. Rowe (2021) stressed that high motivation is a vital prerequisite in anyone’s decision to pursue a doctorate. This applies to the international group, too. Rowe further distinguishes the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ categories of motivation. Using the PhD as a marker of how smart one is or desiring a ‘Dr’ title may be underpinned by a strong drive; however, it is far from a good basis for embarking on one. By contrast, motivations arising from intrinsic intellectual curiosity or aspirations for academic and career improvement are deemed ideal factors.

Introduction  13

In practice, your demonstrable foundational knowledge of a topic within the discipline, combined with a proposed design that is not only doable within the timeframe but is likely to extend current understanding in the field are promising reasons for undertaking a doctorate. Given the PhD genre, strong intellectual capability and motivation are, therefore, considered great starting points. Equally, do not underestimate your personal attributes, e.g. commitment, discipline, maturity, professionalism and self-awareness, as well as capacity for independent learning and knowledge production as they are all vital (Holmes et al., 2020; Manathunga, 2014). Asking these questions helps ascertain the strength of your motivation, which will encourage you to go on, particularly if you find yourself in less-than-ideal situations, e.g. clashing with your supervisors, working in lesssupportive or even toxic research environments that are, at times, out of your control. Arguably, a combination of motivation and personal attributes are all crucial. They generally stand all scholars – local and international – in good stead and increase their chances of completing, combatting the high dropout rates prevalent in doctoral education (Rowe, 2021, p. 8; van Rooij et al., 2021).

Let’s pause and reflect – An honest self-assessment – is a PhD for me? If you are seriously thinking of a PhD abroad, start with an assessment of your motives. Your decision will have implications both during and after your PhD and influence the quality of your doctoral journey. Listed below are some questions for you. Consider sharing your responses with a potential

14  Introduction

supervisor. Seek advice to ascertain if your reasons, dispositions and intentions put you on a strong PhD footing. Remember, there is nothing wrong with considering alternative avenues if your discussion leads you to conclude that a PhD is not for you. In contrast, if you decide that a PhD is the most suitable next step, be proactive in making any feasible preparations before commencing your PhD.7 Which factors are the most influential in your decision to embark on a PhD? ♠♠ It has always been my personal aspiration to attain the highest level of education. ♠♠ I view it as an investment given the increasingly competitive career environment. ♠♠ Achieving a PhD will bring happiness and make my family proud of me. ♠♠ My previous scholastic achievements were excellent. ♠♠ I have been offered a full scholarship to study abroad by my university/government. ♠♠ A PhD is a stepping stone to advancing my career in academia, industry or elsewhere. ♠♠ I am prepared to take up the challenge to conduct high-level research. ♠♠ Doing a PhD while living abroad is an effective means of broadening my horizons. ♠♠ My proposed research can generate new knowledge, insights or understanding. ♠♠ The prestige of becoming a ‘Dr’ has a very strong appeal to me. ♠♠ I am committed to becoming a competent, independent researcher.

Introduction  15

It is also fair to suggest that many international doctoral scholars have added motivational drivers. For example, (a) physical detachment as a form of familial sacrifice; (b) a time-limited visa connected to the PhD scholarship; or (c) a PhD abroad as a huge investment of time, resources and effort, particularly if obliged to repay a scholarship grant from their governments or universities in kind. While these added reasons can serve as a huge encouragement for them to persevere and succeed, they can also come with extra pressure and anxiety. Åkerlind and McAlpine (2017) assert the value of examining understanding of the purposes of a PhD because scholars’ and supervisors’ appreciation of these purposes is translated and subsequently enacted. In other words, one’s view of what a PhD is for directs one’s actions. A scholar who is committed to becoming an independent researcher from the very start may share the same objective with the supervisors when it comes to research, i.e. competence in producing new knowledge. Likewise, misalignment between doctoral scholars’ and supervisors’ perceived purposes can lead to different, even contrasting expectations, practices, priorities and outputs. With a number of factors at play when two academic cultures are involved, such misalignment of understanding tends to occur more frequently in an international learning experience (Tian & Lowe, 2013). As these challenges intersect with other cognitive tasks or doctoral-related challenges, this may explain why the majority of PhD challenges encountered are, by and large, psychological in nature (Deconinck, 2015). Moreover, if these mismatched expectations are not attended to, they may breed psychological and practical challenges further down the line (Janta et al., 2014; Laufer & Gorup, 2019; Sverdlik et al., 2018).

16  Introduction

Let’s pause and reflect – Probing aligned versus misaligned purposes of doctoral education As an international doctoral scholar, engage in activities designed to explore how your own views of the purposes of doctoral education are aligned (or not) with your supervisors and other scholars in your discipline. Discuss your thoughts on topics, e.g. PhD standards, knowledge generation, researcher selfefficacy or project management, which often sit outside supervisory meetings. A broader discussion in the beginning and revisiting any of these topics at appropriate intervals can help in gradually aligning any misaligned perspectives. These topics can also guide future supervisory conversations to ensure that there is a shared understanding of ways forward. Please note that there exist templates for these discussions and such templates are an ideal basis for these conversations. For example, The Role Perception Scale by Paltridge and Starfield (2007, p. 38) is more tailored for use with second-language international scholars. ♠♠ Based on your conversation, reflect on how your new understanding compares with the norms and practices you are familiar with or practise in your home country. What insights did your conversation raise concerning your own development? As

Introduction  17

you focus more on the differences, what are the implications for you? What are the implications for your supervisors? ♠♠ Likewise, reflect on where you need to adjust or amend your practice. Why is adjustment necessary? And if so, who or where are your primary sources for learning new practices?

Are you ready to turn over a new leaf? In each chapter, the use of proverbs or idioms as headings and subheadings is deliberate. I personally love metaphors and I do hope that they will pique your interest, add a touch of novelty and, perhaps, contribute to your acculturative learning of the English language, too. Second, first-hand and research-informed vignettes8 or anecdotes are aimed to illustrate accounts of personally lived experiences, particularly for what might be ‘tricky’ intercultural encounters. As you see, your reflection and engagement matter as you go through this book. Experiences are invaluable and reflection brings a deeper understanding of these experiences. Applying new ideas may also lead to a different approach to your engagement with these experiences. This is the underlying principle for the reflective questions and activities. Chapters feature ‘Let’s pause and reflect’, ‘A question to ponder’, ‘Food for thought’ or ‘Moving forward’ sections with reflective questions or advice. The intention is to invite you to reflect, consider the implications of your responses, empower you

18  Introduction

to pursue behaviours that can maximise your scholarly experience and, in turn, make a difference to your international scholarly journey or in working with international scholars. A secondary reason is for these activities to encourage deliberate and regular reflection – nurturing metacognitive competence and the development of a metacognitive disposition. As you continue reading, may you clearly ‘see’ and ‘hear’ the many voices and learn from the accumulated wisdom of numerous scholars who contributed to the ideas, concepts, theories, propositions and illustrative examples in this book. May you feel encouraged and supported as you make informed decisions in navigating and achieving an optimal international scholarly experience – as a doctoral scholar or as an early career researcher. Listed below is a synopsis of the ideas and concepts in each chapter. While the book is organised in a sequence that shows a progression of ideas, seeing the scope for each chapter is intended to assist you should you want to dip in and out of the sections that are of most interest to you. Chapter 1: Socialised learning, academic acculturation and SDT: An intersection of conceptual frameworks Drawing upon key psychological concepts and theories, this chapter presents three concepts and theories as intersecting lenses for a better understanding of international scholars’ intertwined academic progress, intercultural experience and psychological well-being. First, it details the opportunities, processes and challenges typically confronting doctoral scholars due to the PhD’s distinct genre, lack of structure and research culture. Particular attention is paid to the effects of academic acculturation on international scholars which may lead to intercultural issues. The discussion then leads to the

Introduction  19

pertinence of SDT to doctoral scholars’ experiences and ends with some reflective and practical questions. Chapter 2: Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond – scholars’ aspirations, the PhD genre and socialised learning experiences Using first-hand insights and experience of scholars from across the globe who completed their PhDs abroad, this chapter examines the realities of a PhD for them. Starting with a reflection on what could have benefited their learning, had they known them from the outset, this chapter discusses insights into taking control of the massive PhD tasks at hand. This chapter features a combination of Ikemba’s vignette, the high standards required in a PhD, the importance of understanding the PhDembedded challenges, key crucial areas of the pieces of the doctoral puzzle, as well as some consideration of how scholars can ‘up their game’. I also elaborate on the various scholarly and non-scholarly communities, conventionally serving as channels for socialised learning and contributing to a meaningful doctoral journey. This chapter ends with reflections and suggestions for ways forward. Chapter 3: In the midst of two or more academic cultures This chapter gives an overview and the rationale for how the focus on academic cultures was informed by ongoing internationalisation and globalisation. Various potential effects arising from crossing cultures are discussed, for example, within the context of PhD supervision as a crucial site for supervisor-supervisee intercultural interactions. This leads to the discussion of exemplars of positive academic acculturation outcomes and critical factors for encouraging them. Using Shimeca’s vignette, it serves as a springboard for a deeper discussion of the

20  Introduction

relationship between socialised learning and intercultural interaction; authentic assessment of academic cultures; and receptivity versus conformity – all crucial in academic acculturation management. Chapter 4: SDT: An all-encompassing theory In this chapter, the focus is on contextualising an established psychological theory and applying it to the doctoral or postdoctoral context. SDT’s three strands – autonomy, competence and relatedness – will be examined in greater detail, particularly in relation to developing researcher independence. In this connection, the stages of competence development, the complementary roles of the formal and the hidden curricula, and the notion of interdependence will be highlighted. Using Benjiro’s vignette, the practical application of SDT will be elucidated – prompting the readers to reflect on how lessons from SDT could be applied to their own context. Chapter 5: Interacting factors in understanding a metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations Continuing with the application of SDT in the doctoral or postdoctoral contexts, the discussion in this chapter will prioritise a holistic understanding of SDT rather than its three individual strands. The intention is twofold: (a) to prompt scholars to see the interconnections, impact and value of a metacognitive approach and its implications for doctoral practice when viewed through the SDT lens; and (b) to encourage the development of a metacognitive disposition for better management of the doctoral experience. How metacognition and SDT work in practice is illustrated in Meerim’s vignette. Chapter 6: A metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations: A new model for international doctoral scholars

Introduction  21

Building on the ‘twin doctoral journey’ commonly characterising doctoral learning experiences, this chapter proposes an extended model specific to the international scholars’ journey. Drawing upon metacognition and SDT, this model helps consolidate various doctoral concepts while highlighting the roles of intercultural engagement, intercultural competence and intercultural relations in raising intercultural awareness – viewed as extra ‘routes’ in the PhD abroad journey. This chapter then offers a diagrammatic representation of a conceptual model not only to depict the psychology of international experience but to foster holistic PhD development for the international cohort. Chapter 7: Managing, harnessing and promoting positive intercultural engagement This final chapter will draw all the preceding chapters to a conclusion by: (a) highlighting the contributions of intercultural interactions, including unconventional or less travelled approaches, not only to enrich their overall journey but more importantly, to foster a holistic PhD development; and (b) presenting some key implications and practical guidance and considerations for stakeholders within institutions, i.e. international scholars, supervisors, researcher developers and institutional leaders. Using vignettes and examples of evidence-based, effective and suitable intercultural practices, this chapter contends that a concerted effort is essential in creating environments that are supportive of intercultural engagement. International doctoral education is merely a starting point, opening the doors for useful and meaningful intercultural engagement. Complementary efforts are arguably vital in realising an enriched experience not only for international doctoral scholars but for the entire academic community.

22  Introduction

Notes 1 For brevity, ‘international scholars’ is my preferred term when referring to both international doctoral and early career scholars or researchers who study or work in international contexts, unless when the discussion requires focusing on a specific cohort, in which ‘doctoral scholars’ or ‘early career scholars/researchers’ will be used. Various authors commonly (and interchangeably) use ‘doctoral students’, ‘doctoral candidates’, ‘doctoral and postdoctoral researchers’, ‘doctoral and postdoctoral scholars’, each with respective nuanced meanings. Since the term ‘scholar’ embraces both learning and research components while conveying specialism, the term ‘scholar’ rather than ‘student’ or ‘researcher’ is preferred. 2 Participants represented a very wide range of geographical regions: Central Asia, East Asia, Eastern Europe, North America, South America, South Asia, South East Asia, West Africa, East Africa and Western Europe. 3 I undertook a part-time MSc in Counselling Psychology (Thailand) and a full-time PhD in the UK. These two programmes are comparable length-wise, incurring around three years of intensive study. 4 Kuhn (2021) argues that ‘the applied, and particularly educational, significance of metacognition is in large part as a disposition rather than competence. One may have the competence to exercise metacognition but it will count for little if one lacks the disposition to do so’ (p. 1). 5 For simplicity, the term ‘PhD’ is used here to denote various forms of doctoral education. Nevertheless, caution might be needed in applying this book’s lessons where there are specific contextual differences. 6 Arguably, an ‘adventure’ rather than a ‘journey’, ‘quest’ or other metaphors might more suitably depict a PhD. 7 You can read books giving broad insights into a PhD preferably contextualised within your chosen discipline, and/or country of study. For example, see Rowe (2021) and Phillips and Pugh (2015). There are also online videos created by PhD scholars as they share their reasons, views, experiences and insights into a PhD. 8 Pseudonyms that are more reflective of the cultures where participants came from are used in this book. They are different from the original pseudonyms of study participants used in other publications.

Introduction  23

References Åkerlind, G., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Supervising doctoral students: variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1118031 Amery, E., Koh, K., Diaz-Caceres, Z., & Paris, B. M. (2020). The role of intercultural competence on graduate supervisor-supervisee relationship and well-being. Journal of Educational Thought, 53(2), 125–154. Bengtsen, S. S. E. (2020). Building doctoral ecologies and ecological curricula. Sprawling spaces for learning in researcher education. In R. Barnett & N. Jackson (Eds.), Ecologies for Learning and Practice. Emerging Ideas, Sightings, and Possibilities (pp. 147–159). Routledge. Berman, J., & Smyth, R. (2015). Conceptual frameworks in the doctoral research process: a pedagogical model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1080 /14703297.2013.809011 Boynton, P. (2021). Being Well in Academia: Ways to Feel Stronger, Safer and More Conected. Routledge. Brown, L., & Holloway, I. (2008). The initial stage of the international sojourn: excitement or culture shock? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 36(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03069880701715689 Cai, L., Dangeni, D., Elliot, D. L., He, R., Liu, J., Makara, K. A., Pacheco, E.-M., Shih, H.-Y., Wang, W., & Zhang, J. (2019). A conceptual enquiry into communities of practice as praxis in international doctoral education. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 1(1), 11–36. Choy, S., Singh, P., & Li, M. (2017). Trans-cultural, trans-language practices: potentialities for rethinking doctoral education pedagogies. Education Sciences, 7(1), 19. https://www.mdpi.com/22277102/7/1/19 Deconinck, K. (2015). Trust me, I’m a doctor: a PhD survival guide. The Journal of Economic Education, 46, 360–375. Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. (2021). https://www. oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/ Elliot, D. L. (2020, January 20). From the other side of the fence: an international scholar’s reflection. https://www.ukcisa.org.uk/blog/6750/ From-the-other-side-of-the-fence-An-international-scholarsreflection

24  Introduction Elliot, D. L. (2022). A ‘doctoral compass’: strategic reflection, selfassessment and recalibration for navigating the ‘twin’ doctoral journey. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1652–1665. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/03075079.2021.1946033 Elliot, D. L., Baumfield, V., & Reid, K. (2016). Searching for ‘a third space’: a creative pathway towards international PhD students’ academic acculturation. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1180–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144575 Elliot, D. L., Bengtsen, S. S. E., Guccione, K., & Kobayashi, S. (2020). The Hidden Curriculum in Doctoral Education. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-41497-9 Elliot, D. L., Reid, K., & Baumfield, V. (2016). Beyond the amusement, puzzlement and challenges: an enquiry into international students’ academic acculturation. Studies in Higher Education, 41(12), 2198– 2217. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1029903 Fantini, A. E. (2020). Reconceptualizing intercultural communicative competence: a multinational perspective. Research in Comparative and International Education, 15(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1745499920901948 Guccione, K. (2016). More Than Lucky? Exploring Self-Leadership in the Development and Articulation of Research Independence. L. F. f. H. Education. Holmes, P., Costa, N., & Lopes, B. (2020). The role of supervision in doctoral education: a transversal perspective. In M. Byram & M. Stoicheva (Eds.), The Doctorate as Experience in Europe and Beyond (pp. 213–228). Routledge. Hopwood, N. (2010). A sociocultural view of doctoral students’ relationships and agency. Studies in Continuing Education, 32(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2010.487482 Hutt, R. (2019). Which countries have the most doctoral graduates? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/10/doctoral-graduatesphd-tertiary-education/ Janta, H., Lugosi, P., & Brown, L. (2014). Coping with loneliness: a netnographic study of doctoral students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098 77X.2012.726972 Jones, E. (2013). Internationalization and employability: the role of intercultural experiences in the development of transferable skills. Public Money & Management, 33(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954 0962.2013.763416 Kuhn, D. (2021). Metacognition matters in many ways. Educational Psychologist, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1988603

Introduction  25 Laufer, M., & Gorup, M. (2019). The invisible others: stories of international doctoral student dropout. Higher Education, 78(1), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0337-z Lee, S., & Elliot, D. L. (2020). Re-imagining international doctoral students as diasporic academics. In U. Gaulee, S. Sharma, & K. Bista (Eds.), Rethinking Education across Borders: Emerging Issues and Critical Insights on Globally Mobile Students (pp. 255–268). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2399-1 Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course‐taker is not enough: a theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075070500043093 Manathunga, C. (2014). Intercultural Postgraduate Supervision: Reimagining Time, Place and Knowledge. Routledge. Pacheco, E.-M. (2020). Culture learning theory and globalization: reconceptualizing culture shock for modern cross-cultural sojourners. New Ideas in Psychology, 58, 100801. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.newideapsych.2020.100801 Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language: A Handbook for Supervisors. Routledge. Phillips, E., & Pugh, D. S. (2015). How To Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and Their Supervisors (6th ed.). Open University Press. Pretorius, L., Macaulay, L., & Cahusac de Caux, B. (Eds.). (2019). Wellbeing in Doctoral Education: Insights and Guidance from the Student Experience. Springer. Rowe, N. (2021). The Realities of Completing a PhD. Routledge. Skakni, I. (2018). Reasons, motives and motivations for completing a PhD: a typology of doctoral studies as a quest. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9(2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SGPE-D-18-00004 Skipper, Y. (2022). Motivation. In J. Lord (Ed.), Psychology of Education: Theory, Research and Evidence-Based Practice (pp. 227–244). Sage. Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: a review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 27. Tian, M., & Lowe, J. (2013). The role of feedback in cross-cultural learning: a case study of Chinese taught postgraduate students in a UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 580– 598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.670196 van Rooij, E., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., & Jansen, E. (2021). Factors that influence PhD candidates’ success: the importance of PhD

26  Introduction project characteristics. Studies in Continuing Education, 43(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1652158 Wang, L. (2020). Beijing Language and Culture University, China. In M. Byram & M. Stoicheva (Eds.), The Doctorate as Experience in Europe and Beyond: Supervision, Languages, Identities (pp. 179– 210). Routledge. Zhou, Y., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Todman, J. (2008). Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 63–75. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03075070701794833

1 Socialised learning, academic acculturation and Self-Determination Theory: An intersection of conceptual frameworks What attributes, qualities and forms of learning engagement are key to fostering positive international scholarly adventures? What characterises a successful international doctoral adventure? What does ‘success’ in this context mean? Does it refer to the qualification and the ‘Dr’ title conferred, the transformative impact of the PhD process, the outcome from the doctorate, e.g. a secure career in academia or industry, the accolades, pride and prestige following return to one’s home country, a combination of all these or something else? More importantly, how can we cultivate a successful international scholarly adventure? Addressing this important question will necessitate introducing three interlinked concepts in this chapter, i.e., socialised learning, academic acculturation and SDT,1 while taking into account inherent contexts within the PhD process. DOI: 10.4324/9781003271000-2

28  An intersection of conceptual frameworks

PhD – An adventure off the beaten track Each doctoral adventure involves pursuing a niche research area and seeking apt methods for research investigation, e.g. specific criteria for recruiting participants or carrying out procedures to generate the data for creating knowledge. Added to this are scholars’ intellectual and personal qualities that can sustain academic and psychological perseverance while playing a part in countless interactions with supervisors, post-docs, staff and other scholars within and outwith academic settings (Elliot et al., 2020; Schmidt & Hansson, 2018). Compared to the structured curriculum-based undergraduate or Master’s, doctoral experience – an intensive research practice that involves a pursuit of intellectual inquiry via scholarship and research – is characterised by a ‘plurality of practices’ and ‘lack of structure’ – making each PhD distinct. This explains what is referred to as the transversal nature of doctoral challenges where core and peripheral challenges intersect (Holmes et al., 2020, p. 221; Sverdlik et al., 2018, p. 376). Taken together, the combined intensity, complexity and transversality of these challenges further increase the already arduous demands of a PhD. Nevertheless, Rowe (2021) has noted that a PhD has become a popular educational aspiration despite the requisite high-level qualities and dispositions, intense effort and multiple challenges. A PhD often blurs the boundaries between work and leisure and pushes scholars beyond known knowledge. This makes the PhD experience highly stressful, and at times brings well-being concerns, too, contributing to a high attrition rate (Laufer & Gorup, 2019;

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  29

Levecque et al., 2017; McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020; Sakurai et al., 2012). An ‘unmapped’ PhD journey not only indicates a distinct experience but also stresses the significance of the socialisation process in doctoral learning (Elliot, 2022; Gardner, 2008). Devos et al. (2017) have identified five scholarly communities considered integral to this socialisation experience. While these communities are commonly situated at the institution, department, laboratory or research group, disciplinary communities tend to attract scholars with similar disciplinary interests (e.g. via conferences). The student-­ advisor community, by contrast, tends to attract the most attention – with more research and training workshops supporting student-adviser (or supervisor) interactions. All five communities represent what the formal doctoral dimension offers. Likewise, we need to consider how the hidden curriculum (or incidental learning gained within or outside the classroom) can complement and enrich the formal doctoral socialisation experience (Elliot et al., 2020).2 In Cai et al. (2019, pp. 21–23), two examples of communities discussed are not only pertinent to international scholars but serve as platforms for hidden curricular learning. First, through ‘cultural communities’, events are centred around sharing cultural practices, which enables sharing of cultural identity, friendship and various forms of support during the scholars’ life abroad. Second, the ‘communities of common interests and needs’, which draw on the notion of ‘third space’, or informal space for cultivating learning and development through enjoyable social activities and being part of wider support networks lead to creation of groups and societies in which participants are bound by their strong interest in activities, e.g. walking, community gardening, craft sessions (Elliot, Baumfield, et al., 2016).

30  An intersection of conceptual frameworks

These two communities exemplify the importance of non-scholarly communities, which frequently lie within the periphery of formal learning but, nevertheless, play a crucial role in offering friendship and camaraderie and helping one another in becoming more comfortable within the uncertain doctoral trajectory. This supports what Mantai (2020) argues, i.e. one thing that every PhD scholar wants more of is ‘support’, specifically ‘social support’. (An elaboration of these communities will follow in Chapter 2.) Given the iterative nature of developmental learning in a PhD, Albertyn (2021) has promoted a doctoral intelligence framework to support researcher identity development or a sense of academic researchers’ understanding of their aspirations. This framework endorses the value of scaffolding learning in four domains: (a) ‘knowing’, or developing expertise in a field, with a view to ‘mov[ing] it forward’; (b) ‘doing’, or application of acquired expertise, e.g. writing for publications or presenting at conferences; (c) ‘thinking’ via employing high-level mental information processing, e.g. metacognition; and (d) ‘willing’ – akin to personal motivation that suggests openness to continuous learning and development (Albertyn, 2021, pp. 5–8).3 Albertyn’s doctoral intelligence framework is aligned with my proposed doctoral self-management strategy where metacognitive scaffolding is at the core of ‘iterative cycles of reflection, calibration and recalibration’ to support ongoing evaluation of one’s progress while navigating the PhD, but with additional emphasis on nurturing and preserving well-being (Elliot, 2022, p. 1653). This conforms to the increased recognition of well-being in academia as a vital component, particularly in doctoral education (Barry et al., 2018; Boynton, 2021; Byrom et al.,

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  31

2020; Pretorius et al., 2019; Schmidt & Hansson, 2018; Sverdlik et al., 2018).

Endeavouring to be in good shape Given the PhD’s genre, it comes as no surprise that concerns for well-being do arise. Research and anecdotal evidence highlight the sense of isolation or loneliness often felt by many doctoral scholars at multiple levels (Gardner, 2008; Janta et al., 2014; Keefer, 2015), with likely added layers for the international groups. Let us take a look at various manifestations of doctoral isolation: • Cognitive isolation. Investigating niche or highly specialised research topics can trigger cognitive isolation. • Physical isolation. When scholars are not members of a small research group,4 this may contribute to physical isolation. • Social and emotional isolation. Due to the timedemanding nature of a PhD, social connections may suffer, with very little time being spent with family and friends in favour of scholarly work. • Cultural isolation. A sense of being away from norms and practices one is familiar with. This is also relevant when scholars consciously choose not to take part in social or cultural practices, e.g. saying ‘No’ to the UK’s drinking culture • Imposed isolation. With the widely incurred mandatory self-isolation and other measures enforced, which aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, isolation intensified in various domains.

32  An intersection of conceptual frameworks

Winchester-Seeto et al. (2014) explain how these isolating experiences are commonly shared by the scholarly community, but these issues become more pronounced for scholars in cross-cultural contexts.5 Their intensified sense of isolation may arise from the physical distance from key social support and felt more during the most challenging periods (Cai et al., 2019; Elliot & Makara, 2021), e.g. during illness or bereavement, at times, leading to greater doctoral stress (Blackmore et al., 2020; Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019). Considering that isolation and loneliness may predict ‘student psychological distress to a greater extent than other academic and non-academic factors’ (Berry et al., 2021, p. 2), the impact of loneliness or isolation cannot be dismissed or underestimated – regardless of the pre-, periand post-pandemic era. As we often observe, physical and/ or psychological isolation may lead to academic struggles. In our other book, we also contended for the strong links among the doctoral components (i.e. academic, emotional, social, and psychological) in supporting the completion, fostering transformative growth and preserving wellbeing (Elliot et al., 2020). Well-being is crucial. It needs to be viewed not as a separate but as an integral element in the whole doctoral process, and beyond, i.e. postdoctoral and possibly right through to a permanent career in academia6 or elsewhere (Elliot, 2022; Elliot et al., 2020).

A culture shift in institutional research culture? The institutional research culture is another area worthy of consideration. This is supported by studies acknowledging contexts and external environments to be hugely

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  33

instrumental in fostering doctoral effectiveness (Watson & Turnpenny, 2022). Recent advocacy for enhancing institutional research culture, which encompasses ‘the behaviours, values, expectations, incentives, attitudes and norms of a research community’, can help determine how research is conducted and further communicated, and in turn, influences academic researchers’ career and well-being (The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, 2019, p. 13). The Researcher Development Concordat also raised the potential effects of poor research culture not only on researchers’ mental health and well-being but equally on the quality of research produced and its cascading impact on society. A shift in research culture as fundamental to improving doctoral and postdoctoral contexts becomes vital to the PhD abroad experience. A Wellcome Trust-funded study querying ‘What does good research culture look like?’ generated over 4,000 participants’ perspectives (see Shift Learning, 2020, p. 48). The most common responses7 included: • • • • •

Diversity is encouraged and celebrated Collaboration is encouraged and celebrated Individual contributions feel valuable and valued Individuals feel supported Individuals feel safe and secure

According to the respondents, improving or enhancing research culture should be led first and foremost by the universities, funding bodies and senior researchers. Seemingly, this action is more critical in areas requiring radical or systemic institutional changes (e.g. giving researchers more thinking time). Due to the scope of the research culture and its complexity, a shift in the

34  An intersection of conceptual frameworks

culture demands a concerted effort and complementary approach from various doctoral stakeholders, i.e. researchers, managers (e.g. PhD supervisors, Principal investigators), institutions and funders to work towards an improved environment and culture, better employment prospects and greater professional development for researchers (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1  Fostering positive research culture.

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  35

Given that the majority of the points raised in Shift Learning’s (2020, p. 48) study are within the locus of control of researchers and staff supporting the researcher community, this suggests that a culture shift is possible when a positive and supportive research environment is promoted. This book also builds on this very principle, i.e. fostering a high-quality research culture. Notably, international doctoral and postdoctoral scholars are only two of the many key players in the doctoral ecology who can realise a culture shift; their contributions can make a deep impression, even inspire others to follow suit. In this chapter, subsequent discussions focus on what lies within international scholars’ locus of control in promoting supportive research conditions. In discussing the intersection of conceptual frameworks for this book, we will first turn our attention to another influencing ‘culture’ that can explain the amusing, perplexing or challenging scenarios that tend to be part and parcel of the scholars’ intercultural encounters during a PhD or a post-doc outside their home country (McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2014).

Is academic culture like a rulebook written in invisible ink? An international scholar is someone who studies and/or works abroad for a fixed period. Scholarship abroad is key to the discussion as it entails being fully immersed in the very fabric characterising the host culture (Elliot, Reid, et al., 2016). An immersive experience offers ample

36  An intersection of conceptual frameworks

opportunities for intercultural interplay either within or outwith academic environments – also regarded as channels for hidden curricular learning (Elliot et al., 2020). But first, defining ‘culture’ is a good place to start. In the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, Colman (2015, p. 181) refers to culture as a social group’s attempt to communicate shared ‘ideas, beliefs, customs, knowledge, and material artifacts’ to the next generation. Spencer-Oatey and Kadar (2021) further articulated the complexity of the term by stressing its implications for behaviours and interactions – a complex set of meaning systems that consists of patterns of traditions, beliefs, values, schemas, norms, and symbols, that are shared to varying degrees by interacting members of a social group and that influence (but do not determine) each member’s behaviour and his/ her interpretations of the meaning of other people’s behaviour. (Spencer-Oatey & Kadar, 2021, p. 4) Spencer-Oatey and Kadar’s definition helps clarify the extent to which culture affects behaviour (Figure 1.2). Being born in and becoming part of social groups, e.g. one’s family or community, means channelling cultural knowledge and understanding by being socialised in these groups. This is a process that can further ‘increase and diversify’ through the acquisition of experience – including within and outwith these social groups. Vygotsky’s (1978) seminal work explains the significance of the socialisation process via shared tools, symbols, objects and speech patterns. It can easily be observed how language, games or artefacts can play a

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  37

Figure 1.2  Culture and its influences. vital role in learning, adopting new behaviour and overall intellectual development. This process tends to create cultural group affinity and a tendency for ‘cultural patterning’ or development of group identities often manifesting itself via shared values, beliefs and practices. Spencer-Oatey and Kadar contend that the socialisation process can influence group

38  An intersection of conceptual frameworks

identities, cultural patterning and/or personality traits, which may frame the dynamics of encounters with others. Yet, it does not predict or determine behaviour (Spencer-Oatey & Kadar, 2021, p. 4).

A question to ponder – Within the context of an educational sojourn, how can successful PhD or post-doc experience be influenced by ‘culturally defined constructs’, e.g. capacity for knowledge creation, scholarly arguments, critical thinking, inter alia? What could be the implications for international scholars? When referring to ‘intercultural’, Spencer-Oatey and Kadar’s proposed literal explanation, i.e. ‘between cultures’ is adopted for this book. Second, the notion of cultural distance or differences between home and host societies has been considered, too, e.g. language, social structure, religion, socioeconomic conditions and political systems (Triandis, 2000, p. 188). It was suggested that such factors fundamentally influence the extent of international scholars’ adaptations. This may be due to the variation in ‘the intended and the received meanings [that] pass through cultural filters’ during the act of communication; what this suggests is that the greater the differences in the cultural filters, the greater the likelihood for ‘misunderstanding to occur’ (Tian & Lowe, 2013). It was also proposed that academic and social interactions are ‘culturally defined constructs’, i.e. ‘what is deemed a successful developmental outcome varies by culture and sub-culture’. In turn, interactions might be regarded as ‘positive’ or ‘inverse’ according to how it is viewed by the

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  39

cultural group of the individual (Navarro & Tudge, 2022, p. 11). Cultural or sub-cultural perceptions may consciously or subconsciously encourage or discourage certain developmental outcomes. For example, technological tools increasingly reflect the unique features within the children’s world – a sub-culture. Technology has become inherent to children’s development, blurring the distinction between play and work. Their familiarity with technology, starting with digital games, inevitably becomes a contributor to digital literacy and is perhaps, something that is encouraged by the wider cultural group. With this in mind, we need to consider various possible interpretations when discussing intercultural interactions. If we were to accept this premise, it seems to suggest that international scholars need to have an in-depth understanding of how success is defined, supported and assessed in the host country in order to optimise their experience during the educational sojourn. This suggests having a sound appreciation of ‘academic acculturation’ (defined here as a reconciliatory attempt to address the ‘culture distance’ concerning differing academic traditions and learning orientations) is a likely consequence when crossing academic cultures (Triandis, 2000). Equally plausible is the idea of reverting to what is valued in the home country once the sojourn is over and where re-adaptation becomes necessary (e.g. Witayarat, 2020). In using the notion of academic acculturation to facilitate a successful international educational experience,8 the football and cricket metaphor originally proposed by Williams and Daborn (2008) is apt: …international students are [like] seasoned cricket players who are still applying the rules

40  An intersection of conceptual frameworks

of cricket even though they are now playing football [causing] confusion, puzzlement and eventually disappointment. Accordingly, the ‘real problem’ … is not so much about lack of motivation or cognitive competence … but that they use ‘the wrong approach’! (see Elliot, Baumfield, et al., 2016, pp. 1191–1192) This metaphor explains what might have underpinned previously reported sojourn struggles. The fundamental issue is not about stereotyping international scholars but about being cognisant of the (extent of) disparity posed by differing academic traditions and learning orientations, in which learners were previously socialised (Kim & Spencer-Oatey, 2021). We need to consider what scholars previously regarded as the ‘norm’ for learning and meaning construction, possibly for at least two decades and compare them with the ‘new rules of the new game’, i.e. expectations and practices in the new academic setting. Doing so will help inform our understanding of the extent of ‘cultural distance’ and how to respond accordingly. As Tian and Lowe (2013) also contend, support for learners is necessary: ‘simply being aware of the rules of a new culture does not ensure the skills required for appropriate cultural performance; a deliberate attempt to teach these skills must be provided in the feedback or by other means’ (p. 595). It is nobody’s fault if international scholars find themselves in a situation where differences in learning contexts present an issue. However, either to ignore and leave them confused, let alone disappointed, will arguably defeat one of the inherent purposes of the educational

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  41

sojourn experience, i.e. to empower these scholars. My argument accords with Heng (2018) who argues that ‘different is not deficient’ (p. 22). Scholars bring their own strengths. Linking it to the game metaphor, understanding how to harness such strengths and where these strengths overlap and collide in the new academic context, is vital. Equally, there is a need to be ‘cognizant of the differing academic expectations in their home versus host countries’ (Heng, 2018, p. 34). This then elicits ‘personal introspection … to learn, unlearn or re-learn new ideas, thoughts and behaviours, that is acculturation’, as appropriate, to help scholars flourish in the new setting (Elliot, Baumfield, et al., 2016, p. 1183). International scholars’ strengths are not static as they respond to classroom activities, engage in various educational activities and increase their familiarity with the new academic setting leading to changed abilities, attitudes, behaviours and values (Heng, 2018). A proactive approach and concerted effort from scholars and institutions in promoting academic acculturation could create supportive social and research conditions that foster a meaningful and thriving educational sojourn from the outset. What is more, this encourages international scholars to reflect on a variety of perspectives, be mindful of any personal biases and learn, contribute and enhance their academic environment (Hradsky et al., 2022). Cultivating ‘academic acculturation’ is different from merely addressing culture shock or the psychological distress often experienced following initial culture-crossing and immersion in novel or unfamiliar social contexts; culture shock is now argued to have become a lesser issue due to increased technological advancements (Pacheco, 2020).

42  An intersection of conceptual frameworks

Let’s pause and reflect – Assessing my experiential understanding of academic acculturation Using self-reflection strategies, consider how your understanding of learning has deepened or changed as you think about various elements that may characterise learning. Initially focus on your learning experiences back home. Then, compare them with what learning is like or what is valued in the host country. Gauge your understanding of your acculturative experiences using these questions: ♠♠ What are the similarities (or overlaps) when comparing the academic traditions, learning orientations and expectations between your home and host countries? – Consider the observed working relationships or ways of expressing collegiality and respect between scholars, i.e. from doctoral scholars to full professors. – In what respect are they the same or different? – What are the implications of these differences for you and your academic or work progression? ♠♠ What personal strengths of yours are valued in the host country? – How can you further enhance those strengths? – How can you use your strengths to support other scholars – doctoral, post-docs and even your own supervisors?

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  43

– With these strengths, how can you actively contribute to enriching the research culture in your department or institution? ♠♠ What was your original conceptualisation of an excellent learner? – What characteristics do they possess? – Has your understanding changed following your sojourn? – Do you consider yourself an excellent learner in your home country? – Has your perception of yourself as a learner been retained or changed as a result of studying or working abroad? ♠♠ What learning pedagogies and competences are most valued in the host country: ○○ Independent versus collaborative learning? ○○ Critical versus informative academic writing? ○○ Individual versus group work activity? – What are your personal preferences? – Are your preferences aligned with what is generally practised in the host country? ♠♠ How can being aware of the different academic traditions and expectations between home and host countries assist you in realising a meaningful international experience?

Connecting the dots through the lens of SDT With the many ideas and concepts presented in this chapter, employing a theoretical psychological model

44  An intersection of conceptual frameworks

that examines the social conditions can help enhance the current understanding of international scholars’ experiences, particularly with respect to learning, development and self-organised actions (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Following Ryan and Deci’s initial publication on SDT in 1985 and wider research in school contexts, the SDT principles remain relevant and are applicable to different age groups (Castle & Buckler, 2021). Arguably, this can be extended to understanding general doctoral processes and international scholars’ educational sojourn. Ryan and Deci (2017, p. 10) propose that certain ‘human needs’ are ‘nutrients that are essential for growth, integrity, and well-being’. In the same way that basic physiological needs, e.g. oxygen, clean water, adequate nutrition or freedom from harm, aim to satisfy bodily health and safety, SDT suggests that it is equally essential to satisfy basic psychological needs in order to sustain psychological interest, development and wellness. Central to SDT’s tenets, ‘the essence of human thriving’ can be achieved via pursuits and satisfaction in three areas: competence, autonomy and relatedness. With adequate psychological support they serve as ‘indicators of wellness and vitality’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 5). According to Castle and Buckler (2021), if these three SDT strands are ‘balanced’, it leads to the development of intrinsic motivation (p. 238). SDT also stresses that from the beginning, individuals have an inherent predisposition to pursue growth and development, where engagement with the environment is crucial to the healthy development of self. The home context serves as one of the primary socialising influences from which individuals acquire knowledge, skills or certain learning orientations. This forms part of the initial self for subsequent psychological development. In the case of international scholars, this natural propensity for growth

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  45

is likely to continue following the sojourn, through ongoing engagement with the new environment, i.e. the host culture, leading to the further development of self. Yet the same conditions apply, i.e. the basic psychological needs supportive of competence, autonomy, and relatedness need to be suitably addressed (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Let us briefly discuss the three strands of the SDT model – • Autonomy. One’s capacity to exercise one’s own initiative and self-regulation to direct one’s actions and achieve one’s goals • Competence. Understanding and ability to use one’s skills, personal strengths and limitations to accomplish an outcome • Relatedness. Access to and being part of a safe, secure and meaningful connection with others (Castle & Buckler, 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 236) Although this model was originally intended to have broader applicability in many settings, it is interesting to note how each strand of the SDT model is closely aligned to advanced scholarly experience such as in the doctoral and post-doctoral contexts. By extension, SDT can also serve as an apt framework for understanding both general and international scholars’ journeys. Let us examine SDT in the PhD context in general to examine its potential implications. Autonomy. A PhD offers the context for sophisticated development. A PhD can be viewed as ‘transversal’ learning as reflected in the intersecting acquisition of subject and disciplinary knowledge, research skills and key dispositions to facilitate steady progress and eventual completion (Holmes et al., 2020).

46  An intersection of conceptual frameworks

In the process, scholars are given the ‘freedom of independent study’ and a sense of control over research activities as they are encouraged to find their feet (Hradsky et al., 2022; McCulloch et al., 2017, p. 12). Regarded as researchers in apprenticeship, they are gradually inducted into scholarly behaviours, perform research activities, and through the process, develop their confidence and a sense of legitimacy in expressing an authorial voice (Savva & Nygaard, 2021; Thomson, 2021). What is described in the PhD process points to encouraging scholars to exercise their own volition or actively nurture self-regulation – within the context of a supportive environment. Scholars’ behaviours are viewed as ‘self-­ endorsed’ and ‘congruent with one’s authentic interests and values’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 10). In sum, autonomy takes a unique position and plays a dual role at the centre of the PhD, i.e. becoming autonomous or independent in conducting research, is arguably, both an integral part of the process as well as a vital projected outcome. Competence. Similarly, a PhD is a huge undertaking that requires the need for competence or a sense of mastery in multiple areas. This helps achieve a number of smaller objectives that inevitably contribute to the final objective and outcome, e.g. the PhD qualification itself and its associated transformative growth and development (Elliot, 2022). With the right support for competence development, scholars are encouraged to strive, be curious and feel energised. Nevertheless, Ryan and Deci (2017, p. 11) argue that competence ‘wanes in contexts in which challenges are too difficult, negative feedback is pervasive, or feelings of mastery and effectiveness are diminished or undermined by interpersonal factors such as person-focused criticism and social comparisons. This then suggests that

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  47

the balance between the support received and the inherent challenges experienced during the PhD can make a difference in nurturing or inadvertently diminishing a ­scholar’s competence. Relatedness. Drawing from earlier theories on attachment, social groups and self-regulation, this third and final strand highlights the value of social connections which create a sense of security and belonging arising from being a valued member of a group. In the PhD context, these social circles are platforms where they feel connected and where they receive support and contribute to other scholars’ growth. It duly creates a meaningful and safe space for all involved and channels opportunities for positivity, care, kindness and compassion (Elliot & Makara, 2021). For international scholars, scholarly and non-scholarly communities may offer something beyond socialised learning – including invaluable intercultural interplay (Cai et al., 2019). In this chapter, we have taken a brief tour of the interlinked and relevant concepts in understanding what a PhD abroad adventure broadly entails, as well as the factors and contexts – both explicit and unspoken – that could affect the PhD journey. In the next three chapters, each of these theoretical lenses – socialised learning, academic acculturation and SDT – introduced here in Chapter 1 will be revisited and elaborated on for a deeper discussion using first-hand examples.

Notes 1 Socialised learning and Self-Determination Theory can apply to all doctoral and postdoctoral scholars – local and international alike. Academic acculturation, on the other hand, is more pertinent to international scholars - both doctoral and postdoctoral groups.

48  An intersection of conceptual frameworks 2 Complementarity between the formal and the hidden curricula is further explored in Chapter 7. 3 These learning domains may also serve as ideal dispositions when considering prospective doctoral and postdoctoral candidates: (a) an intrinsic drive to develop expertise in the field; (b) proactivity in pursuing learning and materials for research; (c) inclination for regular metacognitive thinking; and (d) humility and receptivity in seeking continued development. 4 Or research laboratory that is more common in hard sciences, e.g. STEM. 5 Language, cultural differences in dealing with hierarchy, separation from what is familiar, separation from support and certain other cultural differences are examples of what have been identified as ‘intensifiers’ by Winchester-Seeto et al. (2014). 6 Continuing a career in academia is likely to require the same level of attention to well-being as it is, to some extent, a continuation of the doctoral scholarship. 7 The implementation of two other responses, i.e. ‘Leadership is transparent and open’ and ‘Time to think is valued’ require greater involvement by institutional leaders. 8 Support mechanisms for promoting academic acculturation need to be a concerted effort from scholars, staff members and institutions.

References Albertyn, R. (2021). Making a case for Doctoral Intelligence: conceptualisation and insights for researcher development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14703297.2021.1899033 Barry, K. M., Woods, M., Warnecke, E., Stirling, C., & Martin, A. (2018). Psychological health of doctoral candidates, study-related challenges and perceived performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(3), 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.20 18.1425979 Berry, C., Niven, J. E., & Hazell, C. M. (2021). Personal, social and relational predictors of UK postgraduate researcher mental health problems. BJPsych Open, 7(6), e205, Article e205. https://doi. org/10.1192/bjo.2021.1041 Blackmore, C., Ohlsen, S., Guccione, K., Elliot, D., & Daley, R. (2020). ‘Are you ok?’ Mental health and wellbeing of international doctoral students in the UK: an investigation of supervisors’ understanding

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  49 and existing support provision. https://www.ukcisa.org.uk/ResearchPolicy/Resource-bank/resources/189/Are-you-ok-Mental-healthand-wellbeing-of-international-doctoral-students-in-the-UK Boynton, P. (2021). Being Well in Academia: Ways to Feel Stronger, Safer and More Conected. Routledge. Byrom, N. C., Dinu, L., Kirkman, A., & Hughes, G. (2020). Predicting stress and mental wellbeing among doctoral researchers. Journal of Mental Health, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2020. 1818196 Cai, L., Dangeni, D., Elliot, D. L., He, R., Liu, J., Makara, K. A., Pacheco, E.-M., Shih, H.-Y., Wang, W., & Zhang, J. (2019). A conceptual enquiry into communities of practice as praxis in international doctoral education. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 1(1), 11–36. Castle, P., & Buckler, S. (2021). Psychology for Teachers (3rd ed.). Sage. Colman, A. M. (2015). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford University Press. Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Van der Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O. (2017, January 1). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: a matter of sense, progress and distress. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0290-0 Elliot, D. L. (2022). A ‘doctoral compass’: strategic reflection, selfassessment and recalibration for navigating the ‘twin’ doctoral journey. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1652–1665. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/03075079.2021.1946033 Elliot, D. L., Baumfield, V., & Reid, K. (2016). Searching for ‘a third space’: a creative pathway towards international PhD students’ academic acculturation. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1180–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144575 Elliot, D. L., Bengtsen, S. S. E., Guccione, K., & Kobayashi, S. (2020). The Hidden Curriculum in Doctoral Education. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-41497-9 Elliot, D. L., & Kobayashi, S. (2019). How can PhD supervisors play a role in bridging academic cultures? Teaching in Higher Education, 24(8), 911–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1517305 Elliot, D. L., & Makara, K. A. (2021). An online community of international scholars: enabling spaces for reciprocal academic and psychological support. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(6), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1991424 Elliot, D. L., Reid, K., & Baumfield, V. (2016). Beyond the amusement, puzzlement and challenges: an enquiry into international students’ academic acculturation. Studies in Higher Education, 41(12), 2198– 2217. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1029903

50  An intersection of conceptual frameworks 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. Heng, T. T. (2018). Different is not deficient: contradicting stereotypes of Chinese international students in US higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2 016.1152466 Holmes, P., Costa, N., & Lopes, B. (2020). The role of supervision in doctoral education: a transversal perspective. In M. Byram & M. Stoicheva (Eds.), The Doctorate as Experience in Europe and Beyond (pp. 213–228). Routledge. Hradsky, D., Soyoof, A., Zeng, S., Foomani, E. M., Cong-Lem, N., Maestre, J.-L., & Pretorius, L. (2022). Pastoral care in doctoral education: a collaborative autoethnography of belonging and academic identity. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 17, 23. Janta, H., Lugosi, P., & Brown, L. (2014). Coping with loneliness: a netnographic study of doctoral students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098 77X.2012.726972 Keefer, J. M. (2015). Experiencing doctoral liminality as a conceptual threshold and how supervisors can use it. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14 703297.2014.981839 Kim, K. H., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2021). Enhancing the recruitment of postgraduate researchers from diverse countries: managing the application process. Higher Education, 82(5), 917–935. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-021-00681-z Laufer, M., & Gorup, M. (2019). The invisible others: stories of international doctoral student dropout. Higher Education, 78(1), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0337-z Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van Der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868–879. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j. respol.2017.02.008 Mantai, L. (2020). It takes a village to raise a PhD. https:// drhiddencurriculum.wordpress.com/2020/08/21/it-takes-a-villageto-raise-a-phd/comment-page-1/ McCray, J., & Joseph-Richard, P. (2020). Towards a model of resilience protection: factors influencing doctoral completion. Higher Education, 80(4), 679–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00507-4 McCulloch, A., Guerin, C., Jayatilaka, A., Calder, P. R., & Ranasinghe, D. C. (2017). Choosing to study for a PhD: a framework for examining

An intersection of conceptual frameworks  51 decisions to become a research student. Higher Education Review, 49, 85–106. Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12144-022-02738-3 Pacheco, E.-M. (2020). Culture learning theory and globalization: reconceptualizing culture shock for modern cross-cultural sojourners. New Ideas in Psychology, 58, 100801. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.newideapsych.2020.100801 Pretorius, L., Macaulay, L., & Cahusac de Caux, B. (Eds.). (2019). Wellbeing in Doctoral Education: Insights and Guidance from the Student Experience. Springer. Rowe, N. (2021). The Realities of Completing a PhD. Routledge. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. The Guilford Press. Sakurai, Y., Pyhältö, K., & Lindblom‐Ylänne, S. (2012). Factors affecting international doctoral students’ academic engagement, satisfaction with their studies, and dropping out. International Journal for Researcher Development, 3(2), 99–117. Savva, M., & Nygaard, L. P. (Eds.). (2021). Becoming a Scholar. Cross-Cultural Reflections on Identity and Agency in an Education Doctorate. UCL Press. Schmidt, M., & Hansson, E. (2018). Doctoral students’ well-being: a literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 13(1), 1508171. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631. 2018.1508171 Shift Learning. (2020). What Researchers Think about the Culture They Work In. W. Trust. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Kadar, D. Z. (2021). Intercultural Politeness: Managing Relations across Cultures. Cambridge University Press. Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: a review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 27. The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers (2019). VITAE. Thomson, P. (2021, 5 May). Making your writing authoritative – a citation revision strategy. Patter. https://patthomson.net/2021/04/19/ making-your-writing-authoritative-a-citation-revision-strategy/ Tian, M., & Lowe, J. (2013). The role of feedback in cross-cultural learning: a case study of Chinese taught postgraduate students in a

52  An intersection of conceptual frameworks UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 580–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.670196 Triandis, H. C. (2000). Dialectics between cultural and cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(3), 11. https://doi. org/doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00063 Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard College. Watson, D., & Turnpenny, J. (2022). Interventions, practices and institutional arrangements for supporting PGR mental health and wellbeing: reviewing effectiveness and addressing barriers. Studies in Higher Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.20 20744 Williams, A., & Daborn, E. (2008, February 21–22). Making time and space for role adjustment: Supporting international students in transition. Paper presented at the Universitas 21 Teaching and Learning Conference, Glasgow. Winchester-Seeto, T., Homewood, J., Thogersen, J., Jacenyik-Trawoger, C., Manathunga, C., Reid, A., & Holbrook, A. (2014). Doctoral supervision in a cross-cultural context: issues affecting supervisors and candidates. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 610– 626. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841648 Witayarat, N. (2020). A segue in Thai cultural identity: impressions of international students’ doctoral experience in the UK and their re-adaptation to their home country. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University of Glasgow.

2 Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond: Scholars’ aspirations, the PhD genre and socialised learning experiences Even the best laid plans can go astray. To conceive a plan is, nevertheless, still superior.

A trip down memory lane In this section, I informally sought the perspectives of scholars from different geographical regions who completed their PhD abroad. These are scholars I was fortunate to know in a personal and professional capacity or encountered by chance at conferences or during visits to or talks at other universities. I asked them: ‘If there is anything that you would prefer to have learned at the beginning of your doctoral journey that would have assisted your journey, what would it have been?’ Table 2.1 represents their responses. This is in no way an exhaustive list, but it gives an insight into what matters to international scholars – in the areas of research, well-being and career. DOI: 10.4324/9781003271000-3

54  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond

What this selection of responses highlights is that while scholars who undertook a PhD abroad demonstrated keenness to manage the research domain effectively, Table 2.1  Insights into crucial areas at the start of the international scholars’ PhD journey Research work

Well-being

Future career

To ‘know the field’ Seeking well-being Sharing with my and master it takes advice and learning supervisors and time. This involves from the experience mentors my aspirations postlots of reading that of peers who PhD to seek is as vital as writing. started earlier or appropriate support post-docs Readiness through Learn early how to Complement PhD with internships, nurture physical, understanding mental health and teaching and/or research norms, organising well-being by culture and conferences to valuing self-care, expectations taking breaks and reinforce acquired – proficient practising work-life knowledge and academic writing skills balance Active involvement By being proactive in Clarity on the taking part and in selected approach to enriching the communities to working with reach out, engage culture of the supervisors, e.g. preparing meeting with peers and have research community, it informal chats for agendas, leading equally strengthens mutual learning, discussions, type social and practical my prospect for and extent of employability support support Integrating writing to Creating a system Recognising and managing Imposter build a publication for managing data – literature and Syndrome thought portfolio to give an patterns to prevent edge when going research data. for academic posts Setting monthly and descent to lowmood spirals yearly targets.

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  55

Research work

Well-being

Widening support Publishing is a credible means for network via interactions with PhD learning, family and friends, transitioning into academic practices locals and fellow international and forging scholars in home academic identity and host countries Drawing upon While my support network supervisors offer when managing guidance, I take competing the primary challenges in home responsibility for the success of my and host countries, e.g. family illness or PhD. issues

Future career Maintain and create new networks in search of career opportunities. Interact, form and develop effective networks early Reminding oneself of the end-goals, e.g. the career path that I would like to pursue post-PhD helps in keeping focused and motivated

they also stressed how nurturing well-being is as fundamental to realising a PhD. Career matters, seen as the next phase following the transient doctoral study, explain scholars’ inclination to plan post-PhD at the very outset of their doctoral studies. Earlier career focus is possibly prompted by observed competitiveness and higher expectations for post-PhD careers, with the ‘bar … likely to rise even higher in the researcher career trajectory’ (Mantai & Marrone, 2022, p. 9). When international PhD holders look back at their experience, many of them view doctoral endeavours to be fascinating, exciting, challenging and unique. Although the main expected tangible outcome is a PhD thesis, the experiences that unfold, particularly for the international cohort are frequently much broader and richer.1

56  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond

Let us consider Ikemba’s case, a single West-African PhD scholar who studied abroad to pursue a Master’s degree and a PhD in Biochemistry.

Ikemba Ikemba always aspired to be a scientist. A PhD in Biochemistry is a natural progression from his undergraduate and MSc degrees in the same area. His view was ‘studying overseas afforded … the opportunity to do actual research because back home … [they did] some research, but it’s not as rigorous and as high tech’. In his early weeks, exposure to ‘one of the first really complicated robotic machines … for protein purification’ was both a source of delight and apprehension ‘to the point of paranoia’ over potentially breaking the machine, especially since he never used the expensive AKTA apparatus before. Due to lack of ‘foundation’ and ‘the requisite background’, others previously commented that he ‘didn’t stand a chance’ to do a PhD. Additionally, i.e. coming from a society where they are ‘not used to asking people for help’, all this initially served as an obstruction for Ikemba. At the same time, his disposition and sense of determination enabled him to overcome these barriers. Ikemba held the view: You might not be very good at some things, but if you work really hard at it, you become good at it. That was the driving principle behind … you look at

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  57

people who have done it … then you think I don’t think they’re that much better than me intellectually, so I guess if I work hard, then I should be able to do this … it’s still the driving force for me…. While Ikemba conceded that other people’s initial ‘lack of faith’ was ‘clearly justified’, his resilience and perseverance led him to become an accomplished scientist, publishing in the globally acclaimed journal Nature early in his career.

Ikemba’s doctoral experience was a story of courage, perseverance and positivity. From the very beginning, he capitalised on his and others’ assessment of where his strengths and weaknesses lay and used them accordingly. His awareness that he did not have ‘a better foundation’ compared to other international students prompted him to address it and take the next steps to progress while building on his character strengths, which sustained him until successful completion. He demonstrated receptivity – learning, re-learning or unlearning new ideas, thoughts or behaviours, as needed (Elliot et al., 2016). His key contributions to the scientific community were evident in his research publications, but also, through modelling perseverance to other members of the doctoral community. Based on his experiential learning, Ikemba also raised the implications for staff, i.e. patience with international scholars’ considering their background, with a view to recognising and harnessing these scholars’ inherent strengths.

58  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond

PhD – A high bar set for learning A PhD is distinctively challenging for each scholar, which implies that no two sets of experience are the same. With the bar set much higher, it explains why concepts associated with PhD include ‘original’ thinking, knowledge creation, ‘significant contribution’ to knowledge or researcher ‘independence’ (Leshem & Trafford, 2007). It comes as no surprise that a PhD acts as an endorsement that its holders have learned and acquired the mechanics, i.e. knowledge, skills, and dispositions, for undertaking years of advanced scholarly research (Bryan & Guccione, 2018; Lovitts, 2007). Given the prominent and secondary challenges along the way, McAlpine and Amundsen (2016) emphasise the significance of intentional learning and strategising during the course of the PhD. Scholars are encouraged to use their ‘agency’ to progress and address challenging situations entrenched in a PhD – whether in relation to developing professional networks, paper publication or future career-seeking, as presented in Table 2.1. Combining ‘agency’ with ‘resilience’ or ‘the ability to rebalance, to recover and to rebound, and sometimes change course’ (p. 96) are vital principles and constructive efforts that frequently underpin successful completion. Many doctoral scholars may initially struggle to publish due to the rigour of the review process. Yet, the experience itself, which involves agency and resilience, is an invaluable source of learning and a platform for strengthening both academic writing proficiency and the capacity to publish. This process also entails learning how to develop a ‘tougher skin’, particularly in ‘the academic world [that is] one of judgment and rejection’ (McAlpine & Amundsen, 2016, p. 97). Experience of publishing can

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  59

directly support scholars’ personal growth and research development, as well as assist gradual transition into academic practices and development of academic identity, while their published outputs give an edge to those who aspire to work in academia (Mantai, 2017). A contributory factor to the inherent PhD challenges is that while it is analogous to a journey, doctoral scholars usually find themselves travelling without a map (Elliot, 2022). Unlike undergraduate or postgraduate Master’s, where clear boundaries between courses give a sense of structure, timeline and minor and major goal expectations, the PhD is a three-year-or-more endeavour that conventionally lacks structure (McCray & JosephRichard, 2020). What this means is that each PhD scholar needs to get comfortable with uncertainty. More importantly, they need to create their own structure taking into account what can work effectively for them e.g. managing a reading and writing routine and establishing a system for organising all PhD-related resources – a staple activity for all scholars. For international scholars, this may also mean conscious familiarisation with available resources, e.g. research studies in the host country, more so, if their research is within the context of the host culture. See Shimecas’s vignette in Chapter 3 for an example of international scholars planning proactively, informed by their needs and objectives.

Danger in seeing only the tip of the iceberg This leads to an important point, i.e. not fully understanding what a PhD might entail is likened to seeing only the tip

60  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond

of the iceberg. The lack of awareness of doctoral-related challenges can lead scholars to being caught unawares and/or responding to a situation poorly. On the contrary, greater awareness can help normalise such challenges, equip scholars to manage feelings of vulnerability or prevent a descent into a spiral of negative thoughts. In turn, it enables scholars to take control over a ‘manageable amount of stress’ and towards steady doctoral progression (Devos et al., 2017; McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020, p. 683). And so, scholars need to recognise the qualitatively different ‘intensive research practice’ associated with a PhD study, which requires combined reflective, strategic, analytical, metacognitive, critical and creative thinking on their part to assist productive and insightful doctoral thinking (Diyanni, 2016; Elliot, 2022; Lovitts, 2005; Moseley et al., 2005). A deeper understanding of what is expected in a PhD can then help avoid giving the false impression that a PhD is a mere continuation of the first and second cycles of learning, i.e. undergraduate and postgraduate (Master’s), respectively (Stoicheva & Tsvetkova, 2020).2 The intention is to discourage a misleading view or a watered-down perception of how challenging a PhD truly is, i.e. that all scholars need to do is merely to employ well-tested and effective learning strategies from their undergraduate and Master’s degree years. So, what are some of these challenges that typically form part of the PhD? And are these shared by all scholars – local and international alike? • Intellectual challenge. Whereas it is widely recognised that a PhD is an intellectual masterpiece that starts with identifying a ‘good’ problem and working towards

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  61

a resolution of this research problem, it would be simplistic to consider it simply as an academic exercise that entails a long checklist to fulfil in the next three to four years. Ongoing intellectual demands are inherent – from reviewing the literature to designing, implementing and analysing data at doctoral-level standards (McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020). At every stage, doctoral scholars are expected not just to consume knowledge but to create new knowledge, insights or understanding – altogether, a considerable intellectual challenge. • Personal challenge. A PhD is a highly individualised personal challenge, too. It takes into account a complex combination of scholars’ strengths, weaknesses, depth of subject knowledge and disciplinary understanding, research competence, linguistic proficiency, etc., as well as other personal factors, e.g. being an international student, doing the course part-time or having demanding family or caring responsibilities. Personal circumstances, e.g. family illness or relationship issues, can also exert great pressure on international scholars who are away from loved ones, at times exacerbating the situation. • Social challenge. A combination of the lack of structure and requisite long hours of highly individualised work can evolve into a sense of isolation3 that at times may even lead to stress, low levels of motivation or even attrition (Brydon & Fleming, 2011; McCray & JosephRichard, 2020; Sakurai et al., 2012). Such a challenge may be intensified for international scholars who are away from families and friends during mandatory social isolation (Elliot & Makara, 2021). • Learning adjustment challenge. As Lovitts (2005) explained, whereas many doctoral scholars are likely

62  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond

to have a reputation for being excellent course-takers during undergraduate and Master’s studies, it is worth stressing that, by and large, a PhD requires a new set of competences (Durette et al., 2016). This suggests that a crucial shift from an earlier learning mode to a doctoral learning mode is essential. The lack of structure in a PhD compels scholars to create individualised structures that can work for them, including time for reading and writing; setting targets for smaller and larger objectives; organising learning breaks; and participation in academic and leisure activities (Lovitts, 2007; Stoicheva & Tsvetkova, 2020). While almost 100% flexibility can be enticing, it also poses multiple challenges for scholars. For scholars who cross academic cultures, their previous learning orientations may influence their approach to these new tasks. As discussed in Chapter 1, the greater the ‘culture distance’, the greater it alleviates or intensifies the challenge these scholars may face for both intellectual and learning adjustment domains (Kim & Spencer-Oatey, 2021; Triandis, 2000; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2014). • Contextual challenge. The overall doctoral experience is often heavily informed by wider contextual factors (e.g. national, institutional) in which the PhD takes place, where different models have distinct pros and cons. For example, whereas mandatory taught courses, teaching experience and publishing experience are embedded in the doctoral process in the US or Scandinavia, this is not standard in the UK setting and is only observed in STEM and the hard sciences. In some models, doctoral scholars tend to benefit more from being part of a laboratory or a small research group community where they directly work

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  63

not only with supervisors but also with postdoctoral and other scholars. Consequently, they are given natural access to various opportunities, e.g. greater understanding of PhD, collaborative learning and publishing, as well as social and psychological support. On one hand, these doctoral-related challenges are sometimes viewed as positive challenges, even as intrinsic motivators (Skakni, 2018). On the other hand, some scholars may find these challenges to be more pronounced in the beginning. For others, such challenges can run through the entire course of their doctoral studies (Figure 2.1). If so, such persistent challenges accruing beyond a manageable level of stress and lasting for several years may potentially have debilitating effects on scholars’ well-being (McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020). Such challenges intersecting with scholars’ personal strengths somehow create a distinct doctoral experience, with its own rewards and difficulties – affecting scholars academically, emotionally, socially and psychologically. Arguably, the strong interconnection among any of these dimensions readily manifests if any of them suffers and affects the others (Elliot et al., 2020). Taken together, while each doctoral scholar’s ‘kaleidoscope of experience’ varies in form, extent, intensity and manifestation, being aware of the challenges that await them could be their ideal first step towards an intentional reflection of personal strengths, assessment of difficulties and planning ahead to make informed decisions on future actions. As we have seen in Ikemba’s vignette, scholars need to consider how well to respond to their respective circumstances.

64  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond

Figure 2.1  PhD as a kaleidoscope of experience.

Let’s pause and reflect – What are your priority areas for undertaking a PhD abroad? ♠♠ Compared to the insights from other international scholars in Table 2.1, what do you consider to be

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  65

your top priorities? Are there other points that are not listed in the table that personally matter to you? ♠♠ What are you willing to pursue and put in place to support or expedite your research work, wellbeing and future career? Learning through Ikemba’s experience ♠♠ Given what is within your control, what are the ways you can exhibit agency? Resilience? Courage? Perseverance? Positivity? ♠♠ How does your previous cultural-related learning serve as a strength? How does your previous cultural-related learning pose as disadvantage? How will this reflection direct your future actions? ♠♠ Likewise, in what areas can you acknowledge and accept the existence of systemic barriers or other concerns that are outside your locus of control, e.g. a toxic research environment? If so, what are the other options you can pursue to address your needs and meet your goals?

Learning the ropes Deconinck (2015) argues that venturing onto a PhD course requires an approach that is strategic, personalised and holistic while employing metacognition to see how the pieces of the doctoral puzzle fit together, so to speak. Metacognitive thinking – defined as the ‘regulation of cognitive functions, including planning, checking, or

66  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond

monitoring’ one’s comprehension of a subject (Colman, 2015, p. 456) serves as a key cognitive tool. Employing metacognition is arguably essential to all doctoral and postdoctoral scholars – local or international – whether they are ‘joining the dots’, conceiving a project research design, putting forward a new angle in an argument or conceptualising a framework, among others. While developing metacognitive competence is good, I agree with Kuhn (2021) who argued that adopting a disposition for metacognitive thinking is far superior. Let us look at some of these pieces of the doctoral puzzle more closely – • Threshold concepts. Kiley and Wisker have proposed the threshold concepts in doctoral education that each scholar needs to master in order to achieve not merely research that’s been completed successfully but also a transformative doctoral experience in which becoming an independent researcher plays a central role. These concepts vary and include, (a) the skilful use of argumentation; (b) capability for theorising a research framework; (c) knowledge creation; (d) sound analysis and insightful interpretation of research data; and (e) an in-depth and comprehensive appreciation of research paradigms. For a full discussion of each of these concepts, please see Kiley (2009, 2019); Kiley and Wisker (2009). • Transversal competences. Holmes et al. (2020) discuss the transversality – or the interconnected, overlapping, and interdependent characteristics of various competences typically expected in doctoral education. This range of competences include ‘self-discipline and

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  67

persistence, autonomy, social skills, creativity, flexibility, leadership and capacity for solving problems’ (p. 224). Such competences are articulated well by a doctoral scholar who argues: You need three Ps and three Ds and then one H, you know. What are those three Ps? Patience, perseverance, and persistence. Three Ds? Diligence, determination and discipline. And then H, health, both mentally and physically. You need to be strong. (Holmes et al., 2020, p. 224) To this, it is worth adding the value of acquiring advanced disciplinary understanding, research method competence, project and time management skills and a high level of creativity and reasoning (Elliot, 2022; Murtonen & Balloo, 2019). • Scholarly writing. Widely considered as a critical research skill, this explains the numerous resources, e.g. books, academic papers, blog posts and podcasts that specifically address doctoral writing challenges (Mewburn et al., 2019; Murray, 2011, 2015; Thomson & Kamler, 2016). While scholarly writing might be viewed as a separate entity from the research dimension, it is also argued to be a core competence and ‘research’ in itself that entails a lot more than just reporting the research findings (Chakraborty et al., 2021; Kara, 2015; Mitchell & Clark, 2021, p. 1). Dunleavy (2015) has distinctly used the term ‘authoring’ for doctoral-level writing to stress the expectation on scholar’s ownership and efficient communication of ideas and concepts. Likewise, Thomson (2021) clarifies

68  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond

the strong interconnection among ‘author’, ‘authority’ and ‘authoritative’, serving as the hallmark of scholarly writing. To do authoring at doctoral level is to become a qualified (and hopefully published) academic writer. It involves acquiring a complete set of ‘craft’ skills … authoring skills are a crucial element to completing a successful doctorate. They are fundamental in achieving a coherent, joined up arguments for your thesis. (Dunleavy, 2015, p. 2) You can see the words author and authority contained within authoritative – and this is no accident as the threesome have the same origins.4 An authority is a knowledgeable person or source whose word is trustworthy, reliable, dependable, valid, sound, well-founded. An author is the one who writes confidently about what they know. (Thomson, 2021) While Dunleavy (2015) raises the importance of acquiring writing skills, Thomson (2021) explains why doing so enables authors to offer readers a ‘steer’ – giving readers a sense of where authors are coming from and where they are going. After all, scholarly writing is the most accessible means for evaluating whether scholars have acquired and managed to employ the requisite threshold concepts, transversal competence or offered originality or substantive contribution to a discipline. A sound and eloquently written academic work can command

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  69

acceptance, even admiration from fellow scholars. By contrast, a poorly written thesis may fail to do justice to the amount of work and rigour that went into the actual research. These key doctoral concepts are vital to doctoral progression. One thing is almost certain - you will require considerable time, attention and effort to acquire an in-depth understanding that leads to greater efficiency. In approaching these concepts more strategically, you may consider that a good place to start is by adopting a disposition for metacognitive thinking – where another level of thinking on the interconnection of various elements gives you a fresh, clear or even ingenious insight. Many international scholars, particularly second- or foreign-language users, are understandably concerned about their scholarly writing, particularly their grammar and syntax. As you can see in this chapter, however, the use of language is only one aspect of thesis writing. A PhD requires demonstrable expertise in a number of components. As an international scholar, if you were to set aside time and effort to study these ‘puzzles’, e.g. academic writing, immediately after commencing your PhD (or even prior to, if time and resources allow), the efforts are likely to pay off. Apart from acquiring indispensable knowledge, skills and dispositions, they are bound to assist you in finishing your PhD on time, even expediting it and avoiding unnecessary delays. Equally importantly, doing so will stand you in good stead for the rest of your doctoral journey and beyond, particularly, if you are obliged or aspire to work in academia following your PhD abroad.

70  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond

Stepping up your game After knowing what is considered central to doctoral scholars’ learning, the next question worth asking is how do they learn. How are doctoral scholars being inducted into academic discourses? What enables effective scaffolding of knowledge learning and gradual development of transversal competences? Since a PhD is primarily research-based, a large segment of doctoral learning comes naturally through the socialisation experience (Gardner, 2008). Communities then become instrumental in offering academic, practical and various forms of support. Let us take a look at some examples of scholarly communities where socialisation is encouraged, promoted, and enacted (Cai et al., 2019; Devos et al., 2017). • Institutional communities. Such communities tend to happen naturally as doctoral scholars take part in courses, conferences and colloquia, seminars, workshops or other scholarly activities organised at the institutional level. • Departmental communities. Doctoral scholars join a community who possibly share an interest in related subject areas or people they collaborate with by virtue of being part of the same department. In turn, there is likely to be more affinity among members compared to institutional communities. Both institutional and departmental communities channel various types of support, beyond the ones they can get from their advisors/supervisors. Support comes in various forms, i.e. seminar and workshop participation, writing retreats or peer reviews. Invaluable

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  71

benefits can range from scholarly identity development, imposter syndrome reduction and fostering a sense of belonging through to contributing to their development as competent researchers (Cai et al., 2019). • Laboratory. This community is typically lead by an academic, possibly a supervisor or an experienced Principal Investigator. In this setting, doctoral scholars work directly not only with their supervisors but also with postdoctoral scholars and/or other scholars researching a related field. Close interactions between a small group of scholars tend to enrich reciprocal collective learning, combined with social and psychological support. • Disciplinary communities. Of all examples of the scholarly community, disciplinary communities attract members with a shared research passion (e.g. subject or methodological expertise) from other institutions. Increasingly, with the availability of advanced technology, conferences organised by this community seek and enable participation from scholars around the world. It is also worth stressing that there are other platforms, in which disciplinary communities do grow and thrive. Cai et al. (2019) exemplify that participation via social media (e.g. Twitter) may also characterise a disciplinary community so long as a regular interaction and commitment towards a mutual exchange of scholarly knowledge, ideas and information is promoted and maintained. • Student-advisor community. Last but not least, the supervisory team is regarded as a community, too (Devos et al., 2017). Please note that many doctoral scholars, particularly from the international group, may at times think that this is the only recognised and authoritative source of scholarly support during the PhD.

72  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond

For this reason, there tends to be a misperception that other communities are less important than the supervisory team. Such thinking leads to a conscious decision not to take part in other community activities, which in the long run is counterproductive for these scholars’ development. With doctoral learning primarily occurring via the socialisation process, each interaction is a source to help you acquire a broader, deeper and even diverse understanding. Likewise, discussion with other scholars can also challenge and sharpen your perspective. This can assist you in defending your stance, e.g. why ‘X’ is not merely justifiable but your rationale is also persuasive given the circumstances. Meetings, seminars, colloquia and conferences with other scholars generally enhance networking. More than that, they open up opportunities that lead to working collaborations, publications and even career opportunities. And so, whereas engagement in these communities may demand time and effort, the support they offer – often beyond the academic surface – can far outweigh any difficulties. Likewise, the importance of non-scholarly communities cannot be underestimated either as they serve their own purposes. As highlighted in the literature, non-­ scholarly communities often generously offer social ­support – a vital factor in successfully completing a PhD (Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Mantai, 2017). These communities are instrumental in creating positive, supportive environments and managing emotional well-being – a critical component of health (Bagnall, 2022). Recently, doctoral well-being became increasingly important due to the reported concerns over doctoral scholars’ well-being

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  73

and mental health challenges (Barry et al., 2018; Boynton, 2021; Levecque et al., 2017; Pretorius et al., 2019). • Cultural communities. This is for doctoral scholars, particularly the international group, who take comfort in organising activities with their co-nationals and others interested in their culture. It is viewed as a way of enjoying shared cultural practices and friendships while studying abroad. Doing so can positively impact their adjustment and well-being while learning together a new cultural understanding of the host country (Cai et al., 2019). • Communities of common interests and needs. Within the institution, there are typically societies, clubs, or communities that cater for the niche interests of their student groups. At the University of Glasgow, for example, additional communities are on offer, including Bake Off, a gardening community, craft sessions, among others (Elliot et al., 2020). • Communities outside academia. In another study, we referred to this as a ‘third space’ or informal space that engages learners and scaffolds their learning, enjoyment and development via friendship, social activities and wider support networks (Elliot et al., 2016; McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020). While pursuing enjoyable learning and development, this community is extended to those outside the institution. It is restricted neither to others from the same institution nor to those who share similar characteristics. In this connection, the insight shared by an international doctoral scholar in our university is worth contemplating – that despite the solitary component inherent in a PhD, it does not necessarily mean being alone for the entire process.

74  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond

Active engagement in a community is a powerful source of support and camaraderie. It encourages collaboration and fosters mutual learning. In turn, scholars feel supported and valued. Scholars then feel safe and secure. Does this not remind you of the responses to the question ‘What does good research culture look like?’ from the Wellcome Trust study in Chapter 1? What this strongly suggests is that by engaging in communities, you also play your part in enriching and enhancing the research culture – its reciprocal nature means that you support others as much as they support you. During this journey, as you ‘travel together’ with others, not only do you help maintain each other’s motivation, but you also sustain everyone’s well-being, particularly when going through the hazy and tricky doctoral periods. It needs to be stressed that you have a lot more to offer as an international scholar. Being part of a multicultural and diverse research workplace means that collectively, you exchange different and richer perspectives enabling opportunities for intercultural learning. For any scholar, being given access to the fascinating world of other scholars’ cultural artefacts, language and resources is a bonus! It could be about sharing culture via international dinner gatherings filled with conversations about homemade cuisine, distinct ways of preparing and serving tea and coffee or the materials used for traditional costumes. More formally, adding sociocultural knowledge in paper or poster presentations help in understanding new insights generated by their research. Taken together, you can aim for a balanced participation in both scholarly and non-scholarly communities as they complementarily give you holistic support – academic, social, emotional and psychological – and consequently, assist you in navigating a complex PhD journey.

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  75

Food for thought – Making an effort from the very beginning to learn the various dimensions of a PhD endeavour pays off. A few ways to start – • Familiarise yourself with the Code of Conduct for doctoral scholars • Engage in conversations with doctoral scholars, post-docs and academics • Take part in mentoring schemes in your department or institution • Explore and be involved in scholarly and social communities around you

Notes 1 As these concerns are core to advancing scholarly work, personal and professional development, these insights are likely to apply to other doctoral groups, e.g. local, part-time, distance learners and postdoctoral groups, too. 2 Undergraduate is referred to as the first main cycle while postgraduate (Master’s) is the second main cycle of higher education. Doctoral programmes, on the other hand, are referred to as the third main cycle of higher education based on the 1999 Bologna Process (Stoicheva & Tsvetkova, 2020). 3 See also various manifestations of isolation in Chapter 1. 4 https://www.etymonline.com/word/authority

References Bagnall, C. L. (2022). Mental health and emotional well-being. In J. Lord (Ed.), Psychology of Education: Theory, Research and EvidenceBased Practice (pp. 423–443). Sage.

76  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond Barry, K. M., Woods, M., Warnecke, E., Stirling, C., & Martin, A. (2018). Psychological health of doctoral candidates, study-related challenges and perceived performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(3), 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.20 18.1425979 Boynton, P. (2021). Being Well in Academia: Ways to Feel Stronger, Safer and More Conected. Routledge. Bryan, B., & Guccione, K. (2018). Was it worth it? A qualitative exploration into graduate perceptions of doctoral value. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(6), 1124–1140. https://doi.org/10.1080 /07294360.2018.1479378 Brydon, K., & Fleming, J. (2011). The journey around my PhD: pitfalls, insights and diamonds. Social Work Education, 30(8), 995–1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2010.527936 Cai, L., Dangeni, D., Elliot, D. L., He, R., Liu, J., Makara, K. A., Pacheco, E.-M., Shih, H.-Y., Wang, W., & Zhang, J. (2019). A conceptual enquiry into communities of practice as praxis in international doctoral education. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 1(1), 11–36. Chakraborty, D., Soyoof, A., Moharami, M., Utami, A. D., Zeng, S., CongLem, N., Hradsky, D., Maestre, J.-L., Foomani, E. M., & Pretorius, L. (2021). Feedback as a space for academic social practice in doctoral writing groups. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/20590776.2021.1972764 Colman, A. M. (2015). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford University Press. Deconinck, K. (2015). Trust me, I m a doctor: a PhD survival guide. The Journal of Economic Education, 46, 360–375. Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Van der Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O. (2017, January 1). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: a matter of sense, progress and distress. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0290-0 Diyanni, R. (2016). Critical and Creative Thinking: A Brief Guide for Teachers. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dunleavy, P. (2015). Authoring a PhD: How to Plan, Draft, Write& Finish a Doctoral Thesis or Dissertation. Red Globe Press. Durette, B., Fournier, M., & Lafon, M. (2016). The core competencies of PhDs. Studies in Higher Education, 41(8), 1355–1370. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03075079.2014.968540 Elliot, D. L. (2022). A ‘doctoral compass’: strategic reflection, selfassessment and recalibration for navigating the ‘twin’ doctoral journey. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1652–1665. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/03075079.2021.1946033

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  77 Elliot, D. L., Baumfield, V., & Reid, K. (2016). Searching for ‘a third space’: a creative pathway towards international PhD students’ academic acculturation. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1180–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144575 Elliot, D. L., Bengtsen, S. S. E., Guccione, K., & Kobayashi, S. (2020). The Hidden Curriculum in Doctoral Education. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-41497-9 Elliot, D. L., & Makara, K. A. (2021). An online community of international scholars: enabling spaces for reciprocal academic and psychological support. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(6), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2 021.1991424 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. Holmes, P., Costa, N., & Lopes, B. (2020). The role of supervision in doctoral education: a transversal perspective. In M. Byram & M. Stoicheva (Eds.), The Doctorate as Experience in Europe and Beyond (pp. 213–228). Routledge. Jairam, D., & Kahl, D. H. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: the role of social support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 311–329. Kara, H. (2015). Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A practical guide. Policy Press. Kiley, M. (2009). Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14703290903069001 Kiley, M. (2019). Threshold concepts of research in teaching scientific thinking. In M. Murtonen & K. Balloo (Eds.), Redefining Scientific Thinking for Higher Education: Higher-Order Thinking, EvidenceBased Reasoning and Research Skills (pp. 139–155). Palgrave Macmillan. Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07294360903067930 Kim, K. H., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2021). Enhancing the recruitment of postgraduate researchers from diverse countries: managing the application process. Higher Education, 82(5), 917–935. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-021-00681-z Kuhn, D. (2021). Metacognition matters in many ways. Educational Psychologist, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1988603

78  Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond Leshem, S., & Trafford, V. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290601081407 Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van Der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868–879. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j. respol.2017.02.008 Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course‐taker is not enough: a theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03075070500043093 Lovitts, B. E. (2007). Making the Implicit Explicit: Creating Performance Expectations for the Dissertation. Stylus Publishing, LLC. Mantai, L. (2017). Feeling like a researcher: experiences of early doctoral students in Australia. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 636–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1067603 Mantai, L., & Marrone, M. (2022). Identifying skills, qualifications, and attributes expected to do a PhD. Studies in Higher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2061444 McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2016). Post-PhD Career Trajectories: Intentions, Decision-Making and Life Aspirations. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57660-6 McCray, J., & Joseph-Richard, P. (2020). Towards a model of resilience protection: factors influencing doctoral completion. Higher Education, 80(4), 679–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00507-4 Mewburn, I., Firth, K., & Lehmann, S. (2019). How to Fix Your Academic Writing Trouble: A Practical Guide. Open University Press. Mitchell, K. M., & Clark, A. M. (2021). Enhance your qualitative analysis with writing: four principles of writing as inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 16094069211057997. https://doi. org/10.1177/16094069211057997 Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J., & Newton, D. P. (2005). Frameworks for Thinking: A Handbook for Teaching and Learning. Cambridge University Press. Murray, R. (2011). How to Write a Thesis (3rd ed.). Open University Press. Murray, R. (2015). Writing in Social Spaces: A Social Processes Approach to Academic Writing. Routledge. Murtonen, M., & Balloo, K. (2019). Redefining Scientific Thinking for Higher Education: Higher-Order Thinking, Evidence-Based Reasoning and Research Skills. Palgrave Macmillan. Pretorius, L., Macaulay, L., & Cahusac de Caux, B. (Eds.). (2019). Wellbeing in Doctoral Education: Insights and Guidance from the Student Experience. Springer.

Expecting the unexpected in a PhD and beyond  79 Sakurai, Y., Pyhältö, K., & Lindblom‐Ylänne, S. (2012). Factors affecting international doctoral students’ academic engagement, satisfaction with their studies, and dropping out. International Journal for Researcher Development, 3(2), 99–117. Skakni, I. (2018). Reasons, motives and motivations for completing a PhD: a typology of doctoral studies as a quest. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9(2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SGPE-D-18-00004 Stoicheva, M., & Tsvetkova, N. (2020). Doctoral studies, research excellence and European identity. In M. Byram & M. Stoicheva (Eds.), The Doctorate as Experience in Europe and Beyond (pp. 253–281). Routledge. Thomson, P. (2021, May 5). Making your writing authoritative – a citation revision strategy. Patter. https://patthomson.net/2021/04/19/ making-your-writing-authoritative-a-citation-revision-strategy/ Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2016). Detox Your Writing: Strategies for Doctoral Researchers. Routledge. Triandis, H. C. (2000). Dialectics between cultural and cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(3), 11. https://doi. org/doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00063 Winchester-Seeto, T., Homewood, J., Thogersen, J., Jacenyik-Trawoger, C., Manathunga, C., Reid, A., & Holbrook, A. (2014). Doctoral supervision in a cross-cultural context: issues affecting supervisors and candidates. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 610–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841648

3 In the midst of two or more academic cultures It is often the case that exposure to other cultures leads to learning. What is more, it naturally brings forth reflection and a deeper understanding of one’s own.

All at sea Crossing cultures is fascinating. It is a great source of the distinct and rich learning experiences at personal, academic and societal levels – frequently creating a deep impression on learners. To illustrate, Savva and Nygaard (2021, p. 13) describe international scholars’ daily ‘encounters with the unwritten rules and informal customs of [their] new home’ from day one. This may include different queues at the airport, dressing for work and social gatherings, voting rights, or even approaching strangers to ask questions. Even the most common greeting gestures or saying ‘thank you’ may vary. All this can easily stimulate ‘the feeling of foreignness’ while retaining their identity or a sense of who they are. Interestingly, the extent of the importance attributed to culture may depend on one’s perspective. On the DOI: 10.4324/9781003271000-4

In the midst of two or more academic cultures  81

one hand, cultural psychology takes the view that culture and the human psyche are closely intertwined, and that culture is a key influencing factor in the development of self, identity and personality (see Kitayama & Park, 2010; Triandis & Suh, 2002). It recognises that a person’s knowledge and abilities are shaped by cultural tools (e.g. songs, rhymes and mnemonics, abacus) and profoundly influences their learning (Domahs et al., 2010; Triandis, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). On the other hand, there are others who hold on to the discourse that individual and personality differences are more important than cultural influences. They argue that there are numerous factors to be considered, e.g. cultural identity not being static, or that multicultural environments are fast becoming the norm rather than the exception nowadays. Additionally, evolving generational differences suggest that even people from the same cultural background exhibit differing behaviours1 – challenging the culture-inclusive models of personality (Cheung et al., 2011; Choy et al., 2017; Manathunga, 2014). Other critiques concerning research in culture and society conducted in the Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) societies raise the question about the generalisability of these studies and their applicability in non-western contexts. While there is a need to recognise these challenges and their effects on understanding cultural differences, ongoing reflection can expand our existing knowledge base and be open to new avenues for research and debate. In 2001, Becher and Trowler (2001) updated ‘Academic tribes and territories’ – a classic text first published in 1989. Although the book largely highlights the differing institutional academic cultures and nature of disciplines,

82  In the midst of two or more academic cultures

many principles can be applied to the discussion of academic cultures within international studies. In this book, academic cultures refer to the spectrum of influences from learning orientations, norms and practices, curricular activities and broader educational contexts that contribute to learning. Whereas features of academic cultures can be observed in day-to-day learning activities at the micro-level, such activities are also influenced by institutional mission and values, practices and environments at the meso-level. Furthermore, these activities tend to be governed by the regional or national curriculum and policies or cultural influences at the macro-level, too. In the same way that culture can influence individual identities and personality traits but not predict or determine behaviour (Spencer-Oatey & Kadar, 2021), one may observe how academic cultures often influence international scholars’ educational views and practices. This may lead these scholars to adopt certain views, e.g. ideal learner characteristics, excellent teaching, meaningful assessment outcomes or other relevant perceptions of desired learning behaviours. For example, scholars who generally viewed ‘winning’ as a key learning goal and where competitiveness is highly valued and promoted by family, teachers, schools and educational systems may be more inclined to view ‘competitiveness’ as desirable. This explains why these learners may prefer feedback of a ‘summative’ nature, i.e. constantly evaluating their performance. Previously, such expectations were possibly channelled via assessment practices – from classroom activities in the school system, which in turn were reinforced by highly competitive university entrance examinations. Yet, there remains a lack of attention to how cultural

In the midst of two or more academic cultures  83

influences affect feedback communication in different settings (Tian & Lowe, 2013). Is there a need to pay attention to academic cultures – you may ask (Figure 3.1). Why does this matter? In the last two centuries, rapid and ongoing internationalisation and globalisation led to fundamental consequences for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) – including globalised landscapes and global flows of information,

Figure 3.1  Internationalisation and globalisation trend.

84  In the midst of two or more academic cultures

perceived greater influences (or soft power) of the host countries, the massification of international learners and international competition among HEIs (Schweisfurth & Gu, 2009). Such a trajectory, particularly in doctoral education is a global trend that is expected to continue (Amery et al., 2020). Both positive attributes and identified dangers of internationalised HEIs are well-documented (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Marambe et al., 2012). While moving from one academic culture to another can enrich learning, it may also lead to tricky pedagogical or curricular adaptations (Lee & Elliot, 2020). And so, supporting international learners’ transition from playing ‘cricket’ to ‘football’ (see Chapter 1), demands intentional learning, time and effort from learners themselves and those who assist them in this crucial shift (Elliot, Baumfield, et al., 2016; Heng, 2018). One may say that a potential academic culture divide exists even with institutions in the same country, e.g. between an ‘Ivy League’ private university and a less prestigious university, a post-1992 university and a Russell Group university. Within each institution exist other layers of this divide, including different publication practices between sciences and engineering and humanities and social sciences. To extend this argument, there tend to be greater differences when scholars cross academic cultures either through scholarly work or doing a PhD abroad. As doctoral or post-doctoral scholars pursue a scholarship in another country, this means joining another institution with its own values, environments, and policies – in other words, its own academic culture. Given the potentially many layers of influencing factors from both learners’ previous and current academic cultures, I agree that

In the midst of two or more academic cultures  85

Holliday’s (1999) notion of ‘small cultures’ (or cohesive behaviour in small groups rather than among ethnic or national groups), is useful when discussing intercultural interactions. Consideration of layered influences is important in preventing cultural stereotyping where perceived key traits from specific social groups become the primary focus (Jones, 2022; Tian & Lowe, 2013). Although it may be possible that two academic cultures are perfectly aligned, there is a high likelihood that they are not. If so, the required adaptations may depend upon the ‘distance’ between the academic cultures valued and practised previously and in the new context. In the case of scholars who have developed a very competitive streak from a previous academic culture, they may initially find it challenging to participate in activities where collaboration and interdependence are preferred. Even formative feedback received in the new learning culture might be construed as an evaluation of their performance, especially if the feedback received in their home country was all summative. Taken together, international scholars may, at times, find themselves in between two (or more) academic cultures that clash and stir ‘cognitive dissonance’ (or inconsistent knowledge or beliefs that creates cognitive tension) (Colman, 2015, p. 142) – leading to cultural dissonance. All these serve to reinforce the rationale for a better understanding of the benefits, impact and repercussions of crossing academic cultures – from the perspective of both international scholars and other key stakeholders. Doing so is critical in resolving any further challenges inadvertently created by this ‘clash’: …[doctoral] students face challenges in integrating into their host institution’s academic

86  In the midst of two or more academic cultures

environments due to language barriers and their own lack of understanding of the new culture, as well as their professors’ and supervisors’ lack of intercultural understanding and cross-cultural communication competence. (Amery et al., 2020, p. 128)

At the crossroads The notion of crossing cultures is closely linked to academic acculturation – an attempt to manage and reconcile differing academic traditions and learning experiences (Figure 3.2). Managing acculturation is not always about challenges though. As demonstrated by our own research, academic acculturation characterises a combination of positive and amusing, highly instructive and puzzling or complex experiences – with either serious or less consequential acculturative experience (Elliot, Reid, et al., 2016; Nygaard & Savva, 2021). A few factors may contribute to the quality of learners’ experience – both processes and outcomes. These may include scholars’ depth of understanding of academic cultural differences, disposition towards personal development, receptivity to learn, unlearn or re-learn ideas and behaviours, reflection on one’s role as a mediator of academic, personal and cultural identities and efforts made for intentionally integrating international and intercultural dimensions into institutions’ teaching and learning processes and support services (Elliot, Baumfield, et al., 2016; Mittelmeier et al., 2020; Soong et al., 2015). Scholarship abroad could lead to intercultural issues, not because of any learner-related characteristics or deficits but simply due to different curricular or pedagogical

In the midst of two or more academic cultures  87

Figure 3.2  Crossing cultures. orientations compared to what is practised in their new context of study or work (Heng, 2018; Kim & SpencerOatey, 2021; Tian & Lowe, 2013). Examples in doctoral contexts include differing pedagogical emphases, e.g. a stronger authorial voice in academic writing or ethical expectations and practices in the new setting (Dunleavy, 2015; Savva & Nygaard, 2021; Thomson, 2021). Nevertheless, educational sojourns can also make international scholars ‘feel at home’ in the host country.

88  In the midst of two or more academic cultures

This seems to happen when the ideals scholars personally value are aligned with the ideals in the host country or the journey itself has brought something meaningful beyond their initial intention – as demonstrated in these two cases – …I feel much more at home here than I did in [my home country] … I feel very lucky and very privileged that I have had the opportunity to get to know a country whose values match my values…. in academic writing [back home] people tend to be very wordy and very pompous and [here], it’s the opposite, you have to be very concise. … I personally prefer the … style [here], but I’m not judging that one is better than the other, [it is] just preference. (Esmeralda, Single, Western Europe, PhD in Music) I think it’s at about the same time when I was travelling back to my parents’ house back home and then when I was travelling back to [city’s name]. That’s at about that time when we kind of settled, started to see each other and settled together that I started to call [city’s name] – ‘I’m back home now.’ Yes, it is significant because … you don’t feel at home in a foreign country until you do something that means something to you. (Hugo, In a relationship, Western Europe, PhD in Oncology) Evidence from doctoral and international education literature supports a range of benefits arising from the positive experiences of academic acculturation. Favourable

In the midst of two or more academic cultures  89

settings tend to encourage such outcomes, e.g. when PhD supervisory relationships are underpinned by mutual trust, respect and a pedagogy of kindness (Amery et al., 2020; Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019). Becoming part of a diverse community from which regular interactions and exposure to varied perspectives flow leads to feeling ‘comfortable with differentness’, inspiring meaningful intercultural conversations and developing friendships from other cultures (Cai et al., 2019; Fantini, 2020, p. 60; Leask & Carroll, 2011). Going deeper, what else can academic acculturation offer? • Intercultural competence is referred to as the ‘effective management of an interaction between people from different nationalities, ethnicities, or religious backgrounds’ (Deardorff, 2011, as cited in Pretorius et al., 2019, p. 222). Immersion in cross-cultural experiences is arguably a prerequisite in developing a strong sense of and proficiency in ‘intercultural competence’. With the increasing trend toward internationalisation, developing intercultural competence has become even more important in the doctoral context, as it is regarded as crucial for promoting intercultural knowledge through supervision (Manathunga, 2014; Pretorius et al., 2019; Soong et al., 2015). The intercultural nature of the supervision process has great potential to develop PhD supervisor-supervisee relationships. This relationship, if healthy, can be extended to cultivating individual and collective well-being (Amery et al., 2020; Blackmore et al., 2020). • A global outlook. Jones (2022) asserts that internationalisation offers a platform for promoting an interconnected world that furnishes graduates with

90  In the midst of two or more academic cultures

•

•

•

•

international and intercultural perspectives – fostering their development as global citizens. Openness to opposing perspectives. Exposure to a diversity of cultures and nationalities, especially when radically different from their own can improve learners’ understanding, consider issues from other perspectives, and in turn, reduce bias (Hradsky et al., 2022). Improved tacit understanding. Supervisory meetings are regarded as channels of scholarly and non-­ scholarly knowledge, including the unwritten rules of informal interactions in the doctoral context (Elliot et al., 2020; Eraut, 2000). See also the hidden curriculum in Chapters 1 and 7. Bridging academic cultures. Intercultural exchanges between scholars and supervisors on both scholarly and non-scholarly matters are instrumental for greater cultural understanding, including learning alternative explanations for ideas or behaviours. Any confusion or misunderstanding, e.g. the role of silence or hesitancy to disagree when there are differences of opinion can then lead to adapting and practising more effective pedagogies (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019; Heng, 2018). Serving as knowledge brokers. As international scholars become highly proactive and take greater control, this can inspire a shift from merely recognising to realising their potential as ‘emerging diasporic academics’ who can serve as intercultural mediators and promoters of intercultural knowledge. Harnessing their capacities can potentially lead to a transformative experience where they become active contributors to knowledge. This can lead to serving as ‘transnational knowledge brokers’ or ‘co-creators of new forms of knowledge’ (Lee & Elliot, 2020, p. 255; Soong et al., 2015).

In the midst of two or more academic cultures  91

All these possibilities simply point to how invaluable intercultural exchanges can be. Not only are these indispensable elements in international scholars’ journeys, but they can make a difference in the entire acculturation experience. The impact may be specific to enhancing the quality of their PhD research, and potentially more so, on the transformative outcomes arising from this experience, e.g. the development of new competences, skills and dispositions. Since the nature of international postdoctoral scholarship tends to be similar to the doctoral journey, it is perhaps fair to suggest that the pursuit of enjoyable, meaningful and satisfying intercultural exchanges and relationships is crucial to both journeys. In both cases, genuine attempts to generate a full spectrum of emotions through intercultural exchanges are likely to produce more emotions at the positive end of the continuum.

Let’s pause and reflect – Your personal introspection about your experience of crossing academic cultures ♠♠ What would you regard as ‘cultural layers’ that have significantly affected your personal development? Think of examples of your family values, ideals practised in the schools where you studied and values upheld highly in the society where you are from. ♠♠ Describe your personal experience of crossing cultures. You may include other brief spells of

92  In the midst of two or more academic cultures

studying and/or living in other countries prior to your doctoral or postdoctoral journey. ♠♠ Did any of the following reasons push you into making the most of your experience of crossing academic cultures? ○○ Your personal understanding of how to manage the two academic cultures, i.e. the one you are familiar with and the one you are expected to comply with. ○○ Your keenness to pursue personal development. ○○ Your openness to learn, unlearn or re-learn essential ideas and behaviours to help you thrive in a new environment. ○○ Your reflection on your inherent role as an intercultural mediator of academic cultures and identities or in promoting intercultural knowledge. ♠♠ How can you enrich possibilities for intercultural exchanges with your supervisor and other people around you? How can you build on intercultural exchanges to deepen and advance your own understanding, personal outlook and knowledge? ♠♠ Who are your allies in pursuing a thriving intercultural experience? How can you make your experience (e.g. supervisory sessions) mutually beneficial? ♠♠ How can you encourage international scholars, fellow scholars, supervisors and other staff members to practise meaningful intercultural exchanges?

In the midst of two or more academic cultures  93

Raising the playing field Let us now take a look at Shimeca’s vignette on her experience of academic acculturation, the challenges she encountered and the lessons learned along the way. Coming from Eastern Europe, Shimeca pursued a doctorate in Urban Planning. It is apparent how Shimeca drew upon her personal background and experience when advising international scholars who may find themselves in a similar situation.

Shimeca Shimeca’s first taste of international education was as an Erasmus student in a European Master’s programme. Her desire to study abroad was prompted by a view that the quality of education suffered as a result of the political orientation adopted by her country. Back home, ‘you have to learn by heart everything’. Students get ‘high grades if [they] regurgitate … what they [were] taught’. By contrast, her learning experience in the host country meant ‘they advise you what books to read … [they] guide you instead of telling you’. From her observation, German, Italian and French are more formal than the ‘more relaxed’ Anglo-Saxon countries, e.g. the US and the UK. The university she attended back home was ‘one of the best’ and ‘multicultural’ with ‘nice academics’, yet, ‘generally, the system is much more hierarchical’. For example, academics are addressed as ‘Mr Professor’ compared to the ‘more friendly’ first-name calling in the

94  In the midst of two or more academic cultures

host country. Shimeca shared: ‘in those days … I had to wait three hours … for some professor to see me’, and that was considered acceptable. Working in restaurants and hotels and meeting ‘all kinds of people’ while doing a PhD abroad brought all sorts of benefits – financial, learning the local people’s accent and quick familiarisation with the system. She was also exposed to the ‘binge drinking culture’ around her and her dislike for it never changed over the years. Her supervisor had ‘a huge influence’ on Shimeca but he became seriously ill and died before Shimeca completed her PhD. She fondly valued ‘a lot of informal meetings’ organised by her supervisor on Friday afternoons to bring everyone together. Such meetings led to great conversations about research and life in general, e.g. discussing recently published papers with no designated speaker – ‘that’s how you connect with your PhD students and fellow academics, otherwise … we all sit at our desks. It is quite lonely … in academia’. Reflecting on her experience of crossing cultures, Shimeca said: We [people from my country and some neighbouring countries] have a bit of an inferiority complex. I don’t know why. … You can write a whole book on the psychology of these people … they always see the west as a great place…. When I came here, it was very difficult … the difference was so big, the learning systems [here means that] I wasn’t given books to

In the midst of two or more academic cultures  95

memorise. … I had to spend many, many, many days in the library to [overcompensate by] reading introductions. This is to be on par with other students. My advice to other international doctoral scholars: Do not ‘feel inferior’. ‘Go to the library and read’. They need to ‘get over this feeling’.

Reflecting upon Shimeca’s vignette, a number of themes are worth stressing. • Socialised learning versus intercultural interaction. As elaborated in Chapter 2, a lack of doctoral structure reinforces the necessity of the socialised learning experience via various scholarly communities, e.g. institutional, departmental, laboratory, disciplinary and student-advisor community. Other non-scholarly communities, which tend to be particularly beneficial to the international group, include cultural communities, communities of common interests and needs and communities outside academia. As the term suggests, these communities cater to either scholarly or non-scholarly needs of scholars, yet they are not necessarily exclusive. For example, while informal ‘laboratory’ discussions organised by Shimeca’s supervisor aimed to keep them abreast of the most recent publications in their area and duly deepen their understanding of the subject, their conversations often went beyond what was intended. With conversations not only about research but about life in general, this became not just a space

96  In the midst of two or more academic cultures

for socialisation and research support but also about the camaraderie that creates a sense of belonging. As Shimeca stressed, it is a way of connecting all scholars – doctoral, postdoctoral and academics as well as addressing the loneliness that is prevalent in a PhD (Janta et al., 2014; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2014). In the case of doctoral and postdoctoral scholars in a ‘foreign’ environment, there is a strong connection between socialised learning and intercultural interactions. The principles and intentions of both overlap, with each offering and extending an opportunity for learning, emotional support and nurturing well-being. • Personal assessment of academic cultures. Shimeca’s openness to her experience served as a starting point for learning. While she recognised the strengths and good qualities of her university back home, she also made an honest assessment where it was seemingly mediocre. Her reflection led to disclosing her own ‘inferiority complex’ and something she observed in her fellow countrymen and women. In Shimeca’s case, her reflection on the tacit influences of her previous academic culture led to a better response to her new learning environment. Despite initially finding the vast ‘difference’ between her home and host country’s academic cultures daunting, Shimeca accepted the challenge and focused on how she could address what she perceived as a gap between the two academic cultures, i.e. by reading a number of introductory books to build her foundational knowledge. Proactively overcompensating, her goal was to be on par with other doctoral scholars, and in turn, address the feeling of inferiority that initially haunted her. Now an established academic in the host country, Shimeca’s advice is based on her own acculturation

In the midst of two or more academic cultures  97

experience. By focusing on her strengths, she did not allow her negative thoughts to breed a defeatist attitude – which is in accord with what Heng (2018, p. 22) strongly argued, i.e. being ‘different is not deficient’. • Receptivity versus conformity. At some point in her journey, Shimeca’s work in restaurants and hotels was useful on two accounts – what she earned contributed to her living expenses in the host country. Her intercultural interaction with ‘all kinds of people’ also led to lots of useful learning. Not only did it help her to become familiar with the local accent, it also assisted her in understanding how the system operates in the host country. Academic acculturation denotes openness, not necessarily acceptance or conformity. One thing that Shimeca disliked from the very beginning was the prevailing ‘extreme’ drinking culture, which bothered her a lot. This is an excellent point when considering what the new environment offers. Openness matters but international scholars need to use their judgement on what can assist them and facilitate their development. In this case, the ‘drinking culture’ runs counter to Shimeca’s values and preferred lifestyle and so she decided not to adopt this practice. Although in Shimeca’s case, it was her supervisor who led the informal group community, other doctoral and postdoctoral scholars – local or international – can do the organising themselves. While the arrangement was informal and speakers were not necessary, these Friday discussions were valued by the members of this small and select community. Drawing upon this specific example of a community, it is worth highlighting the value of international scholars

98  In the midst of two or more academic cultures

starting their own small community similar to Shimeca’s, even without any supervisors or other scholars leading the discussion. With the many advantages and mutual benefits that such small groups can offer – academically, emotionally and psychologically – it is arguably worth the effort (see Elliot & Makara, 2021; Jairam & Kahl, 2012). The same model can possibly be adopted by the international postdoctoral group. It has the potential to offer similar benefits as in the case of Sakurai et al. (2021).

Let’s pause and reflect – Learning through Shimeca’s experience ♠♠ In what way is Shimeca’s experience similar to or different from yours? ♠♠ How did you initially feel after coming to the host country as an international doctoral or postdoctoral scholar? What made you feel that way? ♠♠ What actions have you taken to date to help familiarise yourself with your new physical, societal and academic environment? ♠♠ What can you learn from Shimeca? What are the things you enjoy doing that can even enhance your strengths as an international scholar? ♠♠ What practical steps can you take to improve in any or all of these areas? ○○ Your global outlook ○○ Your openness to opposite perspectives ○○ An improved understanding of how things operate in your new environment ○○ Bridging academic cultures

In the midst of two or more academic cultures  99

Note 1 In Chapter 1, the discussion on the impact of technology on children’s development when compared to how it is used by the older population from the same group is relevant here.

References Amery, E., Koh, K., Diaz-Caceres, Z., & Paris, B. M. (2020). The role of intercultural competence on graduate supervisor-supervisee relationship and well-being. Journal of Educational Thought, 53(2), 125–154. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciples (2nd ed.). Open University Press. Blackmore, C., Ohlsen, S., Guccione, K., Elliot, D., & Daley, R. (2020). ‘Are you ok?’ Mental health and wellbeing of international doctoral students in the UK: an investigation of supervisors’ understanding and existing support provision. https://www.ukcisa.org.uk/Research-Policy/Resource-bank/resources/189/Are-you-ok-Mental-healthand-wellbeing-of-international-doctoral-students-in-the-UK Cai, L., Dangeni, Elliot, D. L., He, R., Liu, J., Makara, K. A., Pacheco, E.-M., Shih, H.-Y., Wang, W., & Zhang, J. (2019). A conceptual enquiry into communities of practice as praxis in international doctoral education. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 1(1), 11–36. Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66(7), 593–603. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022389 Choy, S., Singh, P., & Li, M. (2017). Trans-cultural, trans-language practices: potentialities for rethinking doctoral education pedagogies. Education Sciences, 7(1), 19. https://www.mdpi. com/2227-7102/7/1/19 Colman, A. M. (2015). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford University Press. Domahs, F., Moeller, K., Huber, S., Willmes, K., & Nuerk, H. C. (2010). Embodied numerosity: implicit hand-based representations influence symbolic number processing across cultures. Cognition, 116(2), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.007

100  In the midst of two or more academic cultures Dunleavy, P. (2015). Authoring a PhD: How to Plan, Draft, Write & Finish a Doctoral Thesis or Dissertation. Red Globe Press. Elliot, D. L., Baumfield, V., & Reid, K. (2016). Searching for ‘a third space’: a creative pathway towards international PhD students’ academic acculturation. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1180–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144575 Elliot, D. L., Bengtsen, S. S. E., Guccione, K., & Kobayashi, S. (2020). The Hidden Curriculum in Doctoral Education. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-41497-9 Elliot, D. L., & Kobayashi, S. (2019). How can PhD supervisors play a role in bridging academic cultures? Teaching in Higher Education, 24(8), 911–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1517305 Elliot, D. L., & Makara, K. A. (2021). An online community of international scholars: enabling spaces for reciprocal academic and psychological support. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(6), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1991424 Elliot, D. L., Reid, K., & Baumfield, V. (2016). Beyond the amusement, puzzlement and challenges: an enquiry into international students’ academic acculturation. Studies in Higher Education, 41(12), 2198– 2217. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1029903 Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136. Fantini, A. E. (2020). Reconceptualizing intercultural communicative competence: a multinational perspective. Research in Comparative and International Education, 15(1), 52–61. https://doi. org/10.1177/1745499920901948 Heng, T. T. (2018). Different is not deficient: contradicting stereotypes of Chinese international students in US higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2 016.1152466 Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237–264. Hradsky, D., Soyoof, A., Zeng, S., Foomani, E. M., Cong-Lem, N., Maestre, J.-L., & Pretorius, L. (2022). Pastoral care in doctoral education: a collaborative autoethnography of belonging and academic identity. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 17, 23. Jairam, D., & Kahl, D. H. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: the role of social support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 311–329. Janta, H., Lugosi, P., & Brown, L. (2014). Coping with loneliness: a netnographic study of doctoral students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098 77X.2012.726972

In the midst of two or more academic cultures  101 Jones, E. (2022). Problematizing the idea of curriculum ‘internationalization’. Journal of International Students, 12(1), i–v. https://doi. org/10.32674/jis.v12i1.4592 Kim, K. H., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2021). Enhancing the recruitment of postgraduate researchers from diverse countries: managing the application process. Higher Education, 82(5), 917–935. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-021-00681-z Kitayama, S., & Park, J. (2010). Cultural neuroscience of the self: understanding the social grounding of the brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2–3), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/ scan/nsq052 Leask, B., & Carroll, J. (2011). Moving beyond ‘wishing and hoping’: internationalisation and student experiences of inclusion and engagement. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(5), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.598454 Lee, S., & Elliot, D. L. (2020). Re-imagining international doctoral students as diasporic academics. In U. Gaulee, S. Sharma, & K. Bista (Eds.), Rethinking Education across Borders: Emerging Issues and Critical Insights on Globally Mobile Students (pp. 255–268). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2399-1 Manathunga, C. (2014). Intercultural Postgraduate Supervision: Reimagining Time, Place and Knowledge. Routledge. Marambe, K. N., Vermunt, J. D., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of student learning patterns in higher education. Higher Education, 64(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-011-9494-z Mittelmeier, J., Rienties, B., Gunter, A., & Raghuram, P. (2020). Conceptualizing internationalization at a distance: a “third category” of university internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(3), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1028315320906176 Nygaard, L. P., & Savva, M. (2021). Belonging and becoming in academia: a conceptual framework. In M. Savva & L. P. Nygaard (Eds.), Becoming a Scholar. Cross-Cultural Reflections on Identity and Agency in an Education Doctorate (pp. 10–26). UCL press. Pretorius, L., Macaulay, L., & Cahusac de Caux, B. (Eds.). (2019). Wellbeing in Doctoral Education: Insights and Guidance from the Student Experience. Springer. Sakurai, Y., Shimauchi, S., Shimmi, Y., Amaki, Y., Hanada, S., & Elliot, D. L. (2021). Competing meanings of international experiences for early-­ career researchers: a collaborative autoethnographic approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–15. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07294360.2021.2014410

102  In the midst of two or more academic cultures Savva, M., & Nygaard, L. P. (Eds.). (2021). Becoming a Scholar. Cross-Cultural Reflections on Identity and Agency in an Education Doctorate. UCL Press. Schweisfurth, M., & Gu, Q. (2009). Exploring the experiences of international students in UK higher education: possibilities and limits of interculturality in university life. Intercultural Education, 20(5), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980903371332 Soong, H., Thi Tran, L., & Hoa Hiep, P. (2015). Being and becoming an intercultural doctoral student: reflective autobiographical narratives. Reflective Practice, 16(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/146239 43.2015.1023276 Spencer-Oatey, H., & Kadar, D. Z. (2021). Intercultural Politeness: Managing Relations across Cultures. Cambridge University Press. Thomson, P. (2021, 5 May). Making your writing authoritative – a citation revision strategy. Patter. https://patthomson.net/2021/04/19/ making-your-writing-authoritative-a-citation-revision-strategy/ Tian, M., & Lowe, J. (2013). The role of feedback in cross-cultural learning: a case study of Chinese taught postgraduate students in a UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 580–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.670196 Triandis, H. C. (2000). Dialectics between cultural and cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(3), 11. https://doi. org/doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00063 Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard College. Winchester-Seeto, T., Homewood, J., Thogersen, J., Jacenyik-Trawoger, C., Manathunga, C., Reid, A., & Holbrook, A. (2014). Doctoral supervision in a cross-cultural context: issues affecting supervisors and candidates. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 610–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841648

4 Self-Determination Theory: An allencompassing theory While a doctoral study is by and large an intellectual endeavour, a meaningful and successful experience requires a lot more than intellectual capability. Could the combination of rewards, perplexity and multiplicity of challenges characterising a PhD – the highest academic qualification – inadvertently add to its desirability? Can this partially explain the observed rising number of those pursuing a PhD globally (Hutt, 2019)? The intellectual and psychological challenges associated with doctoral education raise the question – are there ways in which these challenges might be managed more effectively? Building on Chapter 1, let us further examine how Self-Determination Theory (SDT) may serve as a lens for a better understanding of factors that can enhance doctoral as well as postdoctoral journeys – ­possibly of relevance to local and international scholars alike. First, let us revisit examples of what some international scholars who went on to establish successful careers shared in terms of their doubts and fears. In other

DOI: 10.4324/9781003271000-5

104  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

words, what were their concerns during their doctoral journeys? …the PhD is a time of a lot of confusion. Everybody’s got personal lives, everybody’s got issues. Most people I talk to have not had an easy PhD. Maybe there’s some, but they’re lucky. (Shimeca, Single, Eastern Europe, PhD in Urban Planning) Although [my PhD] is finalised, finished, but during the time I was writing, it was a hard time…. experiments [did] not necessarily go well all the time … or hard to conduct. (Benjiro, Single, East Asia, PhD in Neuroscience) In the middle of the second year of my PhD I was feeling just really kind of enclosed in.…I had friends [in the department], but you just felt that that was the only thing I was doing at all times.…It was starting to feel really quite lonely…I was working in a library at night… so I never saw anyone and I only knew fellow students. (Madison, In a relationship, North America, PhD in Archaeology; see Elliot et al., 2016, p. 1186) Irrespective of the disciplines represented – hard sciences, social sciences or the geographical regions they were from, that is North America, East Asia or Eastern Europe – their concerns, e.g. confusion,

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  105

loneliness and failure, generally confront doctoral scholars. These passages equally illustrate that no one, even the successful ones, was exempt from doctoral-related challenges. In some cases, doctoral scholars also find themselves working with unsupportive supervisors or in a toxic environment – making the journey even more complex and difficult. Doing a PhD is a transformative experience, but the process is challenging, not merely on an intellectual level but also psychologically. To overcome these challenges, one needs a certain mindset and a bag of tricks. (Deconinck, 2015, p. 360) As conveyed in the above passages, a PhD is already intellectually challenging but what makes it uniquely tough is the distinct combination of issues that scholars encounter and deal with privately. While uncertainty in the doctoral process brings challenges, there is abundant experiential learning embedded throughout. The many questions the scholars face and the decisions that they make along the way do enrich their learning. Even multiple attempts at learning or learning the hard way, e.g. failed experiments, lack of insightful analysis or journal paper rejections can surprisingly lead to a much deeper understanding of the topic. The sense of isolation in this scholarly journey, highlighted by Madison, is prominent in the literature (Janta et al., 2014; Keefer, 2015; McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020) – perhaps more so, for many international scholars whose sources of support tend to be physically distant (Cai et al., 2019; Sawir et al., 2008; Wang, 2020; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2014).

106  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

Nevertheless, undeterred by these challenges, these international scholars did not just complete their PhDs successfully. Instead, they continued to pursue postdoctoral scholarships or academic posts abroad. Their inspiring stories encourage us to take a closer look at a valuable meta-theory, i.e. SDT, as it can shed light on understanding these journeys. Following a focus on socialised learning in Chapter 2 and academic acculturation in Chapter 3, this chapter aims to unpack and explore the connection between the three strands of SDT with specific reference to international scholars.

Armed to the teeth with SDT Autonomy …it’s quite difficult to separate the stages … from the stages in my own development as a researcher because part of my development as a researcher was to adapt to a new way of doing things, a new way with research. (Esmeralda, Single, Western Europe, PhD in Music) The passage above suggests how doctoral learning proceeds according to stages and that it typically involves simultaneous learning in different domains e.g. specific research areas, disciplinary knowledge, research methods, innovative research design or approach to ­analysis  – thus affirming the transversal nature of doctoral challenges (Holmes et al., 2020). This is because a PhD is much more than about conducting successful

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  107

research. It also concerns acquiring personalised socialised learning, achieving identity formation, personal growth and professional development while nurturing one’s well-­being – characterising a doctoral development phase (Åkerlind & McAlpine, 2017; Gardner, 2008; Lovitts, 2005; Overall et al., 2011). The two phases comprising successful research and doctoral development – referred to as the ‘twin’ doctoral journey (Elliot, 2022) – are arguably crucial for developing researcher independence – a concept that can be linked to SDT’s autonomy. Ryan and Deci (2017) view autonomy – one of the SDT strands – as the capacity for exercising one’s own initiative and self-regulation for directing actions and achieving goals. Within the doctoral setting, autonomy (or an individual’s sense of control of day-to-day doctoral activities) is something that is encouraged more compared to other learning contexts (McCulloch et al., 2017). This perhaps explains why doctoral scholars’ autonomous learning and supervisors encouraging them to think and act autonomously are deemed synonymous with the pursuit of researcher independence – a commonly expected outcome of the PhD process (Overall et al., 2011) (Figure 4.1). Yet, it is worth stressing that although autonomy and independence are crucial concepts in the doctoral experience, I argue that progression to researcher independence begins with researcher interdependence. Interdependence features reciprocally benefit socialised learning aimed at advancing disciplinary and non-­disciplinary knowledge or research and non-research skills. This suggests that during PhD, scholars need to harness support from various sources – supervisors, peers within and outwith the academia and family members, inter alia. Scholars’ autonomy and sense of agency serve as a catalyst for actively pursuing researcher interdependence

108  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

Figure 4.1  Valuing interdependence.

(McAlpine & Amundsen, 2016). Promoting researcher interdependence can, therefore, support overall doctoral management and help scholars become better equipped in responding to challenges en route to becoming independent and capable researchers (Wisker et al., 2003).

Competence Continuing with the main objective of becoming independent researchers, competence or mastery development is

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  109

another SDT strand that plays a crucial role in the doctoral process. Upon examining further the concept of competence development as a prerequisite for meeting the doctoral standards, doctoral threshold concepts seem to be a good place to start. The proposed threshold concepts that doctoral scholars are expected to cross, learn and master in order to progress include skilful use of argumentation, knowledge creation, theorising a research framework, insightful analysis and interpretation of data and an in-depth comprehension of research paradigms (Kiley, 2009; Kiley  & Wisker, 2009). Additionally, scholars are expected to be equipped with advanced disciplinary understanding, sound knowledge of research methods, project and time management as well as persuasive scholarly writing (Kara, 2015; Mewburn et al., 2019; Mowbray & Halse, 2010; Thomson & Kamler, 2010). In light of the concepts, skills, values and dispositions that doctoral scholars are expected to acquire and master, monitoring and assessing their own progression in these dimensions can only be beneficial. As with the ‘autonomy strand’, the intention is not merely to facilitate achieving a doctoral qualification but to undergo a transformation and contribute to one’s development as a competent, independent researcher. In this regard, understanding the stages of competence development in relation to the doctoral contexts is arguably worthy of attention (Elliot, 2022; Elliot et al., 2020). The psychological literature suggests four stages of competence development, namely, unconscious incompetence, conscious incompetence, conscious competence and unconscious competence (Castle & Buckler, 2021; Donati & Watts, 2005).

110  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

Stages of competence development. As explained elsewhere, the stages in Table 4.1, do not fault any scholar for being ‘incompetent’ or suggest a deficit model for the doctoral journey. It rather aims to depict the evolving learning stages in which scholars gradually progress. For a comprehensive discussion of these competence stages, see Elliot et al. (2020, pp. 5–6). In this connection, Albertyn and Bennett (2021) offered a positive perspective on the embedded role of ‘uncertainty’ in the doctoral process. …the research process generates uncertainty and should, in fact, do so. … uncertainty is actually the best friend of a researcher… and brings the individual back to basics and gives them a humble open mind from which to discover and create new knowledge. (Albertyn & Bennett, 2021, p. 668) Similarly, recognising that one’s competency is within the ‘unconscious competence’ stage is not associated with scholars’ capacity to acquire it. Instead, it is merely an indication of the distance required in developing and mastering this competency. Being aware of where they are is useful in guiding them as they move to another competence stage. If we were to take the central role of argumentation in scholarly writing as an example, a number of doctoral scholars may start from not being aware that this is a vital part of scholarly writing conventions (i.e. unconscious incompetence). This then leads to appreciating the crucial role of arguments – gradually moving from an inability to create arguments (i.e. conscious incompetence) to structuring one’s writing capably and advancing

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  111

Table 4.1  Stages of competence development during the PhD journey Stages of competence development Description Unconscious competence

Conscious competence Conscious incompetence Unconscious incompetence

Advanced understanding and expertise gained in connection with knowledge or understanding of a concept, skill or disposition Competent knowledge and usage of a concept, skill or disposition Realisation of the importance of a concept, skill or disposition but still requires learning and mastery Lack of awareness of one’s knowledge or understanding of a concept, skill or disposition and deficiency in this area

sub-arguments that support the central argument (i.e. conscious competence). The final stage following extensive writing experience could lead to competence at an advanced level, with the required proficiency sufficient for teaching that particular skill (i.e. unconscious competence). After all, academic writing has its own genre, e.g. the role of argumentation, critical thinking, persuasion, authority, evidence base and cohesiveness, among others due to historical, cultural as well as practical reasons. As a result, academic writing is not something most people are explicitly taught or that is easy to decode – contributing to its complexity and high standards (Mewburn et al., 2019). It can become an even more complex process if learners are from learning orientations that view and practise writing differently (Figure 4.2).

112  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

Figure 4.2  Creating knowledge. Another example could be knowledge creation. It is not surprising for many doctoral scholars to be initially unaware that this is an important criterion in doctoral-level research (i.e. unconscious incompetence). After all, their previous learning experience at the undergraduate and Master’s levels tended to be geared towards consuming rather than producing knowledge (Lovitts, 2005). By taking advanced courses, in-depth reading and reflection,

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  113

scholarly discussions with supervisors and other scholars and publishing papers, their understanding of knowledge creation gradually progresses from having a somewhat abstract understanding of this term (i.e. conscious incompetence) to a well-articulated understanding of and adeptness in applying this concept (i.e. conscious competence). As time goes on and through richer experience, scholars continue to develop their expertise to the extent that they begin to help others in competently creating knowledge (i.e. unconscious competence). The same process can underpin doctoral scholars’ experiences with respect to various doctoral threshold concepts, disciplinary understanding and other aspects, in which a high level of competence is expected from them. There are a few other things worthy of consideration. First, in competence development, if scholars need to start from the unconscious competence level, exercising intellectual humility and receptivity are useful tools that can assist them as they progress from one stage to another (Albertyn & Bennett, 2021; Elliot, 2022). Second, it is also worth remembering that competences are often culturally constructed, which demands attention to the nature of the knowledge and skills that scholars need to acquire and develop (Navarro & Tudge, 2022). Third, an honest self-assessment of one’s knowledge and competences may prevent scholars from being drawn to either – – Imposter Syndrome (a misperception of oneself as not being intelligent or capable despite previous successes and achievements leading to fear of being exposed as a ‘fake’) or

114  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

– Dunning-Kruger Effect (an excessively favourable perception of one’s knowledge and abilities), which can inadvertently distract their competence progression (see Elliot, 2022). The fourth consideration is that competence development needs to be set within a context where challenges are manageable, positive support is available and skill or knowledge mastery is encouraged (Ryan & Deci, 2017). This then leads nicely to the importance of SDT’s third and final strand, i.e. relatedness, which promotes a positive and supportive research environment or a research culture that scaffolds the growth and development of scholars.

Relatedness The third SDT strand places specific importance on the value of social connections. Similar to the first two strands, relatedness is particularly significant among doctoral and postdoctoral scholars beyond its apparent focus on social utility (Figure 4.3). As discussed in Chapter 1, the primary means by which doctoral learning takes place is through the socialisation process rather than through the structured curricular arrangements common among undergraduate or Masters’ students. In the doctoral context, each conversation or interaction with scholars and non-scholars then becomes a source of reciprocal learning and enrichment. The isolating experience that is generally featured in the doctoral literature can be alleviated through social connections. Meaningful relationships in supportive

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  115

Figure 4.3  Significance of social connections.

environments need not be underestimated as they are an essential means by which psychological wellness is nurtured. Furthering the discussion in Chapter 2, social connections can be encouraged, promoted and established through either scholarly or non-scholarly communities. In this regard, names can at times be misleading.

116  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

Some may mistakenly think that scholarly communities are restricted to scholarly stuff only and vice-versa. Consequently, pressed-for-time scholars may decide to avoid non-scholarly activities, with a view to concentrating on what they consider to be the most crucial activities to progress in their doctoral journey. This is a misperception that will be elaborated on further and addressed in Chapter 6. It is worth stressing the variety of genuine learning to be acquired within academia through scholarly communities (often referred to as the formal curriculum) and from outwith academia through non-scholarly communities (often referred to as the hidden curriculum). ….the doctoral learning experience encompasses a much wider scope that is beyond the conventional channels of learning via the official processes or the formal curriculum. Instead, it can be argued that there co-exists the hidden curriculum in doctoral education, or the unofficial channels of genuine learning typically acquired within and/or beyond the physical and metaphorical walls of academia. (Elliot, 2022, p. 1660) Together, formal and hidden curricula may serve as complementary channels for doctoral learning. In our book ‘The Hidden Curriculum in Doctoral Education’, we discussed comprehensively how diverse forms of learning, from numerous sources, and harnessed with support from the hidden curriculum agents (e.g. supervisors, researcher developers, institutional leaders) can offer a consolidated, unified and much richer doctoral learning experience (Elliot et al., 2020).

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  117

The greater visibility and recognition of the value of these communities, the more appealing they become to all scholars - local and international and doctoral and postdoctoral alike. After all, doctoral and postdoctoral work is primarily about scholarly matters. And so, in ensuring that scholars can benefit from and maximise what different forms of socialised learning and interactions can offer, it is equally important to promote all forms of support. They can then consider what support is already available to them, e.g. support as part of a laboratory community in their discipline. This will then have implications for seeking other vital forms of community support.

Food for thought – Where and how to find the Hidden Curriculum • Follow your heart – it is often placed at the core of your interests. • Be creative – it frequently lies within your strengths. • Be reflective – it tends to be close to your personal values. • Be receptive – it can often be discerned through the eye of the beholder. With anything unstructured, accessing learning from almost infinite sources suggests that scholars require putting in the missing structure themselves. This means selecting what to engage in while being cautious in setting priorities that are aligned with their objectives (e.g. breaking down a gigantic doctoral study into manageable

118  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

tasks). The aim is to help ensure that they efficiently manage their time rather than being drawn into activities or communities that serve very little purpose. It is important to understand how pressures and stress from academic work and adjustment to the new culture may explain why some international scholars’ social connections tend to suffer (Tian & Lowe, 2013). Time spent on non-scholarly matters is mistakenly thought to diminish one’s productivity. On the contrary, self-imposed isolation can be counterproductive since building friendships is often an effective means of enhancing experiences of acculturation, as will be elucidated further in Benjiro’s vignette. In Chapter 1, we spoke about the importance of an enhanced research culture for all scholars – local and international alike. While relatedness encourages scholars to join, actively take part in, contribute to and harness what scholarly and non-scholarly communities can offer, it is not intended to relieve the institutions of their responsibility to help advance the culture shift. Instead, scholars, ECRs, supervisors, researcher developers, other staff members and institutional leaders whose remit sits within the doctoral ecology need to work together to create a balance between the support scholars seek for themselves and the support they receive from the institutions. By and large, institutions have a built-in support system for all doctoral and postdoctoral scholars, e.g. research training courses, seminars and workshops for scholars and their supervisors, counselling and psychological services or funding for conferences and student mobility. Pursuing relatedness or social connection aims to complement informally what is offered via the formal structure.

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  119

Being prepared to roll one’s sleeves up Let us consider how SDT as a theoretical lens can be applied after taking into account Benjiro’s firsthand experience. Benjiro is a male scholar who hailed from East Asia. His decision to undertake a PhD in Neuroscience, subsequently, led him to become deeply attached to a non-scholarly community, which inevitably became a significant contributory factor in his doctoral success.

Benjiro After studying as an undergraduate and, subsequently, pursuing a PhD in Neuroscience, Benjiro had come a long way from having difficulty in speaking and understanding English to undertaking PhD research. According to Benjiro, ‘when I first came to the UK, I couldn’t speak English and I couldn’t understand what people were saying’. I [was] in some sense brave … [I knew that staying in my country] my English wouldn’t go any better at all, but if I went to an English-speaking environment, then I could get a chance to learn English…. The small town where he did his PhD played a significant role in his journey. The Whey Pat Tavern was a ‘home pub’, ‘a very heartwarming place’ where he spent considerable time after work with nonacademics just to ‘have a bit of a chat’. Incidentally, casual chats in the pub contributed to his English progression in addition to the more formal laboratory chats with his supervisors and other scholars

120  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

and ‘intense scientific discussion’ at conferences. All these contributed to a published paper before finishing his PhD. His time at the Whey Pat Tavern enabled him to get to know the locals who not only accepted him as one of the regulars but with whom he developed close relationships. One of them treated him as ‘his son’, ready to offer support in difficult times. His journey was filled with exciting events, e.g. a novice researcher presenting at a US conference attended by about 30,000 enthusiastic neuroscience researchers; many showed great interest in Benjiro’s work. Likewise, the journey was often hard as he struggled with his experiments, which meant more work for Benjiro. His girlfriend, who returned home after studying in the same city, remained his source of inspiration. Despite not understanding ‘any complicated neuroscience system, I tell her anyway [via video conference] what I was suffering’. ‘A part of my success was due to her’. His words of encouragement to other international scholars are: ‘do what you are expected to do [for] course work or practical work … do as expected. You are not necessarily to do excellent work but do solid work … and consistently…. He observed that the ‘language barrier’, ‘lack of communication or lack of understanding culture or background’ may lead to ‘different expectations from both sides’ and, in turn, may ‘create misunderstanding’. Extra efforts are required from both learners and institutions to address the different outlooks and ­misperceptions – ideally before they become problems.

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  121

Benjiro’s story illustrates how the three strands within SDT have intersected in his doctoral narrative – as recognised in the literature (Guay, 2022). To begin with, his initial decision to go to an English-speaking country was a risky, ‘brave’, but strategic and autonomous decision. A key thing that underpinned Benjiro’s decision was his desire to learn English, which would have been less likely to happen had he stayed in his own country. Such autonomy or sense of control is something that Benjiro continued to exhibit by proactively engaging in formal research (e.g. conference presentation and journal publication), semi-formal (e.g. conducting experiments) or informal activities (e.g. laboratory discussions) – constituting an active approach towards the researcher development component of his PhD. These activities not only deepened Benjiro’s understanding of the doctoral process itself, but they assisted in satisfying his need for ‘validation as a researcher’ – that he is indeed advancing in his research knowledge, skills and values (Mantai, 2017, p. 640). These examples of Benjiro’s engagement with other scholars in various capacities stress the value of interdependence as a key component when moving towards independence. Benjiro’s journey was characterised by reflection and assessment of his strengths and weaknesses, particularly with respect to his capabilities, language proficiency, cultural background, understanding and learning orientations. This was reflected in his advice to other international scholars, i.e. endeavour to ‘do solid work’ consistently to develop competence. Benjiro’s intentional efforts to harness the hidden curriculum worked out for him, too. His regular visits to what became his ‘home pub’ served as a means for broadening his knowledge of the language,

122  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

understanding the culture and how things operate in the host country. These hidden curricular lessons informally contributed to developing his competences in these aspects, so to speak. These pub visits also paved the way for relatedness or the development of meaningful relationships with the locals who were ready to support Benjiro, should it be necessary. This is something that made his study in the host country more socially secure, emotionally pleasing and generally smooth sailing, particularly since he was thousands of miles away from his family and his girlfriend who had returned to their country after her studies. Drawing upon the various scholarly and non-scholarly communities, Benjiro surrounded himself with networks of people who were able to offer him support throughout his PhD. Support could be specifically relevant to his research work, areas of personal and professional development, conversations to enrich his intercultural knowledge or simply a way to give him a sense of belonging while studying and living in a foreign country. Benjiro exemplified the idea raised in Chapter 2, i.e. the doctoral journey does not need to be an isolated endeavour. In Benjiro’s case, his active engagement in a non-scholarly community offered him a powerful source of support. His network of pub friends was a source of belonging, which made him feel psychologically safe and scholarly network secure in a foreign setting. His non-­ complemented well the forms of support he received from his scholarly network. It is not surprising that Benjiro maintained regular contact with his personal non-­ scholarly community long after completing his doctoral studies.

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  123

Let’s pause and reflect – Applying SDT in your personal context ♠♠ How can an understanding of SDT affect your approach to your doctoral or postdoctoral research? ♠♠ Autonomy ○○ How do you exercise self-initiative through your scholarly work? ○○ Name specific ways in which you direct your action to achieve smaller or larger goals. ○○ Do your supervisors encourage autonomous thinking? If so, how? ○○ How does your own view of the notion of interdependence leading to researcher independence affect your decisions and priorities in your scholarly work? ♠♠ Competence ○○ Given the various doctoral standards and requirements, where do your strengths lie? ○○ Think of each of the doctoral threshold concepts. Identify the areas that you need to prioritise to develop the required mastery and competence for a PhD. ○○ Which communities can support you in your journey to competence development? ♠♠ Relatedness ○○ What scholarly communities are you part of? How can they support your scholarly and professional growth?

124  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory

○○ What non-scholarly communities are you part of? How can they support your personal and psychological well-being? Learning through Benjiro’s experience

♠♠ Given your own circumstances, what are the areas where you need to exhibit greater autonomy? Competence? Relatedness? ♠♠ If you were to identify some key scholarly and non-scholarly communities to accompany your journey and support your personal and professional development while maintaining your psychological well-being, what would they be?

References Åkerlind, G., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Supervising doctoral students: variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1118031 Albertyn, R., & Bennett, K. (2021). Containing and harnessing uncertainty during postgraduate research supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(4), 661–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 7294360.2020.1775559 Cai, L., Dangeni, D., Elliot, D. L., He, R., Liu, J., Makara, K. A., Pacheco, E.-M., Shih, H.-Y., Wang, W., & Zhang, J. (2019). A conceptual enquiry into communities of practice as praxis in international doctoral education. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 1(1), 11–36. Castle, P., & Buckler, S. (2021). Psychology for Teachers (3rd ed.). Sage. Deconinck, K. (2015). Trust me, I m a doctor: a PhD survival guide. The Journal of Economic Education, 46, 360–375. Donati, M., & Watts, M. (2005). Personal development in counsellor training: towards a clarification of inter-related concepts. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33(4), 475–484. https://doi. org/10.1080/03069880500327553

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  125 Elliot, D. L. (2022). A ‘doctoral compass’: strategic reflection, self-­ assessment and recalibration for navigating the ‘twin’ doctoral journey. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1652–1665. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/03075079.2021.1946033 Elliot, D. L., Baumfield, V., & Reid, K. (2016). Searching for ‘a third space’: a creative pathway towards international PhD students’ academic acculturation. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1180–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144575 Elliot, D. L., Bengtsen, S. S. E., Guccione, K., & Kobayashi, S. (2020). The Hidden Curriculum in Doctoral Education. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-41497-9 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. Guay, F. (2022). Applying self-determination theory to education: regulations types, psychological needs, and autonomy supporting behaviors. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 37(1), 75–92. https:// doi.org/10.1177/08295735211055355 Holmes, P., Costa, N., & Lopes, B. (2020). The role of supervision in doctoral education: a transversal perspective. In M. Byram & M. Stoicheva (Eds.), The Doctorate as Experience in Europe and Beyond (pp. 213–228). Routledge. Hutt, R. (2019). Which countries have the most doctoral graduates? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/10/doctoral-graduatesphd-tertiary-education/ Janta, H., Lugosi, P., & Brown, L. (2014). Coping with loneliness: a netnographic study of doctoral students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098 77X.2012.726972 Kara, H. (2015). Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A practical guide. Policy Press. Keefer, J. M. (2015). Experiencing doctoral liminality as a conceptual threshold and how supervisors can use it. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14 703297.2014.981839 Kiley, M. (2009). Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 293–304. https://doi. org/10.1080/14703290903069001 Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07294360903067930

126  Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course‐taker is not enough: a theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03075070500043093 Mantai, L. (2017). Feeling like a researcher: experiences of early doctoral students in Australia. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 636–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1067603 McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2016). Post-PhD Career Trajectories: Intentions, Decision-Making and Life Aspirations. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57660-6 McCray, J., & Joseph-Richard, P. (2020). Towards a model of resilience protection: factors influencing doctoral completion. Higher Education, 80(4), 679–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00507-4 McCulloch, A., Guerin, C., Jayatilaka, A., Calder, P. R., & Ranasinghe, D. C. (2017). Choosing to study for a PhD: a framework for examining decisions to become a research student. Higher Education Review, 49, 85–106. Mewburn, I., Firth, K., & Lehmann, S. (2019). How to Fix Your Academic Writing Trouble: A Practical Guide. Open University Press. Mowbray, S., & Halse, C. (2010). The purpose of the PhD: theorising the skills acquired by students. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6), 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.20 10.487199 Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12144-022-02738-3 Overall, N. C., Deane, K. L., & Peterson, E. R. (2011). Promoting doctoral students’ research self-efficacy: combining academic guidance with autonomy support. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(6), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.535508 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. The Guilford Press. Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Loneliness and international students: an Australian study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), 148–180. https://doi. org/10.1177/1028315307299699 Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2010). It’s been said before and we’ll say it again – research is writing. In P. Thomson & M. Walker (Eds.), The Routledge Doctoral Student’s Companion (pp. 149–160). Routledge. Tian, M., & Lowe, J. (2013). The role of feedback in cross-cultural learning: a case study of Chinese taught postgraduate students in a UK

Self-Determination Theory: An all-encompassing theory  127 university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 580– 598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.670196 Wang, L. (2020). Beijing Language and Culture University, China. In M. Byram & M. Stoicheva (Eds.), The Doctorate as Experience in Europe and Beyond: Supervision, Languages, Identities (pp. 179–210). Routledge. Winchester-Seeto, T., Homewood, J., Thogersen, J., Jacenyik-Trawoger, C., Manathunga, C., Reid, A., & Holbrook, A. (2014). Doctoral supervision in a cross-cultural context: issues affecting supervisors and candidates. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 610– 626. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841648 Wisker, G., Robinson, G., Trafford, V., Warnes, M., & Creighton, E. (2003). From supervisory dialogues to successful PhDs: strategies supporting and enabling the learning conversations of staff and students at postgraduate level. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510309400

5 Interacting factors in understanding a metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations By making thinking more visible, not only can we observe it, we can also examine it and use it as a catalyst for growth. This chapter discusses taking a metacognitive approach to international scholars’ reflection on their experience and the interaction among their three psychological needs (Figure 5.1).1 Such understanding aims to contribute to a holistic doctoral development, particularly when scholars’ needs are supported and reinforced by a positive research culture and environment. This chapter argues for the necessity to consider together all three psychological needs – autonomy, competence and relatedness in doctoral or postdoctoral settings – rather than the previously predominant focus on autonomy alone (Guay, 2022). Building on the discussion of each SDT strand in Chapter 4, the chapter focuses on the synergy, i.e. the interaction among the three strands and its impact on learners, as well as how this impact can be maximised (Ryan & Deci, 2017). DOI: 10.4324/9781003271000-6

Metacognitive approach to learning  129

Figure 5.1  Taking a metacognitive approach. A very important aspect to consider, first and foremost, is the quality of support from the institutional research culture and environment. This refers to the supervisory teams’ encouragement and feedback, interaction with other scholars, provisions offered by the university central services and other institutional contexts, e.g. the range of seminars and workshops offered, counselling

130  Metacognitive approach to learning

services and perhaps, the extent of scholars’ personal and social connections within the institution (Belavy et al., 2020; McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020). This is far from surprising. After all, one’s success depends upon an entire community’s efforts (McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020). The personal efforts and complementary support they receive may either facilitate or impede motivation and contribute to the quality of the journey itself as well as the outcome of the doctoral experience (Janssen et al., 2021). Now, an extra concept will be added to this mix. It is to promote the idea of managing more strategically the interaction among the three SDT strands through metacognition – simply explained as ‘thinking about one’s thinking’ (Kolencik & Hillwig, 2011, p. 4; Kuhn, 2021).

Affording oneself a vantage point The pursuit of a PhD often starts with one being an accomplished learner at the undergraduate or Master’s level – followed by a strong aspiration to build on these academic successes and achieve greater things. As discussed at length in Chapters 1 and 2, a PhD is a distinct academic ballgame, so to speak. In turn, it requires a lot more from the learners themselves as well as from people around them to ensure doctoral progression and eventual completion (Lovitts, 2005). In addition to employing SDT as a lens for managing a PhD as well as recognising and harnessing the role of a supportive learning environment, we will now turn our discussion to metacognitive thinking – to seek greater visibility and understanding of the connections among various elements of the SDT

Metacognitive approach to learning  131

concept, and for this understanding to serve as a catalyst for action. While many people may not deliberately pay attention to their own thinking processes, metacognitive thinking encourages learners to be cognisant of their own ­learning – enabling them to achieve more and become effective learners (Kolencik & Hillwig, 2011; McGahan & Stone, 2022). Let us consider Meerim’s vignette to illustrate these various points. Meerim is a single female Central Asian scholar who pursued a PhD in Computing Science.

Meerim Her impression from visiting and falling in love with a city in the UK as a teenager inspired Meerim to come back and undertake a PhD. She described her doctoral experience as ‘fantastic’ owing to the institutional and supervisory support she received as well as the community who warmly welcomed her. In preparation, the first book that Meerim read was ‘How to do your PhD’ – a book recommended by her supervisor. This was complemented by her supervisors’ guidance on how things operate in a PhD: ‘my supervisor … told me – PhD study is … in their first year, [supervisors] tell a student what to do. The next year PhD students fight with the supervisor what to do and in third year, PhD students tell the supervisor what he [or she] is going to do’ – inspiring her to be more proactive. For example, despite it being time-consuming, she attended as many seminars as possible – finding them ‘really useful’. Knowing how busy her supervisors were,

132  Metacognitive approach to learning

Meerim always came prepared for each supervision: ‘I wouldn’t expect my supervisor to structure my meetings with them. It was always me who would take care of it … I would prepare … a plan … things that I did, things I want to discuss and my future plans’. She highlighted having a very good relationship with her supervisors: ‘I really [enjoyed] working with them’. She felt ‘comfortable’ asking questions concerning conferences, seminars or even seeking advice about visiting a local place. ‘I can ask questions about … personal things, some advice how I should behave, because still the cultures are different. …I would go to them and would ask ‘Is it appropriate? Can I say this thing? Can I do these things?’ In the host country, Meerim felt ‘comfortable’ to the extent that she could confidently say ‘I don’t feel like I’m a foreigner … like it’s my place. ...I didn’t feel that way in other countries. …an Orthodox Church … was a huge part of my PhD because I would go almost every Sunday’. During her PhD, the church became a significant part that ‘transformed’ her life and helped her understand herself better. This was crucial for a frequently ‘lonely’ PhD journey and supplemented Meerim’s scheduled weekend communication with her Mum. Her keenness to explore the host country comes across quite strongly: ‘I like walking … I want to enjoy the weather, enjoy even the rain even the wind. …[with] proper clothes, you can enjoy any weather at all. Meerim also commented how ‘the academics in the [host country] are very passionate, they’re really

Metacognitive approach to learning  133

into their research. [Compared to back home] science doesn’t move … there is almost no science, and … there is no enthusiasm’ … in the [host country, they] support students starting from … how to write, how to communicate, how to give a presentation…. Meerim views her interactions with supervisors, fellow scholars and the community as genuine opportunities for learning – ‘they provide the opportunities, so [I] just took them’.

As in Benjiro’s case in Chapter 4, the interacting dynamics among Meerim’s psychological needs – autonomy, competence and relatedness – are evident throughout her story. In addition, what comes across strongly from Meerim’s vignette is her strong desire to understand the issue at hand, reflect, plan, problem-solve and proactively seek to appreciate the bigger picture – displaying her disposition for metacognition. Colman (2015) defines metacognition as an awareness and understanding of one’s own cognitive or learning processes. Paris and Winograd (1990, as cited in Papaleontiou-Louca, 2008) highlighted two essential features of metacognition: a) self-appraisal; and b) self-management of cognition. Self-appraisals are people’s personal reflections about their own knowledge states and abilities, and their affective states concerning their knowledge, abilities, motivation, and characteristics as learners. Such reflections answer questions about “what you know, how you think, and when and why to apply knowledge strategies”. Self-management refers

134  Metacognitive approach to learning

to “metacognition in action”, that is, mental processes that help to “orchestrate aspects of problem solving” including “the plans that learners make before tackling a task”, “the adjustments they make as they work”, and “the revisions they make afterwards.” (Papaleontiou-Louca, 2008, pp. 2–3) These twofold features of metacognition – appraisal and management of oneself – tend to place learners in an active role in managing their own learning processes, and in turn, achieving more. This process is aligned with sustaining personal growth and development as independent learners (Kolencik & Hillwig, 2011) or in the doctoral context, independent researchers. Seemingly, metacognitive thinking is analogous to having a ‘compass’ for the journey (Figure 5.2). As a result, proactively seeking to understand a PhD has put Meerim in a more advantageous position compared to those who are happy to learn gradually what a PhD entails through first-hand experience. Meerim’s reflection on the stages of competence development has helped her to be more strategic with her decisions. This led her to plan how to handle the initial stage, engage in healthy arguments with supervisors midway through the course and take the reins in later years. Her strong disposition to apply metacognition is evident whether it was about Meerim always having a plan to make the most of each supervision meeting, proactively taking advantage of various seminars available to her or simply enjoying scholarly and nonscholarly communities around her. Meerim did not make the distinction between the benefits she acquired from scholarly and non-scholarly communities. Inasmuch as

Metacognitive approach to learning  135

Figure 5.2  A compass for the doctoral journey. she gained intellectual support from her supervisory team, Meerim also shared countless examples of relatedness from elsewhere, which strengthened and enriched her doctoral experience – practically, interculturally and psychologically. Meerim’s intellectual journey towards autonomy or researcher independence did not automatically come from involvement in scholarly communities alone but from her receptivity and proactivity to harness opportunities within and outwith academia (Elliot et al., 2020). This then led to a positivity of experience – doctoral-related, personal and at the intercultural level.

136  Metacognitive approach to learning

It is worth noting how the supportive research culture and environment she was fortunate to have had experienced reinforced rather than diminished her motivation. Meerim was aware that a PhD required ‘hard work’ and persistence – something she consistently demonstrated from the very start. She accepted the PhD’s challenge but more than that, she also adopted a metacognitive disposition to manage her needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness until successful completion. Meerim’s metacognitive approach to her international doctoral experience reminds us of Kuhn’s argument, that when it comes to metacognitiondisposition is superior to competence. …the applied, and particularly educational, significance of metacognition is in large part as a disposition rather than competence. One may have the competence to exercise metacognition but it will count for little if one lacks the disposition to do so. (Kuhn, 2021, p. 1) Drawing upon Meerim’s case, it can be strongly argued that awareness and understanding of SDT is merely a starting point; a disposition to make SDT integral to one’s experience is by far a superior practice – helps in becoming the catalyst for a better-managed doctoral experience.

Forewarned is forearmed With the emphasis on metacognitive thinking, what can SDT offer to doctoral and postdoctoral scholars alike?

Metacognitive approach to learning  137

How can metacognition lead to more strategic thinking to guide scholars’ decisions? Let us consider the four proposed levels of and progression in metacognitive thinking. Perkins (1992, as cited in Kolencik and Hillwig, 2011, pp. 6–7) present them as follows – a) Tacit. This refers to learners’ lack of awareness of metacognitive knowledge. b) Aware. While learners may have some level of awareness of some of their thinking or the ability to generate ideas or find evidence, they tend not to think strategically. c) Strategic. These learners’ thinking is characterised by problem-solving, decision-making, evidence-seeking and other learning strategies. d) Reflective. Reflective learners do not simply demonstrate but are in control of thinking strategically. They also continue to reflect on their thinking, assess their strategies and amend them, as necessary. These four levels of metacognitive thinking seem to be comparable to the four stages of competence development – unconscious incompetence, conscious incompetence, conscious competence and unconscious competence – discussed at length in Chapter 4 (Castle & Buckler, 2021; Donati & Watts, 2005). This then suggests that in employing metacognition, learners need to be conscious of the level at which they are operating. Doing so can assist them to plan how to progress from being ‘tacit’ or ‘aware’ to becoming more ‘strategic’ and eventually, ‘reflective’ metacognitive thinkers (Kolencik & Hillwig, 2011). After all, the most effective

138  Metacognitive approach to learning

learning tends to involve and be informed by learners’ metacognitive thinking – [When] learners are cognizant of their own learning … they monitor their own performance, and they establish their learning goals. Strategic learners are able to manage their time wisely and demonstrate organizational skills as well. Effective learners don’t just stumble onto success, but strategically pursue it and change strategies when needed. (Kolencik & Hillwig, 2011)

Let’s pause and reflect – What can I say about my own reflection on my metacognitive thinking? ♠♠ Self-appraisal. Do I intentionally think about my own knowledge, abilities and other characteristics as a learner in relation to these three psychological needs? ○○ Autonomy – a sense of control in one’s daily activities ○○ Competence – progression in competence development as a scholar ○○ Relatedness – pursuit and maintenance of meaningful social connections ♠♠ Self-management. Does my self-appraisal of my own knowledge, abilities and other characteristics lead me to plan, make decisions, solve problems and adjust my actions? If so, how

Metacognitive approach to learning  139

does this process shape the quality of my overall development? Learning through Meerim’s experience

♠♠ How did Meerim exercise metacognition in these dimensions? ○○ Autonomy ○○ Competence ○○ Relatedness ♠♠ What can I learn from Meerim as she directed her actions using metacognitive thinking? ♠♠ In my own circumstances, what are the different forms of support that are available to me? Am I taking full advantage of any of them? ♠♠ Given its potential impact on my own journey as a scholar, how can I strengthen my disposition to employ metacognitive thinking in different areas of my work?

On building bridges For many doctoral and postdoctoral scholars who pursue scholarship in another country, there is frequently an unspoken necessity to build bridges on multiple levels. Building bridges may manifest itself through (a) making (or strengthening) connections with fellow scholars, colleagues or new acquaintances; (b) participating in new activities and tasks; (c) mediating between two or more academic cultures, learning orientations and practices; and (d) negotiating societal and cultural norms and

140  Metacognitive approach to learning

traditions. In earlier chapters, we referred to this as academic acculturation. Arguably, the responsibility for building bridges is a two-way process between international scholars and those from the host country; it is not the sole responsibility of international scholars. Nevertheless, pursuing international scholarship is generally a voluntary decision among international scholars. And so, they are expected to play an active role in building bridges. After all, they are also often the primary beneficiaries once these bridges are built. The topic of building bridges also connects the various concepts and ideas raised in this chapter while drawing upon the intersection among SDT’s three psychological needs. It then stresses learners’ capacity for metacognitive thinking while recognising the value of a positive research culture and environment fostered by wider institutional support. Figure 5.3 conveys how using metacognitive skills is central to managing the interaction among SDT’s autonomy, relatedness and competence. Autonomy can help create greater enjoyment, even excitement about being in control, e.g. by using novelty in one’s approach to learning. Relatedness, on the other hand, is responsible for satisfying the need for social connections. Inevitably, it aims to address the sense of isolation or loneliness that typically accompanies the doctoral experience. By comparison, competence entails its own journey of moving from unfamiliar pedagogies to a steady development of expert knowledge or skills. In turn, a measured sense of control from the learner’s autonomy and reinforced by relatedness not only brings about a sense of ownership (e.g. academic writing) but can also offer strong academic and psychological support.

Metacognitive approach to learning  141

Figure 5.3 Interacting factors in understanding a metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations. With the combined experience of authentic learning and a deeper understanding of the doctoral standards, the interaction between autonomy and competence can lead to a sense of progression – further strengthening learners’ confidence. As greater courage begins to manifest itself, this perhaps illustrates what Mantai (2017) refers to as researcher validation, which may further lead to the emergence of a more secure researcher identity (Albertyn & Bennett, 2021). Finally, through the interaction between relatedness and competence, a sense of belonging can be duly created. Arguably, interdependence at the core of these interactions is key to becoming competent, independent researchers but also for nurturing researchers’ well-being. According to this model, by employing metacognition, i.e. awareness and management of the implications of

142  Metacognitive approach to learning

these interactions among SDT’s psychological needs, scholars are placed in a stronger position to control and inform their decisions and actions (via appraisal, problemsolving and revision) to achieve personal and professional growth (see Papaleontiou-Louca, 2008). To make this model work, there is a need for a high-quality institutional research culture that would aid the scholars’ efforts to realise their holistic development.

It’s time to put one’s thinking cap on How can this initial model in Figure 5.3 work in practice? Let us now consider a deeply embedded concept in doctoral education, i.e. feedback literacy, and examine its development within supportive learning environments. First, what is feedback literacy? Feedback literacy refers to ‘the understandings, capacities and dispositions needed to make sense of information and use it to enhance work or learning strategies’ (Carless & Boud, 2018, p. 1316). This type of feedback is commonly associated with formative learning where assessment, activities and feedback are designed to foster and reinforce learning. Such feedback, requiring ‘engagement and dialogue in the feedback process’, is regarded as a crucial element in learning (Winstone & Carless, 2021, p. 12). While the target outcome is to develop ‘feedback ­literate’ learners – who have a sound appreciation of how feedback improves performance – it is equally true that giving feedback can be tricky and has its own share of ‘challenges, complexities, and contradictions’ (Carless & Boud, 2018; Winstone & Carless, 2021, p. 1).

Metacognitive approach to learning  143

In the doctoral context where feedback tends to be more focused on specific research, the literature points out that a discrepancy frequently occurs between supervisors’ feedback and what doctoral scholars perceive they have received (Hradsky et al., 2022; Pretorius et al., 2019). A number of factors may lead to unintended complexities including a lack of student-focused feedback, a sense of distrust, learners’ refusal to adopt new perspectives, defensive responses to feedback provoking negative reactions and broader systemic tensions arising from student positioning as ‘consumers’ or ‘customers’ (Carless & Boud, 2018; Winstone & Carless, 2021). Inouye and McAlpine (2017) also pointed out that feedback-related challenges could be attributed to the intensive nature of doctoral work and/or the transitional challenges involved in becoming independent researchers. The very different nature and the novel learning tasks of the doctoral work when compared to anything these learners previously did could easily lead to additional anxiety and stress when receiving feedback on their progress (Figure 5.4).

Shall we agree to disagree? Challenges surrounding feedback and communication can become more complex when the feedback giver and feedback recipient are from different linguistic or cultural backgrounds, academic cultures or learning orientations (Amery et al., 2020; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2014). Examples of complexity may result from different learning traditions, e.g. the Anglo-American versus

144  Metacognitive approach to learning

Figure 5.4  To agree or disagree?

Nordic didaktik2 educational system, or emphasis on performance goals versus mastery goals. At times, different learning expectations and practices may also exist, e.g. a hierarchical versus an equity-promoting educational system (see Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019).

Metacognitive approach to learning  145

As a result, communication sometimes leads to mismatched expectations. This is not surprising given that practices leading to the perception of competences are argued to be culturally constructed (Navarro & Tudge, 2022). For example, a doctoral scholar from South Asia expressed some confusion when faced with a very indirect approach from a Danish supervisor. Instead of receiving direct feedback and assessment of her work, as per this scholar’s expectation, the supervisor ‘trusts … students’ ability to develop’ and explains the rationale for the ‘task-orientated feedback’ provided. The supervisors’ approach, in this case, is a reflection of the ‘Danish cultural heritage’ informed by the didaktik tradition that promotes mastery in goal orientation, which aims for the development of the whole person. Such an orientation, however, differs from what the scholar is used to back home, informing her expectations on receiving feedback and unintentionally experiencing confusion (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019). While differences in perspective and miscommunication surrounding feedback can affect any scholar, Tian and Lowe (2013) explained how in the case of crosscultural communication, the potential for miscommunication is potentially greater. … both the intended and the received meanings pass through cultural filters, where the respective cultures brought into play by either side may be large or small (or a combination of both). The greater the difference is between these two cultural filters, the greater are the opportunities for misunderstanding to occur. (Tian & Lowe, 2013, p. 585)

146  Metacognitive approach to learning

As a case in point, a shared or different understanding of the fundamental differences between how formative and summative feedback are understood and practised can be the inadvertent culprit here. In Tian and Lowe (2013) research into international Chinese learners undertaking a Master’s degree, their study pointed out how this cohort was only familiar with ‘very brief congratulations or exhortations to further effort’ for their summative work. On the contrary, they lacked experience in receiving formative feedback (p. 586). This then led to confusion where formative feedback, intended to support learners, was taken differently – …judgements of their academic performance and of themselves: the more comments they got, the worse they took their assignment and their own abilities to be. They had no previous experience of the very direct nature of what they, at this stage, perceived to be negative personal criticism; it broke the rules of academic communication to which they had previously been accustomed. (Tian & Lowe, 2013, p. 587) Taken together, an insufficient or misguided understanding surrounding the concept, purposes and practice of feedback-giving from one academic tradition to another can lead to differing (at times conflicting) responses. This can then affect not only learners’ approach to feedback but the entire supervision experience. An aligned understanding of the purposes of feedback is particularly relevant in the doctoral context where feedbackgiving is at the core of the learning experience to support progression.

Metacognitive approach to learning  147

The ball is now in your court Let us now aim to identify factors that may contribute to these culturally informed challenges that are commonly observed in supervisor-supervisee interactions (and potentially occurring in postdoctoral settings). Then, let us consider how feedback literacy can be better managed or more effectively controlled in the light of the proposed ‘Interacting factors in understanding a metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations’ (see Figure 5.3).

Autonomy Carless and Boud (2018) stress the necessity for learners to ‘see themselves as agents of their own change and develop identities as proactive learners’ (pp. 1318–1319). This is strongly aligned with exercising self-initiative and self-regulation and making an effort to understand and transition to the ‘new academic culture’ (Tian & Lowe, 2013, p. 580). Linking to the discussion of shifting from playing football to cricket in Chapter 1, scholars’ agentive behaviours to understand existing differences in learning norms, particularly with respect to the practices that are crucial to their development, e.g. feedback literacy for doctoral scholars, is indispensable. Such initiative not only makes them appreciate the value of feedback literacy but also helps them meet supervisors’ and peers’ expectations. In turn, it gives them a greater sense of ownership and confidence over their decisions and subsequent actions, in this case, taking control when addressing feedback.

148  Metacognitive approach to learning

Competence A sound appreciation of the role of feedback and assessment is instrumental to becoming ‘feedback literate’; actively engaging in seeking and giving feedback; and placing student learning at the core of feedback-giving (Winstone & Carless, 2021, p. 15). In each of these, doctoral scholars may start by reflecting on their feedback literacy competence. Doing so is likely to prompt them to go through the stages of competence development. For some, this may perhaps even start from initially not realising the value of feedback literacy and gradually improving until full competence is attained. Regardless of their starting point, scholars’ feedback literacy progression is likely to require a complementary pursuit of deeper understanding, application and continuous interactions with supervisors and other scholars – as discussed further below.

Relatedness When advocating ‘self-improvement as a core element of academic habits’ at the doctoral level and beyond (Carless & Boud, 2018, p. 1321), socialised learning and scholarly interactions with other supervisors and other scholars become even more critical. This could be particularly relevant for scholars whose grasp of feedback literacy is very limited or non-existent. Irrespective of where scholars are, the effort to embed trust-building, healthy relationships, and a pedagogy of kindness will not go amiss. When promoting feedback literacy – whether with peers or with supervisors – trust

Metacognitive approach to learning  149

can make a vital difference to learning. Trust enables scholars to appreciate the value of supervisors’ feedback and have a more positive outlook when receiving feedback. An invaluable by-product of promoting relatedness is the psychological comfort that a sense of belonging can bring. Feedback literacy is one area in which a metacognitive approach to doctoral learning, motivation and intercultural relations can be applied. Arguably, there are areas where this approach can have a much wider application. When strategically used, it can facilitate international scholars’ overall management of their intercultural experience, research productivity and successful completion.

Food for thought – Some considerations for applying a metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations – for both personal and professional endeavours. • Embedding psychological wellness in your dayto-day doctoral activities • Seeking to comprehend doctoral threshold concepts fully to understand required PhD standards • Cultivating multidimensional planning geared to research-, well-being-, career-, and interculturalorientated activities • Embracing the hidden curriculum as your source of extra resources • Maintaining home networks while creating new networks in your host environment

150  Metacognitive approach to learning

Notes 1 This is based on Ryan and Deci’s (2017) Self-Determination Theory. 2 The didaktik tradition has its roots in German thinking about teaching and learning. In this tradition, bildung, or formation is regarded as central. The aim of teaching and learning is not simply for learners to know or to learn something. Instead, education is aimed towards the development of an individual as a whole person.

References Albertyn, R., & Bennett, K. (2021). Containing and harnessing uncertainty during postgraduate research supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(4), 661–675. https://doi.org/10.1080 /07294360.2020.1775559 Amery, E., Koh, K., Diaz-Caceres, Z., & Paris, B. M. (2020). The role of intercultural competence on graduate supervisor-supervisee relationship and well-being. Journal of Educational Thought, 53(2), 125–154. Belavy, D. L., Owen, P. J., & Livingston, P. M. (2020). Do successful PhD outcomes reflect the research environment rather than academic ability? PLOS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236 327 Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602 938.2018.1463354 Castle, P., & Buckler, S. (2021). Psychology for Teachers (3rd ed.). Sage. Colman, A. M. (2015). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford University Press. Donati, M., & Watts, M. (2005). Personal development in counsellor training: towards a clarification of inter-related concepts. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33(4), 475–484. https://doi. org/10.1080/03069880500327553 Elliot, D. L., Bengtsen, S. S. E., Guccione, K., & Kobayashi, S. (2020). The Hidden Curriculum in Doctoral Education. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-41497-9

Metacognitive approach to learning  151 Elliot, D. L., & Kobayashi, S. (2019). How can PhD supervisors play a role in bridging academic cultures? Teaching in Higher Education, 24(8), 911–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1517305 Guay, F. (2022). Applying self-determination theory to education: regulations types, psychological needs, and autonomy supporting behaviors. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 37(1), 75–92. https:// doi.org/10.1177/08295735211055355 Hradsky, D., Soyoof, A., Zeng, S., Foomani, E. M., Cong-Lem, N., Maestre, J.-L., & Pretorius, L. (2022). Pastoral care in doctoral education: a collaborative autoethnography of belonging and academic identity. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 17, 23. Inouye, K. S., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Developing scholarly identity: variation in agentive responses to supervisor feedback. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 14(2), 1–19. Janssen, S., van Vuuren, M., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2021). Sensemaking in supervisor-doctoral student relationships: revealing schemas on the fulfillment of basic psychological needs. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2738–2750. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.18048 50 Kolencik, P. L., & Hillwig, S. A. (2011). Encouraging Metacognition: Supporting Learners Through Metacognitive Strategies. Peter Lang. Kuhn, D. (2021). Metacognition matters in many ways. Educational Psychologist, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1988603 Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course‐taker is not enough: a theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075070500043093 Mantai, L. (2017). Feeling like a researcher: experiences of early doctoral students in Australia. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 636–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1067603 McCray, J., & Joseph-Richard, P. (2020). Towards a model of resilience protection: factors influencing doctoral completion. Higher Education, 80(4), 679–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00507-4 McGahan, J., & Stone, K. (2022). Cognitive models of learning. In J. Lord (Ed.), Psychology of Education: Theory, Research and EvidenceBased Practice (pp. 162–184). Sage. Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12144-022-02738-3 Papaleontiou-Louca, E. (2008). Metacognition and Theory of Mind. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

152  Metacognitive approach to learning Pretorius, L., Macaulay, L., & Cahusac de Caux, B. (Eds.). (2019). Wellbeing in Doctoral Education: Insights and Guidance from the Student Experience. Springer. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. The Guilford Press. Tian, M., & Lowe, J. (2013). The role of feedback in cross-cultural learning: a case study of Chinese taught postgraduate students in a UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 580–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.670196 Winchester-Seeto, T., Homewood, J., Thogersen, J., Jacenyik-Trawoger, C., Manathunga, C., Reid, A., & Holbrook, A. (2014). Doctoral supervision in a cross-cultural context: issues affecting supervisors and candidates. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 610–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841648 Winstone, N. E., & Carless, D. (2021). Who is feedback for? The influence of accountability and quality assurance agendas on the enactment of feedback processes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695 94X.2021.1926221

6 A metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations: A new model for international doctoral scholars If international education were a dish, efforts to enhance intercultural engagement would be key ingredients. Both the extent and ways in which these ingredients are used are likely to affect the overall flavour and satisfaction from this culinary experience. Mewburn et al. (2019) offered various metaphors to elucidate the value of flow and coherence in academic writing. One of the metaphors they highlighted and the one that is particularly relevant to this chapter is the ‘scrap patchwork’ – Scrap patchwork is made from sewing together irregular sections of fabric, building a whole garment or a throw from a diverse ragbag of textiles and offcuts …. (Mewburn et al., 2019, p. 76)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003271000-7

154  A new model for international doctoral scholars

This scrap patchwork metaphor resonates well with the different sections of the fabric that have thus far been presented in each of the chapters. In this chapter, my intention is to ‘sew’ these sections together, connecting and interweaving what might initially appear to be fragmented ideas from each chapter – all to convey and highlight the ‘big picture’.

So, what is the big picture? Earlier, each chapter focused more closely on the vital elements of the doctoral experience in general. As the focus shifted to the more specific and contextual factors influencing international doctoral experience in particular, many concepts – also relevant to international postdoctoral experience – were then discussed. In this book, the PhD has been viewed metaphorically as a journey, perhaps more of an adventure – with all its excitement, surprises, challenges and risks. Unpacking potential underlying doctoral challenges awaiting ­scholars – personally, intellectually, socially and ­academically – then followed. It was stressed that challenges could come from a combination of high doctoral standards, various forms of isolation or the quality and extent of support coming from the institutional research culture (Figure 6.1). In sum, the doctoral genre itself makes it a very challenging endeavour, arguably more so for the international cohort! Unsurprisingly, the lack of structure that differentiates a PhD from undergraduate and Master’s degrees increases the necessity for doctoral scholars to engage more actively in scholarly and non-scholarly socialisation activities. In turn, socialised learning becomes doctoral

A new model for international doctoral scholars  155

Figure 6.1  What does a PhD abroad entail?

scholars’ primary means of learning and serves as the main source of social and psychological support within an unstructured doctoral programme. In turn, managing engagement in socialised learning entails greater responsibility from scholars. They need to build the missing structure, first, by conducting an appraisal of what is required, seeking resolution to each issue and revising their approach to manage their socialised learning experience. All these can exert more pressure, especially since getting a PhD typically comes with the expectation that they will be transformed into independent, competent

156  A new model for international doctoral scholars

researchers. With the combined academic and psychological pressure of the whole doctoral process, unspoken goals remain throughout – particularly maintaining a healthy work-life balance and sustaining sound psychological well-being (Elliot et al., 2020). Taken together, such doctoral expectations suggest two types of development that are, by and large, embedded in a doctoral journey: (a) doctoral-level research development; and (b) scholars’ doctoral development. This explains the concept behind the ‘twin’ doctoral journey (Elliot, 2022, p. 1659). Whereas the research component focuses on the general progression of research through scholars’ greater disciplinary understanding, enhanced research skills and proficient scholarly writing, scholars’ doctoral development has much wider scope. The doctoral development journey concerns scholars’ identity formation, personal growth, personalised socialisation experience, psychological wellness and professional development (Elliot, 2022). Needless to say, the two development journeys are mutually supportive. While this is arguably the case for doctoral scholars in general, there is a need to understand a critical aspect of international doctoral scholars’ journeys that is often overlooked. This is where we will now turn.

An insight into international scholars’ experience It is easy to see how all these interlinked development routes are crucial to the doctoral landscape. As for the international group, ‘intercultural interactions’ (or exchanges between cultures) is arguably another critical

A new model for international doctoral scholars  157

route (Spencer-Oatey & Kadar, 2021, p. 4). Some may argue that intercultural interactions and academic acculturation matter more to international scholars since they can either facilitate or impede growth and development. In an attempt to understand international scholars’ potentially complex experience better, I selected an established theoretical framework, i.e. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) that looks into developing scholars’ intrinsic motivation based on meeting their psychological needs – autonomy, competence and relatedness. While this theory focuses on motivation, it addresses many interlinked concepts pertaining to the doctoral context. In Chapter 5, examples of the interaction among these psychological needs in conjunction with metacognitive thinking were presented to illustrate how it may work in the doctoral setting. Having considered the areas that feature most prominently in the existing literature, I will now address those areas that require more attention by presenting a new model for international doctoral scholars’ approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations. In this connection, the plethora of scholarly work paid to doctoral studies has been encouraging. For example, in-depth studies were carried out in the areas of researcher development, scholarly identity, doctoral journey or quest, doctoral expectations and pedagogies, doctoral ecologies and academic writing, inter alia (Bengtsen, 2020; Berman & Smyth, 2015; Elliot, 2022; Gardner, 2008; Guccione, 2016; Holbrook et al., 2014; Inouye & McAlpine, 2017; Skakni, 2018) and many others. Several reputable journals in higher education and doctoral education supported work in this area, too. In recent years, observable interest in doctoral mental health and well-being paved the way for increased

158  A new model for international doctoral scholars

publications, as well as local and international conferences on this very topic (see Ayres, 2022; Barry et al., 2018; Blackmore et al., 2020; Levecque et al., 2017; Pretorius et al., 2019; Watson & Turnpenny, 2022). In comparison, studies and publications on the experiences and practices of international doctoral scholars are almost non-existent. This perhaps explains why greater discussion surrounding ‘a new academic culture’ and other topics specific to international scholars’ lived experience has been argued to be under-theorised (Tian & Lowe, 2013, p. 589).

Seeing and approaching a PhD from various angles This chapter, therefore, centres on my attempt to offer a new conceptualisation I called ‘A metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations: A new model for international doctoral scholars’. In this new model, the ‘twin’ journey that depicts two types of development journey (Elliot, 2022) is expanded and elaborated on to incorporate and highlight what is vital in international scholars’ journey. Using SDT and metacognitive theory, this new model offers a synthesis of the key elements in this group’s experience. While recognising the ‘constellation of individuals’ and institutional research culture that provide scholars much needed support and complementary resources, this model equally values and highlights international scholars’ agentive role (Baker & Lattuca, 2010; McAlpine & Amundsen, 2016, p. 814). Notably, fostering a holistic doctoral development is strongly advocated in this model – applicable

A new model for international doctoral scholars  159

to all doctoral and postdoctoral s­ cholars – especially to the international group. See Figure  6.2 for a visual conceptualisation of this new model. As previously stressed, the doctoral experience is situated within a particular institutional culture that essentially informs the quality of provision that scholars receive. The proposed model places scholars’ use of metacognition at the core of their experience. This involves effectively managing one’s own cognition or thinking by strategically reflecting on the most suitable cognitive skill(s) that can best deliver a particular research objective. This model also encourages more than merely using metacognition, but rather seeing its value and intentionally adopting a ‘disposition’ for metacognitive thinking (Kuhn, 2021). In turn, this puts scholars in a proactive

Figure 6.2 A metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations: A new model for international doctoral scholars.

160  A new model for international doctoral scholars

mode as they consider and evaluate, plan, access and harness available resources to help address challenges encountered and find a resolution. This is depicted in the cyclical relationship among ‘appraise’, ‘solve problem’ and ‘revise’ – as directed by scholars’ metacognitive disposition. This model for the international doctoral scholars’ journey suggests that employing metacognitive thinking helps manage and meet scholars’ psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness – either by oneself or through interaction with others as per SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017). With each psychological strand linked to academic, psychological and social aspects of the journey, I propose that the interaction between them is integral to the new model’s three identified journeys in the PhD abroad experience: a) the Doctoral Research Journey; b) the Doctoral Development Journey; and c) the Intercultural Journey. Each journey will now be discussed independently and in relation to the other. • Doctoral Research Journey. At the very core of the PhD journey, scholars are expected to demonstrate their doctoral-level research development. Their several years of research offer scholars space to grow, develop and deepen their knowledge and understanding of their selected research topic, disciplinary knowledge, research paradigms and skills, as well as advancing scholarly writing (Elliot, 2022). In relation to SDT, this journey aims to develop ‘A sense of ownership’, in which they exhibit greater initiative over their activities, e.g. academic writing

A new model for international doctoral scholars  161

(Autonomy); ‘A sense of progression’ where intentional efforts are aimed to achieve an incremental and steady development of expert knowledge or skills (Competence); and ‘A sense of belonging’, in which the need for social connections are met (Relatedness). Combined with other lessons they gain from the journey, all these are expected to assist scholars in working towards the primary outcome of their PhD, i.e. successful PhD completion. • Doctoral Development Journey. This particular journey concerns personal development as scholars and researchers. Areas considered critical in the doctoral development landscape typically comprise the development of academic and researcher identity, personal and professional growth, continuing development via socialised learning, as well as maintenance of scholars’ psychological wellness (Elliot, 2022). As this journey aims to cater for individuals’ development as scholars, the main intention is to advance the following qualities, i.e. ‘Researcher independence’ (Autonomy); ‘Researcher competence’ (Competence); and ‘Researcher interdependence’ (Relatedness). While the first two are typically viewed as expected outcomes following scholars’ pursuit of a PhD, ‘Researcher interdependence’ arguably serves both as an outcome as well as a means for facilitating the development of both ‘Research independence’ and ‘Researcher competence’. • Intercultural Journey. An intercultural journey – comprising intercultural interactions – is a distinct element in the international doctoral scholars’ journey. While it is possible that intercultural journeys are valued and can also be pursued by local doctoral and postdoctoral

162  A new model for international doctoral scholars

scholars (e.g. via international intercultural interaction efforts at home or abroad), an intercultural journey among international scholars is not optional but an integral component of their PhD or postdoctoral abroad experience. Within ‘Intercultural journey’, three journey ‘routes’ can be observed, i.e. ‘Intercultural engagement’ or proactivity in engaging between cultures (Autonomy); ‘Intercultural competence’ or proficiency for making intercultural interactions (Competence); and ‘Intercultural relations’ or proficiency for developing meaningful intercultural connections (Relatedness). One may contend that these ‘extra routes’ make international doctoral and postdoctoral education distinct when compared to other scholarly experiences. As discussed in Chapter 3, these intercultural interactions are a natural part of scholars’ socialised learning experience – becoming useful sources of learning for both scholarly and non-scholarly matters. Similar to ‘Researcher competence’, the idea of ‘Intercultural competence’ is one in which international scholars progressively develop via intentional, consistent and ongoing communication with others from other cultures – large or small (Jones, 2022). Alongside intercultural competence, mutually beneficial intercultural relations may lead to creating cosmopolitan groups or forming stronger cosmopolitan attitudes. As observed anecdotally, it comes as no surprise that for doctoral scholars, perhaps more so for the international group, when these three journeys are compared, the ‘Doctoral Research Journey’ stands out. It generally attracts greater attention from doctoral scholars, supervisors and institutional leaders and is often the subject

A new model for international doctoral scholars  163

of more concentrated effort, time and resources. After all, the PhD qualification symbolises the achievement that their families, institutions and governments expect in lieu of their investment and sacrifices. On the other hand, the value of the ‘Doctoral Development Journey’ can be broader and may comprise development that is both professional (e.g. research competence, professional development leading to career progression) and personal (personal growth and maturity, psychological wellness). Complementing the PhD qualification received, development in this area often becomes a valuable commodity as scholars move to a post-PhD career. By acquiring specialised PhD-related knowledge and skills and other work assets via the Doctoral Development Journey, they create a currency that tends to be viewed favourably by prospective employers. Compared to the first two journeys, the ‘Intercultural Journey’ is ubiquitous, but is seemingly not as highly valued by either the international scholars or by those who support them. One reason for this could be the overemphasis on the first two journeys. Yet, intercultural interaction is arguably key for international scholars to learn and thrive in either of the other two journeys, i.e. the Doctoral Research Journey and the Doctoral Development Journey. Intercultural interaction leads to intercultural awareness and can open up a whole new world to them or even many worlds of opportunities, including ones that international scholars had not anticipated. Insufficient intentional efforts to increase intercultural awareness, however, may inadvertently impact the quality of one’s doctoral experience. Within the supervisory setting, this may lead to challenges, e.g. communication breakdown, different expectations for academic

164  A new model for international doctoral scholars

excellence, expression of one’s critiques and feedback-­ giving. Amery et al. (2020) also highlight how these challenges can result in tensions between the supervisor and the supervisee; if not addressed properly, their respective academic progress and research productivity as well as their personal well-being could be compromised; this could also lead to mental health issues in the future. (p. 127) Learning via the ‘Intercultural Journey’ may often fall within the hidden curriculum due to its unstructured and incidental nature. This then suggests that for this type of learning to be harnessed and become beneficial, scholars need to make a more deliberate effort to search, utilise and integrate it as part of their learning (Elliot, Baumfield, & Reid, 2016; Elliot, Baumfield, Reid, et al., 2016; Elliot et al., 2020). And so, when we talk about the international doctoral journey, this new model highlights the idea that there can be several journeys forming part of the entire journey – explaining its inherent complexity. Equally importantly, the interconnection between these journeys suggests that the best way forward is to give all three journeys comparable attention. Altogether, Figure 6.2 depicts much more than a diagrammatic representation or a synthesis of the multiple journeys integral to a PhD abroad. Instead, it proposes that adopting a disposition for, and in turn, actively using metacognitive thinking, more than merely meets scholars’ psychological needs and strengthens intrinsic motivation. Dynamic interactions among these psychological needs can arguably serve as ‘fuel’ for promoting the

A new model for international doctoral scholars  165

three interlinked journeys – ‘Doctoral Research Journey’, ‘Doctoral Development journey’ and ‘Intercultural Journey’. Intentionally reflecting on the roles that these three journeys play is likely to address international scholars’ academic, social and psychological needs. In turn, it can pave the way for a holistic international PhD development.

Being in the driving seat Now, permit me to highlight how an international doctoral scholar’s experience might be analogous to a learner driver who seeks to obtain a foreign driving licence. While similarities exist between learning to drive in general, there are arguably extra lessons and instructions that learner drivers need to learn and comply with depending on the rules of the road in the country where the licence is sought. While previous understanding of driving can both serve as a building block and offer some tacit understanding about learning to drive in a foreign land, awareness of the new rules will stand a foreign driver in good stead – not only to pass the driving test but, more importantly, for a safe driving experience. With this driving metaphor, the comparison starts with doctoral scholars and learner drivers in general. It then extends the discussion to those undertaking their doctoral research abroad and those who endeavour to get a driving licence from another country, possibly in addition to the one they acquired from home. In Table 6.1, such comparisons are presented in the light of SDT’s three strands – autonomy, competence and relatedness as depicted in Figure 6.2.

Behaviours shared by international doctoral scholars and international learner drivers

Pursuit of independence Both learners undergo requisite (and adequate) training towards the ultimate objective – either demonstrating competence in conducting research or driving fully autonomously. Learners as Learning ownership agents of While recognising the advice, mentorship and support offered, learners remain at the centre learning of their learning and development, e.g. making decisions while seeking new understanding. Unanticipated Potential experience of failure In both cases, working towards each milestone may initially incur success or failure. While embedded success builds confidence, experience of failure may, at times, crush the learner’s spirit challenges – for which personal drive and determination become even more vital. Even failed actions can be essential to learning. Competence Foundational Theoretical understanding knowledge A doctoral scholar is expected to acquire a sound grasp of theories about a phenomenon (within the discipline), research paradigms or methods in the same way that a learner driver needs to master driving principles, concepts and theories.

Autonomy Central objective

Conceptual analogies

Table 6.1  Conceptual analogies comparing international doctoral scholars and international learner drivers

166  A new model for international doctoral scholars

Behaviours shared by international doctoral scholars and international learner drivers

Developing Direct application of acquired learning competences In both contexts, theoretical understanding and acquired competences are translated into application, e.g. general research conduct, analysis and research writing in the doctoral context or practical driving in the driving context. Setting target Achieving milestones goals and In a PhD context, this involves getting ethics approval, participant recruitment, fieldwork sub-goals completion, data analyses and syntheses leading to new theoretical insights and/or significant contribution to knowledge. Milestones for learner drivers may refer to passing the theory and hazard perception tests – and finally, the practical element of the driving test. Relatedness Social Support network interactions In addition to guidance from supervisor or driving instructor, other key individuals offer complementary support – inspiration and psychological support – to assist learners’ progression. Distinct Cognitive apprenticeship partnership Learning is characterised by a blend of cognitive, social and psychological support and guidance from a more experienced academic scholar or driver to the novice learner. Shared Transformative learning objectives Learners and their supervisors/driving instructors commonly have shared objectives, i.e. equip learners with requisite knowledge and practical skills. This concerns acquiring in-depth appreciation of disciplinary knowledge and research among PhD scholars. As for learner drivers, this means driving safely on their own, without posing risks to other road users.

Conceptual analogies

A new model for international doctoral scholars  167

168  A new model for international doctoral scholars

Linking this driving metaphor to the discussion of competence in Chapter 4 also illustrates how the perception of competence is aligned with what Navarro and Tudge (2022) suggest – that it tends to be culturally constructed. Despite the relatively shorter time required to learn to drive as compared to the magnitude of a doctoral scholarship, these conceptual analogies in the light of SDT’s three strands nevertheless highlight what is needed in each journey, but possibly, requiring tenfold (or more) effort from doctoral scholars. An external examiner in one of the viva voce (i.e. oral defences) that I had the privilege to be part of, also offered a thought-provoking explanation that otherwise highlights a counterargument to this analogy. Whereas surface learning might be sufficient for those who are learning how to drive, this is not the case for doctoral research. Instead, it was strongly argued that employing deep learning throughout is a must among doctoral scholars. After all, a common expectation from anyone aspiring to get a PhD is to demonstrate knowledge creation (or significant contribution to knowledge) commensurate with the highest level of education (Berman & Smyth, 2015). For any potential doctoral scholar, it is worth reiterating that in each conceptual analogy in Table 6.1, doctoral scholars play either active, proactive or reactive roles, depending on the circumstances (Figure 6.3). As a visual metaphor, undertaking a PhD is like being in the driving seat for a long, fascinating but unmapped journey (Elliot, 2022). Ideally, this means being clear about the final destination, assessing what competences the driver already has and what other resources are required, as well as from whom these resources may come to

A new model for international doctoral scholars  169

Figure 6.3  Being in the driving seat of your PhD journey.

sustain such a long journey. Like any other long journey, drivers need to take regular breaks to rest, exercise, look after themselves and do other relaxing non-academic tasks. Although dedication and persistence are admirable traits among doctoral scholars, ‘all work and no play’ is destined to end in either burnout or a mental breakdown that can sadly defeat the purpose of all the exertion.

170  A new model for international doctoral scholars

Needless to say, self-care is invaluable in this journey, in which one’s support network plays a crucial role (Boynton, 2021). Good mental health is indispensable. Ayres (2022) argues the importance of nurturing one’s mental health throughout one’s doctoral studies. Also, if one’s mental health is affected for a long period, it could possibly lead to mental illness (Ayres, 2022; Blackmore et al., 2020). Along the way, ongoing advice, critiques or recommendations can be expected from their learning partnership with supervisors who are likely to possess the requisite expertise and deep appreciation of the research process arising from many years of experience. Stoicheva and Tsvetkova (2020) contend that being in the driving seat means being fully accountable and exercising a sense of ownership over the many decisions behind the doctoral thesis – a crucial point that PhD examiners typically assess tacitly during the final oral defence.

Caution: Don’t fall asleep at the wheel! If you were an international doctoral scholar or are considering being one, all these learning analogies apply to you. One can easily see how heeding this advice is essential in reaching your destination. More so, there will be added considerations. As a case in point, learning to drive in another country entails understanding the local signs and rules of the road or which side of the road to drive on! These are not all necessarily the same, and may, in fact, be the opposite to what one has learned in one’s home country. In turn, adjusting to driving in a foreign context becomes non-negotiable.

A new model for international doctoral scholars  171

And so, international doctoral scholars need to familiarise themselves with multiple aspects of learning in their new environment. These may include an appreciation of the learning conventions in the host country, academic cultures, supervision strategies and key features of learning, e.g. critical thinking, use of arguments in scholarly writing and academic integrity. Acquisition of these new learning conventions is similar to learning a new language, and therefore brings new challenges, depending on the extent of the disparity between previous and new learning conventions. This can explain the extra effort required from both international learners and their advisors or supervisors; often, irrespective of whether the learner goes ‘West’ or ‘East’, or ‘North’ or ‘South’ (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019; Wang, 2020). The necessity to master new learning conventions in order to pass successfully international doctoral education or obtain a foreign driving licence may also justify the value of ‘learning acculturation’ where international learners exhibit receptivity not only to learning but also to unlearning or re-learning, if needed (Elliot, Baumfield,  & Reid, 2016). While solitude tends to be part and parcel of undertaking doctoral research, research suggests that international learners tend to be more prone to ‘a dual sense of loneliness’ as a result of being away from one’s family, friends back home and everything they are familiar with (Elliot, Baumfield, & Reid, 2016, pp. 1185–1186). Such loneliness might have been tripled particularly during the pandemic lockdown since even social connections with colleagues and local friends were severely restricted (Chakma et al., 2021; Elliot et al., 2022; Elliot & Makara, 2021).

172  A new model for international doctoral scholars

Social support networks are, therefore, key for all international doctoral scholars. With readily available social support, academic-related challenges and experiences of failure can become more bearable. With immediate family members being so far away, close friends take the place of family members. While culture may discourage international scholars from seeking assistance from psychological services, access to close friends may not only act as a psychological buffer but may even prevent an escalation of a problem to a mental breakdown (Blackmore et al., 2020). In both home and host contexts, there is ample space for mutual learning. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that on this occasion, the requirements in the host country tend to matter more. This is not because they are more important in their own right, but because the success criteria are inevitably informed by the host country’s requirements. In turn, how things are done in the home country, may become temporarily less relevant under these circumstances. In sum, the consolidated ideas and concepts in this chapter, converge into a comprehensive picture that encompasses the multiple journeys typically characterising international doctoral education. Second, the proposed model was discussed to prompt all stakeholders to reflect and make international doctoral education work not only for this specific group but for the entire doctoral research community. This will now be the focus of the next and final chapter, i.e. how different stakeholders can put into practice the conceptual ideas behind ‘A metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations: A new model for international doctoral scholars’.

A new model for international doctoral scholars  173

References Amery, E., Koh, K., Diaz-Caceres, Z., & Paris, B. M. (2020). The role of intercultural competence on graduate supervisor-supervisee relationship and well-being. Journal of Educational Thought, 53(2), 125–154. Ayres, Z. J. (2022). Managing Your Mental Health during Your PhD: A Survival Guide. Springer. Baker, V. L., & Lattuca, L. R. (2010). Developmental networks and learning: toward an interdisciplinary perspective on identity development during doctoral study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 807–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903501887 Barry, K. M., Woods, M., Warnecke, E., Stirling, C., & Martin, A. (2018). Psychological health of doctoral candidates, study-related challenges and perceived performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(3), 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.20 18.1425979 Bengtsen, S. S. E. (2020). Building doctoral ecologies and ecological curricula. Sprawling spaces for learning in researcher education. In R. Barnett & N. Jackson (Eds.), Ecologies for Learning and Practice. Emerging Ideas, Sightings, and Possibilities (pp. 147–159). Routledge. Berman, J., & Smyth, R. (2015). Conceptual frameworks in the doctoral research process: a pedagogical model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1080 /14703297.2013.809011 Blackmore, C., Ohlsen, S., Guccione, K., Elliot, D., & Daley, R. (2020). ‘Are you ok?’ Mental health and wellbeing of international doctoral students in the UK: an investigation of supervisors’ understanding and existing support provision. https://www.ukcisa.org.uk/Research-Policy/Resource-bank/resources/189/Are-you-ok-Mental-healthand-wellbeing-of-international-doctoral-students-in-the-UK Boynton, P. (2021). Being Well in Academia: Ways to Feel Stronger, Safer and More Connected. Routledge. Chakma, U., Li, B., & Kabuhung, G. (2021). Creating online metacognisitve spaces: graduate research writing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Issues in Educational Research, 31(1), 37–55. Elliot, D. L. (2022). A ‘doctoral compass’: strategic reflection, self-­ assessment and recalibration for navigating the ‘twin’ doctoral j­ourney. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1652–1665. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075079.2021.1946033

174  A new model for international doctoral scholars Elliot, D. L., Baumfield, V., & Reid, K. (2016). Searching for ‘a third space’: a creative pathway towards international PhD students’ academic acculturation. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1180–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144575 Elliot, D. L., Baumfield, V., Reid, K., & Makara, K. A. (2016). Hidden treasure: successful international doctoral students who found and harnessed the hidden curriculum. Oxford Review of Education, 42(6), 733–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1229664 Elliot, D. L., Bengtsen, S. S. E., Guccione, K., & Kobayashi, S. (2020). The Hidden Curriculum in Doctoral Education. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-41497-9 Elliot, D. L., & Kobayashi, S. (2019). How can PhD supervisors play a role in bridging academic cultures? Teaching in Higher Education, 24(8), 911–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1517305 Elliot, D. L., & Makara, K. A. (2021). An online community of international scholars: enabling spaces for reciprocal academic and psychological support. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(6), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1991424 Elliot, D. L., Swingler, M., Gardani, M., Pacheco, E.-M., & Boyle, J. (2022). ‘Let’s talk about well-being!’: fostering interdependence in doctoral communities. In B. Cahusac de Caux, L. Pretorius, & L. Macaulay (Eds.), Research and Teaching in a Pandemic World: The Challenges of Establishing Academic Identities during Times of Crisis. Springer. 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. Guccione, K. (2016). More Than Lucky? Exploring Self-Leadership in the Development and Articulation of Research Independence. L. F. f. H. Education. Holbrook, A., Shaw, K., Scevak, J., Bourke, S., Cantwell, R. H., & Budd, J. (2014). PhD candidate expectations: exploring mismatch with experience. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 329–346. Inouye, K. S., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Developing scholarly identity: variation in agentive responses to supervisor feedback. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 14(2), 1–19. Jones, E. (2022). Problematizing the idea of curriculum ‘internationalization’. Journal of International Students, 12(1), i–v. https://doi. org/10.32674/jis.v12i1.4592 Kuhn, D. (2021). Metacognition matters in many ways. Educational Psychologist, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1988603 Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van Der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in

A new model for international doctoral scholars  175 PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868–879. https://doi.org/ doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008 McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2016). Post-PhD Career Trajectories: Intentions, Decision-Making and Life Aspirations. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57660-6 Mewburn, I., Firth, K., & Lehmann, S. (2019). How to Fix Your Academic Writing Trouble: A Practical Guide. Open University Press. Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12144-022-02738-3 Pretorius, L., Macaulay, L., & Cahusac de Caux, B. (Eds.). (2019). Wellbeing in Doctoral Education: Insights and Guidance from the Student Experience. Springer. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. The Guilford Press. Skakni, I. (2018). Reasons, motives and motivations for completing a PhD: a typology of doctoral studies as a quest. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9(2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SGPE-D-18-00004 Spencer-Oatey, H., & Kadar, D. Z. (2021). Intercultural Politeness: Managing Relations across Cultures. Cambridge University Press. Stoicheva, M., & Tsvetkova, N. (2020). Doctoral studies, research excellence and European identity. In M. Byram & M. Stoicheva (Eds.), The Doctorate as Experience in Europe and Beyond (pp. 253–281). Routledge. Tian, M., & Lowe, J. (2013). The role of feedback in cross-cultural learning: a case study of Chinese taught postgraduate students in a UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 580–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.670196 Wang, L. (2020). Beijing Language and Culture University, China. In M. Byram & M. Stoicheva (Eds.), The Doctorate as Experience in Europe and Beyond: Supervision, Languages, Identities (pp. 179–210). Routledge. Watson, D., & Turnpenny, J. (2022). Interventions, practices and institutional arrangements for supporting PGR mental health and wellbeing: reviewing effectiveness and addressing barriers. Studies in Higher Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021. 2020744

7 Managing, harnessing and promoting positive intercultural engagement Intercultural awareness and understanding do not come automatically as a result of being exposed to another culture. Intentional learning is vital. Through research, observation and anecdotes, we have explored how active intercultural engagement may have a direct bearing on the quality of international doctoral experience. To date, however, this topic frequently gets overlooked and is left unaddressed. As shown in previous chapters, study sojourns can trigger confusion, frustration or, at times, even lead to feeling demoralised. By the same token, rewards await international scholars through interplay in intercultural (or even multicultural) settings. This suggests that a deeper appreciation of international postgraduate experience, including its peaks and troughs, is invaluable. Not only it can offer a fuller picture it can also help international scholars manage their behaviour and responses effectively and inspire potential ways forward for other stakeholders – supervisors, researcher developers and institutional leaders. Given its importance, I also contend that designing and implementing doctoral provision that incorporates raising DOI: 10.4324/9781003271000-8

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  177

intercultural awareness and integrating and harnessing intercultural engagement is far superior. Focusing on this matter can also address a gap in intercultural engagement at doctoral and postdoctoral levels – an area that has long needed attention. For example, Amery et al. (2020) argue ‘[it] is often assumed that students can develop or acquire [intercultural communicative competence] through experience, but it is more beneficial if it is intentional’ (p. 133). Following a discussion on a range of topics – the ‘doctoral puzzle’, implications of crossing cultures, conventional and non-conventional sources of support, academic acculturation, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and metacognition – this final chapter will turn to implementing and applying the proposed model in Chapter 6, i.e. a metacognitive approach to learning, motivation and intercultural relations for international doctoral scholars. In Figure 6.2, Intercultural journey comprises the ‘extra routes’ that make doctoral and postdoctoral education abroad distinct from other scholarly experiences. As depicted in the outermost part of the triangle, they are classified as Intercultural engagement, Intercultural competence and Intercultural relations. This chapter prioritises discussion and application of these ‘extra routes’. While it touches on tensions and conflicts, it is also filled with inspirational stories and tales of hope and success – all aimed to elicit reflection and response from key institutional stakeholders – international scholars, ­supervisors, researcher developers and institutional leaders. In so doing, we recognise the contextual differences in how doctoral programmes are run in different countries,

178  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

e.g. deep-rooted educational traditions, including the German/Nordic didaktik tradition, the Anglo-American tradition, or the ever-evolving doctoral practices where there is seemingly an increased trend in collaborative degrees. These examples illustrate the numerous and continuing possibilities for different pairings in supervisory teams, e.g. an international scholar who is a second or foreign language speaker paired with supervisors who are native speakers or second (or foreign speakers) themselves or other possible combinations where intercultural interplay is often at the core. Therefore, in reading much of the practical guidance offered here, it is essential for you (as one of the institutional stakeholders) to consider the role you play, the relevance of the guidance to your context, or perhaps, how it can be made more relevant or tailored to your own circumstances. As one interculturally proficient Danish supervisor once remarked, a one-size-fits-all approach to working with international doctoral scholars is not advisable – …you are comparing apples and pears, you cannot compare all PhD students – they come from different backgrounds. (Anton, supervisor; Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019, p. 920) Although the sections that follow are divided according to considerations for each institutional stakeholder, the intention is to advocate joint and complementary actions from them all. This is because all contributions can collectively enrich and advance institutional research culture, particularly the experience of the international doctoral and postdoctoral scholar groups and equally of the entire research community.

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  179

International scholars Potentially, each international scholar can write a book based on their rich, unique and often transformative experiences. What is covered in this chapter is, therefore, only a flavour of what intercultural engagements may look like in practice.

Like a fish out of water Let us consider Hamza’s vignette as a starting point. Coming from South Asia, Hamza’s PhD journey in Computing Science was characterised by having his family by his side.

Hamza You tend to be a bit more self-conscious. You are sort of in a way representing your culture, your religion, your country … a lot of international students that I’ve seen … feel socially awkward … even though I can speak English being taught since we were children but … communication is not as comfortable as you would want it to be… I had a problem with hearing as well. … a lot of the discussions, the jokes and the kind of context, you don’t understand as well, so a lot of times, you end up being a bit like a fish out of water. … I was a bit too conscious of the impression I made and what others would think of me and

180  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

I don’t want to trouble anybody…. Socially [I’m] not isolated but socially awkward … I don’t drink alcohol at all and I am a bit uncomfortable just around it. … I go to bars … but I don’t feel comfortable there … I’m not in my comfort zone.

To come out of his shell was a covert but real struggle that Hamza had to overcome. He disclosed how he was very much aware of being too self-conscious – arising from a combination of his nature, upbringing and pressure from tacitly serving as a cultural ambassador and so, representing his social group, religion and country. His experience of being socially awkward was also aggravated by his hearing difficulties. Having learned through his persistent struggle in this area, his main advice to other international scholars is to make the best of their experience even if it means going out of their comfort zone. This includes getting to know people, learning and experiencing new things from them and with them while also sharing and imparting to them new knowledge and ideas. After all, ‘they’re just people like yourself and you … can be comfortable with them … that’s part of the enriching experience’ for everyone’s benefit. As a newly minted PhD scholar stressed, when international scholars proactively share with others their knowledge, views and perspectives, it leads to a ‘coming together’ of knowledge. They, in turn, create epistemological foundations for new knowledge, but in a more concrete way based on their experience and/or culturalbased perspectives. In so doing, international scholars not only contribute to enriching and enhancing their

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  181

academic environments, but they directly serve as agents of change, too. Many international scholars prefer spending most of their time with their co-nationals as such a setting tends to replicate what is familiar from their comfort zone (Cai et al., 2019; Mittelmeier & Kennedy, 2016). While this is to be encouraged for offering genuine psychological comfort and encouragement, international scholars need to ensure that doing so does not inadvertently impede personal growth and development. As Hamza highlighted, fear and social awkwardness are common,1 but such feelings need not deter regular efforts for intercultural engagements. Besides, what these intercultural interactions offer, e.g. learning enrichment, social connections and maintenance of psychological well-being, arguably outweigh any potential discomfort experienced. This is further illustrated in Omkar’s vignette, a single South Asian PhD scholar who undertook a PhD in Electronics and Electrical Engineering.

Omkar I have seen especially students [from my part of the world] … they more or less live in a ghetto. Their friends are all [from our country], they live in groups, they go together to the university, they go shopping together and they return home, so they are physically separate from [our country], but not mentally separate. I think that is a hindrance. When you are [in another country], you have to experience everything

182  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

that is something which is different, it is not necessarily bad, you should have an open mind when you are approaching something new and different. You might like it [or not]. No culture or no country or no civilization can claim to have a monopoly of everything good. No one is saying to disrespect your own culture, your culture is part of your identity and loss of culture is loss of identity…. Why can’t I have both, why can’t I both belong to [my home city] as well as [my host city]? Why can’t I have a multiple approach? Why can’t I have multiple facets of my identity? I am both and I am comfortable in both environments.… …be open to everything, and yes, you are free to like or dislike. … Do not pre-judge anything or do not come with a predisposed idea that this is different.

In this regard, it is worth heeding Omkar’s advice about ‘receptivity’ to new ideas and experiences, which does not hint at any disloyalty to or disrespect for one’s previously adopted ideals and values (Elliot et al., 2020). Instead, it is a fair recognition that everyone has something, i.e. cultural knowledge and insight, to share with each other. Openness to these ideals is a source of learning, from which learners decide if they would like to ‘bring in new knowledge to their own schemas2’ or not, as per cognitive constructivist thinking (see Powell & Kalina, 2009, p. 243; Sirri & Lord, 2022).

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  183

Moving forward: Taking the plunge and taking calculated risks Life is full of risks and your decision to study abroad shows your inner courage. A study sojourn comes with its own expected risks, e.g. feelings of discomfort, a sense of alienation or being trapped between two (or more) worlds. You can expect to be stretched in various ways, left to operate on your own and deal with many uncertainties that become integral to doctoral learning and study sojourns, while away from your comfort zone. Yet, such experiences can be equally rewarding. Often, your knowledge, identity and ideals will continue to evolve through openness to intercultural interaction. • Do not be afraid to take risks. Even failures can offer lessons and help you succeed. • One’s questions, uncertainties and even doubts can be precursors for new insights and can lead to knowledge creation – as other doctoral and postdoctoral scholars will tell you. • Actively reflect on your progress as you go along as it is an essential part of learning.

On simultaneously trekking multiple journeys As illustrated in Figure 6.2, international doctoral scholars commonly undertake not one but three journeys simultaneously – Doctoral Research, Doctoral Development and Intercultural Journeys. For the international group, the

184  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

intercultural journey is as important as the first two ­journeys. While it may not often be given the full attention it deserves, raised intercultural awareness and understanding play a crucial role in informing the overall quality of studying abroad. In the doctoral setting, while each journey is already complex, the missing map to assist the journey can make the experience even more challenging (Elliot, 2022). Flexibility is good, but too much freedom in managing one’s time may also lead to difficulty in focusing. In the absence of a ‘doctoral map’, you then need to exert more control. Some essential skills may include: • How to forge your own path by considering your own interests and strengths, and • How to manage your schedule, and also, how to manage all types of distractions – personal and academic more intentionally.

Moving forward: Setting your eyes on your final destination • Doctoral research journey – Familiarise yourself with the expectations of a PhD via books, workshops and socialised learning – Familiarise yourself with the institutional research culture and its various provisions in the Code of Practice, Handbook for Doctoral Students and a resource toolkit comprising formal and informal professional development opportunities and resources – Create a doable monthly schedule with time allocation (and soft deadlines) with areas for (a) learning or research tasks; (b) personal development; and (c) scholarly opportunities. Set aside time for nurturing your health and well-being, too.

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  185

• Doctoral development journey – Reflect and pursue development in the desired areas, e.g. applied cross-cultural psychology (disciplinary knowledge), principles of using a longitudinal method (research skills), proactivity, metacognitive thinking (dispositions) • Intercultural journey – Make spaces and enrich your experience via active intercultural engagement and relationships – Pursue intercultural awareness and reflect on intercultural learning lessons along the way – Share your own cultural knowledge and understanding to enrich others

Table 7.1 is a template adapted from a female East Asian doctoral scholar’s strategic plan. Identifying and planning key areas where she would like to progress effectively guided her year-long plan. Her efforts to allocate time for her research, personal development and other scholarly activities led to an impressive CV that outlines her publications, internship and scholarly activities achieved during her PhD. Careful planning on what she would like her final CV to look like takes strategic effort, which paid off when she got a full-time academic post immediately after her PhD. What about you? You may want to revisit Chapter 2, Table 2.1 and consider integrating other areas highlighted by successful international PhD scholars into your plan. Doing so can help ensure that you give balanced attention to your research, well-being and post-PhD career. Please take time to consider all the intercultural components that underpin each of your responses.

186  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

Table 7.1  One-year strategy plan Months

PhD research tasksa

Skill Scholarly developmentb opportunitiesc

January February March April May June July August September October November December a PhD research tasks include writing monthly literature review drafts and methodology drafts, transcription and data analysis. b Skill (and personal) development includes participation in department activities, e.g. a TESOL café, preparation for the Annual Progress Review, academic writing discussion with the university’s postgraduate research writing adviser, internship role, Graduate Teaching Assistant application, workshop attendance (e.g. Professional Skills Development, Endnote) c Scholarly Opportunities include book chapter writing, abstract submission to two international conferences, collaborative writing with a fellow doctoral scholar.

A PhD is not a competition Learning orientations vary. In some academic and societal cultures, it might have been impressed strongly on learners that the way to academic success is through competition. After all, their educational experience is

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  187

generally characterised by a series of competitions – from classroom activities to school, regional and national examinations where students compete with others to enter the best primary or secondary schools and universities (Figure 7.1). An effective approach to a PhD is not about being competitive but engaging in interdependent learning with fellow scholars, supervisors and other scholars in the field (Spina et al., 2020). This reminds us of the relatedness

Figure 7.1  Keep your eyes on the prize.

188  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

component in Figure 6.2. In this sense, keeping your eyes on the prize means each PhD scholar is forging ahead until completion rather than entering a contest with fellow scholars in pursuit of a competition-based reward. As discussed in Chapter 2, communities are the platforms that enable doctoral scholarly learning to take place. What is more, well-being is often nurtured and intercultural relations are cultivated through active community engagement. The powerful interconnection between academic progression and well-being can best be illustrated using the metaphor of two trains, i.e. ideally, these two trains need to run in parallel at the same pace throughout the PhD journey. Paradoxically, it can be argued that interdependence is even more crucial in pursuit of researcher independence. Although connecting with others, at times, leads to tension and has time implications, you can observe for yourself what benefits interdependence can offer.3

Moving forward: Chasing interdependence rather than competition Supervisors are necessary but they are not your only source of support for the research journey. Peer support will complement what supervisors (who are often time-poor) offer. Cultivate a culture of interdependence to yield reciprocal cognitive, social and well-being rewards. Some questions are best answered not by supervisors but by fellow scholars who might have experienced a similar issue. • Actively pursue connecting and interconnecting with others within and outwith academia. Either strong or

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  189

weak ties are reported to be beneficial both in academic and social aspects. • Aim to grow and help others grow by sharing your knowledge and skills • Be supportive while receiving support from fellow scholars and colleagues – during good and bad times. Motivate others constantly – particularly when some begin to lose interest along the way. • Nurture each other’s psychological well-being through camaraderie and friendship.

International (as well as local) doctoral and postdoctoral scholars can proactively pursue interdependent learning via collaborative group interactions and activity sharing. It is worth reiterating that authentic learning can take place not only within but also outside the academia – often as part of the hidden curricular pedagogies (Elliot et al., 2020; Mantai, 2017). As Boynton (2021) has argued – academia is more than any learner’s experience of university. In this connection, it is crucial that all scholars are aware of the complementarity between formal and hidden curricula, particularly since interdependence occurs in both. This suggests that if these extra doctoral curricular pedagogies are harnessed together with the more visible formal curriculum, the combined pedagogies can better support any scholar academically, emotionally and psychologically. This is particularly beneficial as they go through the very tricky stages of competence development – discussed in Chapter 4. Recognising and embedding the formal and the hidden curricula can strategically take a preventative approach in supporting scholars to c ­ omplete a PhD, maximise their learning experience and achieve

190  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

transformative growth while nurturing their well-being, with support from the institutional culture. As illustrated in Figure 7.2, all these factors collectively foster a holistic PhD development (see Elliot et al., 2020, p. 13). So, what are the ways in which collaboration and positive interdependence can be encouraged? These selected publications offer easy-to-implement starters, and so, I would encourage you to read these resources further. What is more, you can tailor any of the suggested activities below to meet your own needs. • Peer support meetings characterised by a regular exchange of ideas, feedback-giving and discussions (Jiang & Zhou, 2022) • Cultivating an ‘office community’ via collegiality and camaraderie (Balgabekova et al., 2020) • Involvement in peer writing groups (Guerin & Aitchison, 2017) • Participation in communication and reading groups with peers (Makara et al., 2023; McAlpine, 2012) • Offering input into research-sharing activities, seminars or workshops, e.g. acquired research method expertise (or Elliot et al., 2021) • Understanding key doctoral practice and fostering a ‘shi men’ relationship with fellow scholars, who work with the same supervisor(s), through informal social and academic networking that aims to complement formal supervision (see Dai & Elliot, 2022; Wang & Byram, 2019) • Active participation in cultural communities that foster shared cultural identity and affiliation, to ‘recreate’ comfort zones via familiar communal practices and

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  191

Areas of support

Formal Curriculum

Stages of Competence

Hidden Curriculum

Areas of support

academic

P

Unconscious incompetence

P

academic

R emotional

O C

social

E S

psychological

S

R

Conscious incompetence

O

Conscious competence

E

Unconscious competence

S

emotional

C social

S psychological

Psychological wellbeing Transformative growth PRODUCT Doctoral qualification

Figure 7.2 A conceptual framework of the formal and the hidden curricula within doctoral education using the four stages of competence.

192  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

benefit from a supportive means of understanding a new culture (Cai et al., 2019) • Pursuing ‘third space’, or ‘informal spaces that foster personal learning, enjoyment and development through friendships, social activities and wider support networks’ to seek a sense of belonging, alleviate stress, pursue socialisation opportunities and encourage physical and psychological well-being (Elliot et al., 2016, p. 1189) • Enhancing international academic experience and competence development through regular and reflective conversations (Sakurai et al., 2021)

Managing cognitive dissonance As elaborated upon in Chapter 3, as scholars move from one academic culture to another, it is common to experience cognitive dissonance due to the discrepancy arising from knowledge, beliefs, or norms between two academic or societal cultures. It can then lead to a type of cognitive tension or cognitive discomfort – prompted by any of the following: • Differing academic literacy or academic practices – reading, writing, critical thinking and its application leading to identity development (McAlpine, 2012), • Understanding of what academic excellence entails and how it is practised (Amery et al., 2020), • Preferred approaches to supervision, • Forms of assessment employed in learning – formative and summative, and • Academic practices shaped by hierarchy or power dynamics in academia (Savva & Nygaard, 2021).

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  193

Moving forward: Expecting the unexpected • Doctoral research journey – Do not be afraid to ask questions or voice your opinions, particularly when your views differ – Avoid the culture of silence, possibly due to perceived hierarchy (or power dynamics) between you and your supervisors (or other scholars). Practise openness and transparency to avoid any confusion, frustration or misunderstanding, e.g. lack of clarity on the feedback received • Doctoral development journey – Endeavour to understand in-depth the competences that you need to develop, including how they are culturally constructed. Consider how they are similar to or different from your previous understanding of these competences • Intercultural journey – Accept differences of perspectives. Explain your view if necessary but do not feel guilty – Actively interact with the academic and nonacademic community to increase familiarity with and confidence about the norms and practices in the new academic and societal culture With your greater awareness of cognitive dissonance that international scholars experience when they cross cultures, you can then anticipate and be more equipped for such encounters. Rather than being caught by surprise, think about how best you can respond. For example, when you hesitate to raise and clarify part of the supervisory discussion despite confusion over feedback or instruction received, reflect on what prevents

194  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

you from doing so. Could it be that it was impressed on you that teachers and supervisors should never be challenged and this is causing you to experience cognitive dissonance? Ponder over it. Even argue with yourself. Remember, seeking clarity is the best way forward for you and everyone concerned (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019). Let us consider two real dilemmas – first, by a Japanese scholar who pursued her PhD in Denmark, and second, by a Saudi Arabian doctoral scholar who studied in the UK – If I don’t understand, I shouldn’t say ‘Yes’ … But I have tended to … say ‘Yes’ or smile [even when I] really don’t [understand and] (laughing) things are not really [clear]. In the end, they can see … that my face is totally confused. Then he [repeats]: ‘Do you really understand or …?’ and then I say ‘No’. (Zuki, PhD student; Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019, p. 923) Questions such as ‘really?’… or ‘what do you mean?’ pressed me to better explain and provide further evidence … or ‘suggest you read xyz for more insights’…. Such feedback … held me to high academic standards [placing] the ownership of my own work back on me. … it … required some adjustment … it was not something I was accustomed to. (Mohammad, EdD scholar; see Savva & Nygaard, 2021, p. 63) While cultural dissonance is typical and may put scholars in a daunting or confusing situation, personal effort to

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  195

understand what is behind the conflict can help address the confusion (Kim & Spencer-Oatey, 2021). In turn, it helps with the learning progression, even preventing potential time wasting. Preference for a culture of silence rather than openly discussing the confusion over these cultural differences presented could be ‘comforting’ but it could lead to further issues, including confusion, unmet expectations and needs, and at times, even accusations of. In this respect, Jing, a PhD scholar from East Asia who pursued a PhD in Higher Education offers some insight. Her advice when dealing with potential academic-related issues brought about by cognitive dissonance, is to seek a sound understanding of the scholarly expectations in the host country. For example, in terms of academic writing, could this be linked to writing analytically and critically and thus require applying other skills demanded by the new academic culture (Tian & Lowe, 2013)?

Jing [In terms of where I had to adjust pedagogically, it would], go back to writing. When I did my PhD, I felt easy with the writing because I liked writing myself, but the academic writing was quite strict in the sense that you have to be careful when you quote people and I think that kind of issue of plagiarism and also critical review – [these are] the two things I found really challenging and at the beginning, my writing was quite descriptive … [but] the supervisor … always expected it to [integrate] critical thinking or critical analysis … that’s one of the things I struggled with for a couple of years.

196  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

Mohammad also raised the importance of taking ownership of your PhD. You can carefully consider the perspectives, advice, suggestions and comments from your supervisors, mentors, researcher developers and other scholars, but you need to remember that you are principally accountable for the direction (and progress) of your study. Wisker et al. (2007, as cited in Wilmot and McKenna, 2018, p.6) remind us that taking ownership is empowering – [those] who are able to engage in problemsolving dialogues with their supervisors and with peers are likely to develop as collegial equals, empowered to undertake and maintain momentum with their own research, owning both the process and outcomes of their research, and then further able to take their research into their lives after the PhD has been completed….

Doctoral supervisors Doctoral supervisors typically serve several roles – advisers of research, mentors, scholars’ first port of call, academic writing teachers, career counsellors and guides in navigating unfamiliar territory (Blackmore et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2018; McCray & Joseph-Richard, 2020; Savva & Nygaard, 2021; Timmermans & Meyer, 2019). Supervisors’ research is often closely aligned with their supervisees’ research and familiarity with their supervisees’ academic strengths or weaknesses, developing competences and areas for improvement makes

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  197

supervisors best placed to offer guidance and meaningful forms of support, e.g. in bridging academic cultures (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019).

A pedagogy underpinned by kindness and a supportive approach When giving academic guidance, supervisors at times find themselves having to balance carefully between giving support and encouragement while pointing out areas where improvement is necessary. This comes from supervisors’ knowledge of the high standards needed to achieve a PhD. This is then combined with efforts to scaffold learning that promotes autonomy and facilitates scholars’ development into independent, competent and innovative researchers (Åkerlind & McAlpine, 2017; Makara et al., 2023; Overall et al., 2011). A delicate balance in feedback-giving is crucial in assisting and reinforcing scholars’ progression while being careful not to crush their confidence. As Janssen et al. (2021) eloquently put it, ‘an important need-supportive function of supervisors is to confirm students’ competence and give them enough confidence to succeed’ (p. 2744). Additionally, a pedagogy of kindness is worthy of consideration. This entails going beyond attending to international doctoral scholars’ academic needs and paying attention to their holistic development, too – irrespective of the country they are from or the circumstances they are in. While some supervisors may think that reaching out to scholars beyond their academic remit is a tall order, there are many manageable ways to do this.

198  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

It is worth bearing in mind that many of these ideas may only require minor adjustments for supervisors, but they can be very rewarding for these international scholars. Supervisors may consider adopting any of these activities as part of their practice to help promote intercultural interactions between doctoral scholars and supervisors. These activities can complement standard formal supervisory provisions. Likewise, they enable new access to mutually available support and promote better relations. • Peer support group via a community of international and local doctoral scholars. In partnership with another supervisor(s), they can create a small community of scholars under their supervision. It is completely flexible how often the group meets, how the discussions can be structured and what activities they may focus on for each session. With their knowledge of their supervisees, research interests, methods used and the discipline where research studies are situated – choices for activities are almost limitless. Sample activities may include reading, discussing and critiquing a newly published paper; brainstorming scholars’ approach to organising articles, books and book chapters when reviewing the literature; discussing blog posts on various aspects of academic writing or doctoral life (e.g. https://patthomson.net/, https:// thesiswhisperer.com/, https://drhiddencurriculum. wordpress.com/). Supervisors can also ‘open the floor’ and accommodate other ideas from the group to ensure that everyone benefits from these activities (e.g. informal sharing concerning time management, approaching gatekeepers). They can be adventurous in what, where and how these activities are organised – in the building, outdoors or online.

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  199

Inspired by research laboratory groups in the hard sciences, e.g. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) where lively interactions and collaborative learning between supervisors and scholars take place regularly, we decided to recreate our very own laboratory group of international doctoral scholars.4 In a peer support group that my University of Glasgow colleague and I have organised since 2016, we met with our doctoral scholars for two hours every month to reinforce their learning via informal academic activities – inspired by dialogic learning principles (Wegerif, 2018). We engaged them in academic writing activities, critiquing half-written manuscripts, co-writing academic papers and discussing relevant research strategies. Members shared insights, research techniques and practical strategies they found effective or challenging. Latterly, our sessions also included mock vivas and mock presentations. When the pandemic struck, our meetings continued by transitioning to an online mode (see Elliot & Makara, 2021). Apart from the intended academic outcomes, these meetings led to building a small close-knit scholarly community – eventually serving as ‘an extended platform for social and psychological support’ and where ‘each activity became a natural extension for social connection’ (Elliot & Makara, 2021, pp. 697–700; Watson & Turnpenny, 2022). This community promoted camaraderie, built a sense of belonging and supported them in addressing a dual sense of loneliness and the Imposter Syndrome – common among many international scholars. In turn, community members became predisposed to supporting each other, especially when

200  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

facing various challenges posed by the doctoral process. Fostering well-being (Beasy et al., 2020; Elliot et al., 2016; Hradsky et al., 2022), this community even played a crucial ongoing role when members found themselves coping with the pandemic. It is worth stressing that apart from numerous opportunities for intercultural learning, the cognitive, social and psychological benefits offered via this community were also extended to us as supervisors (Elliot & Makara, 2021). As time passed, these communities naturally continued to evolve. For example, one of the ideas which I incorporated when a new batch of doctoral scholars joined us is an informal discussion on how knowledge is created. I view this as a gradual preparation for what might be regarded as one of the hardest tasks in writing the thesis, i.e. articulating the contribution of the research to knowledge. In this activity, members take turns choosing a paper and leading the discussion, with everyone individually reading the paper before the session (see Makara et al., 2023). With all these possibilities, it is manageable for supervisors to organise such informal meetings. In a way, our small community has become a form of ‘constellation mentoring’, which involves a group of mentors and mentees who work collaboratively to access and offer support to each other (Li et al., 2018, p. 567). • Sharing knowledge and resources. With supervisors’ wealth of research experience and accumulated resources, they can almost effortlessly share examples of their own work with doctoral scholars. This richly complements the guidance offered during supervisory meetings. Examples include sharing their own published papers. The reference list alone can highlight key reading materials, the most authoritative authors

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  201

from certain disciplines and the most relevant journals in the field. Since supervisors tend to be well-versed in a particular theory, sharing their knowledge and theoretical framework can also usefully offer a shared metalanguage and a richer engagement with doctoral learners (Wilmot & McKenna, 2018). Other examples could be informally sharing how supervisors personally use software, e.g. NVivo for reviewing the literature or sharing their own research materials when explaining how they applied certain techniques, e.g. photo-elicitation, online questionnaire, audio diary, systematic review. In our group, my colleague shared an example of an Excel file that she previously used in organising various resources in preparation for reviewing the literature (see Appendix A). This has also given our group an insight into how academics approached a particular task, in this case, preparing to review the literature. • Formative task for activities with peers. This can be a core activity that promotes academic literacy through a focused discussion on deepening their understanding of academic writing standards, feedback-giving to peers and personal reflection on how lessons can be applied in their doctoral writing (Makara et al., 2023). Viewing ‘feedback as a dialogic process’ gives a new perspective on what feedback is for – putting the onus of feedback effectiveness on both the learner and the teacher (Carless & Boud, 2018; Lam, 2021, p. 87). • Complementary approaches that underpin effective supervision. Interculturally proficient Danish supervisors raised social-orientated suggestions when working with international scholars. They view offering pastoral

202  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

care as central to making them feel safe and in promoting a sense of belonging. This may include setting an informal space for nurturing and empowering these learners, e.g. a walk in the park. Meeting these learners outside the academic context enables getting to know them better as a scholar and as a person – including their strengths and concerns. While they pursue a ‘friend-like’ attitude, they also maintain a professional working relationship. These supervisors’ actions are their expressions of ‘gestures of goodwill’ – intended to assist scholars’ academic progress and well-being (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019, p. 922). They believe that better knowledge of the student can then help them adjust their supervision style according to learners’ actual needs. While their focus is on cultivating a healthy supervisorsupervisee relationship, they know that it also has a positive impact on effective supervision. In sum, a key lesson from this study is that – [Supervisors] recognise that adjustments do not merely depend on international students alone. On the contrary, supervisors are in an ideal position to respond to these adjustments in a supportive capacity and a constructive manner (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019; Savva & Nygaard, 2021, p. 926).

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) As highlighted earlier, addressing the linguistic and culturalrelated challenges and tensions that can affect international doctoral scholars’ academic progress, research productivity, well-being and mental health require a joined-up approach (Byrom et al., 2020; Elliot, 2022).

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  203

While it might not be feasible to address all these potential challenges, it is proposed that ‘it is incumbent upon research institutes and their faculty to gain cultural competence and be more appreciative of the unique contexts in which cross-cultural researchers operate’ (Savva & Nygaard, 2021, p. 66).

It’s time to get our act together! Apart from supervisors, other key players include doctoral convenors, researcher developers, Graduate Schools and institutional leaders whose specific remit is to advance institutional research culture and doctoral scholars’ overall learning and successful course completion. In this respect, a number of considerations for HEIs are as follows: • Promoting ‘a healthy understanding of academic acculturation and transition to a new culture is crucial, in academic or non-academic spheres, and in formal as well as informal contexts’ (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2019, p. 913) and applying pedagogical models based on individual context (Wilmot & McKenna, 2018). Raising intercultural awareness and its impact on supervisor-­ supervisee relationships is important. It is vital for supervisors to develop their cultural knowledge and competence particularly when working with international scholars from highly dissimilar backgrounds to help them address potentially distinct educational and cultural needs, should it be necessary (Savva & Nygaard, 2021). • ‘More intentional efforts’ to involve international scholars’, supervisors, principal investigators and

204  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

administrative staff in some training in intercultural communication and pedagogical improvements (Åkerlind & McAlpine, 2017; Amery et al., 2020; Kim & Spencer-Oatey, 2021). Ideally, this will be integral to the university policy as a way of valuing diversity, differences of perspectives and mutual understanding. • Professional development incentives, tailored seminars, colloquia and workshops focused on cultural sensitivities and their impact on working relationships, academic progress and well-being need consideration. It is to equip supervisors or other staff members with the tools that can assist meaningful interactions and offer international scholars optimal support to maximise their learning (Savva & Nygaard, 2021). • Greater and specific attention to doctoral development training that is centred on raising intercultural awareness and understanding is needed. They are intended to offer distinct insights into various tasks, e.g. feedback literacy, self-evaluation, peer assessment, understanding the cross-cultural communicative nature of feedback, including the values and intentions behind the feedback (Åkerlind & McAlpine, 2017; Carless & Boud, 2018; Tian & Lowe, 2013; Winstone & Carless, 2021). Further, self-reflection tools for doctoral scholars in the form of formative assessment can be developed and integrated into the annual progress reviews process (Amery et al., 2020). • In addition to managing expectations through a shared understanding of doctoral expectations, supervisors and supervisees could begin the intercultural supervision with a discussion of cultural and educational differences and similarities (Savva & Nygaard, 2021). Discussing academic cultures as well as the ‘rules’ or ‘expectations’ in the new setting is a good starting

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  205

point. Nevertheless, teaching international scholars the skills required remains essential (Tian & Lowe, 2013). After all, international doctoral education is merely a starting point. Opening the doors for useful intercultural engagement can enrich the experience not only of international doctoral scholars but of the entire academic community. • Promote sharing of ‘culturally responsive pedagogies’, e.g. various writing conventions, sharing of effective practice in better supporting doctoral scholars’ writing styles and addressing challenges they face (Heng, 2018, p. 33). • Establish and promote scholarly and non-scholarly doctoral communities to encourage a culture of thriving intercultural interaction. Such communities could be ‘small or large, fun, social or both, purely disciplinary, or fully inclusive, mandatory or optional, tailored or generic, institutionally-embedded or self-sustaining, doctoral scholar-led or supervisor-led, and via face to face or online meetings’ (Elliot et al., 2022, p. 494; Makara et al., 2023; Watson & Turnpenny, 2022). • Capitalise on how learning pedagogies from the hidden curriculum can be harnessed to complement and reinforce what the formal doctoral structure brings to promote holistic PhD development, i.e. a transformative and meaningful doctoral experience, a successful PhD completion while preserving one’s psychological well-being (Elliot et al., 2020). Altogether, these recommendations particularly highlight the value of intercultural learning as a vital tool for international scholars’ doctoral learning and development. I would further argue that their entire ‘Intercultural Journey’ (see Figure 6.2) is invaluable in interconnecting

206  Promoting positive intercultural engagement

cognitive, social and psychological components leading to meaningful learning experiences. For international scholars, an appreciation of the psychology of doctoral learning presented in this book is, therefore, critical – a thriving doctoral experience is collectively underpinned by Intercultural engagement, Intercultural competence, and Intercultural relations. What this [also] means is that efforts to support international doctoral learners will, first and foremost, benefit these learners. Effective transition to a new environment, feeling empowered and acquiring the confidence they require to function better as learners will create a more favourable impact as they interact with fellow local and international doctoral learners, and arguably extended to their respective supervisors and others in different communities of which they are part. In turn, we can argue that nurturing this group not only leads to their own growth and development but also to an enhanced and enriched experience for the whole academic community. (Elliot, 2018)

Notes 1 This is a sentiment also expressed in Helena’s vignette in Chapter 3. 2 Schemas are basic mental structures for understanding and responding to situations. 3 The ideas in this section have been inspired by two keynote addresses: (a) the metaphor was part of the author’s keynote address entitled ‘Communities and interdependence: Considerations for fostering PhD scholars’ psychosocial health and wellbeing’ for the European

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  207 Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) SIG 24 webinar on 7th–8th April, 2022; and (b) Dr Kara Makara’s keynote address entitled ‘Connecting and interconnecting: Encouraging communities of practice among doctoral scholars’ for the University of Stirling Faculty of Social Sciences Doctoral Conference on 16th June, 2022. 4 We believe that forming such a group is particularly useful in disciplines (e.g. Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities) where isolation is frequently recognised as a problem due to the general absence of laboratory groups.

References Åkerlind, G., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Supervising doctoral students: variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1118031 Amery, E., Koh, K., Diaz-Caceres, Z., & Paris, B. M. (2020). The role of intercultural competence on graduate supervisor-supervisee relationship and well-being. Journal of Educational Thought, 53(2), 125–154. Balgabekova, D., Ipe, R., Wang, Y., & Yohannes, H. (2020). PGR Team 681: the hidden curriculum of doctoral camaraderie. https:// drhiddencurriculum.wordpress.com/2020/07/03/pgr-team681-the-hidden-curriculum-of-doctoral-camaraderie/ Beasy, K., Emery, S., Dyer, L., Coleman, B., Bywaters, D., Garrad, T., Crawford, J., Swarts, K., & Jahangiri, S. (2020). Writing together to foster wellbeing: doctoral writing groups as spaces of wellbeing. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(6), 1091–1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1713732 Blackmore, C., Ohlsen, S., Guccione, K., Elliot, D., & Daley, R. (2020). ‘Are you ok?’ Mental health and wellbeing of international doctoral students in the UK: an investigation of supervisors’ understanding and existing support provision. https://www.ukcisa.org.uk/Research-Policy/Resource-bank/resources/189/Are-you-ok-Mental-healthand-wellbeing-of-international-doctoral-students-in-the-UK Boynton, P. (2021). Exploring Challenges – Enjoying the PhD ‘This PhD Life’ Symposium. University of Glasgow (online). Byrom, N. C., Dinu, L., Kirkman, A., & Hughes, G. (2020). Predicting stress and mental wellbeing among doctoral researchers. Journal

208  Promoting positive intercultural engagement of  Mental Health, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2020.181 8196 Cai, L., Dangeni. D., Elliot, D. L., He, R., Liu, J., Makara, K. A., Pacheco, E.-M., Shih, H.-Y., Wang, W., & Zhang, J. (2019). A conceptual enquiry into communities of practice as praxis in international doctoral education. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 1(1), 11–36. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602 938.2018.1463354 Dai, K., & Elliot, D. L. (2019). ‘Shi men’ as key doctoral practice: understanding international doctoral students’ learning communities and research culture in China. Oxford Review of Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2123309 Elliot, D., He, R., & Dangeni. (2021). Showcasing the hidden curriculum via PhD-led research sharing activities. https:// drhiddencurriculum.wordpress.com/2021/03/25/showcasing-thehidden-curriculum-via-phd-led-research-sharing-activities/ Elliot, D., Swingler, M., Gardani, M., Pacheco, E.-M., & Boyle, J. (2022). ‘Let’s talk about well-being!’: fostering interdependence in doctoral communities. In B. Cahusac de Caux, L. Pretorius, & L. Macaulay (Eds.), Research and Teaching in a Post-Pandemic World: The Challenges of Establishing Academic Identities During Times of Change (pp. 481–496). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7757-2_32 Elliot, D. L. (2022). What does supporting international doctoral learners mean? https://supervisingphds.wordpress.com/2018/03/23/whatdoes-supporting-international-doctoral-learners-mean/ Elliot, D. L. (2021). A ‘doctoral compass’: strategic reflection, selfassessment and recalibration for navigating the ‘twin’ doctoral journey. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1652–1665. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/03075079.2021.1946033 Elliot, D. L., Baumfield, V., & Reid, K. (2016). Searching for ‘a third space’: a creative pathway towards international PhD students’ academic acculturation. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1180–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144575 Elliot, D. L., Bengtsen, S. S. E., Guccione, K., & Kobayashi, S. (2020). The Hidden Curriculum in Doctoral Education. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-41497-9 Elliot, D. L., & Kobayashi, S. (2019). How can PhD supervisors play a role in bridging academic cultures? Teaching in Higher Education, 24(8), 911–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1517305 Elliot, D. L., & Makara, K. A. (2021). An online community of international scholars: enabling spaces for reciprocal academic and psychological

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  209 support. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(6), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1991424 Guerin, C., & Aitchison, C. (2017). Peer writing groups. In S. Carter & D. Laurs (Eds.), Developing Research Writing: A Handbook for Supervisors and Advisors (pp. 51–55). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315541983-10 Heng, T. T. (2018). Different is not deficient: contradicting stereotypes of Chinese international students in US higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2 016.1152466 Hradsky, D., Soyoof, A., Zeng, S., Foomani, E. M., Cong-Lem, N., Maestre, J.-L., & Pretorius, L. (2022). Pastoral care in doctoral education: a collaborative autoethnography of belonging and academic identity. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 17, 23. Janssen, S., van Vuuren, M., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2021). Sensemaking in supervisor-doctoral student relationships: revealing schemas on the fulfillment of basic psychological needs. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2738–2750. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.18048 50 Jiang, Q., & Zhou, J. (2022). PhD Student ‘Peer Support Group’: More Than You Think. https://drhiddencurriculum.wordpress.com/2022/04/11/ phd-student-peer-support-group-more-than-you-think/ Kim, K. H., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2021). Enhancing the recruitment of postgraduate researchers from diverse countries: managing the application process. Higher Education, 82(5), 917–935. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-021-00681-z Lam, D. M. K. (2021). Feedback as a learning-oriented assessment practice: principles, opportunities, and challenges. In A. Gebril (Ed.), Learning-Oriented Language Assessment: Putting Theory into Practice (1st, Kindle ed., p. 22). Routledge. Lee, M. C. Y., McMahon, M., & Watson, M. (2018). Supporting the career decisions of Australian-based international Chinese doctoral students. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 18(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-018-9360-y Li, S., Malin, J. R., & Hackman, D. G. (2018). Mentoring supports and mentoring across difference: insights from mentees. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 26(5), 563–584. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13611267.2018.1561020 Makara, K. A., Balgabekova, D., Gordon, K., Meng, F., Tripornchaisak, N., Wu, Z., & Elliot, D. L. (in press). ‘It is a nice way to end the week’: Journal Club as an authentic and safe learning space. In D. L. Elliot, S. S. Bengtsen & K. Guccione (Eds.), Developing Researcher Independence Through the Hidden Curriculum. Palgrave.

210  Promoting positive intercultural engagement Mantai, L. (2017). Feeling like a researcher: experiences of early doctoral students in Australia. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 636–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1067603 McAlpine, L. (2012). Shining a light on doctoral reading: implications for doctoral identities and pedagogies. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(4), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/147 03297.2012.728875 McCray, J., & Joseph-Richard, P. (2020). Towards a model of resilience protection: factors influencing doctoral completion. Higher Education, 80(4), 679–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00507-4 Mittelmeier, J., & Kennedy, J. J. (2016). Adapting together: Chinese student experience and acceptance at an American university. In D. Jindal-Snape & B. Rientes (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Transitions of International Students to Higher Education (pp. 161–180). Routledge. Overall, N. C., Deane, K. L., & Peterson, E. R. (2011). Promoting doctoral students’ research self-efficacy: combining academic guidance with autonomy support. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(6), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.535508 Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: developing tools for an effective classroom. Education 3–13, 130, 241–250. Sakurai, Y., Shimauchi, S., Shimmi, Y., Amaki, Y., Hanada, S., & Elliot, D. L. (2021). Competing meanings of international experiences for early-career researchers: a collaborative autoethnographic approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–15. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/07294360.2021.2014410 Savva, M., & Nygaard, L. P. (Eds.). (2021). Becoming a Scholar. Cross-Cultural Reflections on Identity and Agency in an Education Doctorate. UCL Press. Sirri, L., & Lord, J. (2022). Cognitive development. In J. Lord (Ed.), Psychology of Education: Theory, Research and Evidence-Based Practice (pp. 137–159). Sage. Spina, N., Harris, J., Bailey, S., & Goff, M. (2020). ‘Making It’ As a Contract Researcher: A Pragmatic Look at Precarious Work. Routledge. Tian, M., & Lowe, J. (2013). The role of feedback in cross-cultural learning: a case study of Chinese taught postgraduate students in a UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 580– 598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.670196 Timmermans, J. A., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2019). A framework for working with university teachers to create and embed ‘Integrated Threshold Concept Knowledge’ (ITCK) in their practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(4), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 60144X.2017.1388241

Promoting positive intercultural engagement  211 Wang, L., & Byram, M. (2019). International doctoral students’ experience of supervision: a case study in a Chinese university. Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057 64X.2018.1518405 Watson, D., & Turnpenny, J. (2022). Interventions, practices and institutional arrangements for supporting PGR mental health and wellbeing: reviewing effectiveness and addressing barriers. Studies in Higher Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.20 20744 Wegerif, R. (2018). A dialogic theory of teaching thinking. In L. Kerslake & R. Wegeriff (Eds.), Theory of Teaching Thinking: International Perspectives (pp. 167). Routledge. Wilmot, K., & McKenna, S. (2018). Writing groups as transformative spaces. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 868–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1450361 Winstone, N. E., & Carless, D. (2021). Who is feedback for? The influence of accountability and quality assurance agendas on the enactment of feedback processes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695 94X.2021.1926221

Quantitative - Undergraduate experimental students at University in Cyprus (n = 54)

Quantitative - Undergraduate experimental psychology students in Canada (n = 1,248) and n = 1,334)

Cheng, C. K., Paré, D. E., Collimore, L., & Joordens, S. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of a voluntary online discussion forum on students’ course performance. Computers & Education, 56 , 253-261.

Science college students at College in Minnesota (n = 242)

Cavus, N., Uzunboylu, H., & Ibrahim, D. (2007). Assessing the success rate of students using a learning management system together with a collaborative tool in web-based teaching of programming languages. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 301-321.

Bongey, S. B., Cizadlo, G., Kalnbach, L. Quantitative (2005). Using a course management system achievement (CMS) to meet the challenges of large tests lecture classes. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22 , 252-262.

College students in Austrailia (n = 63, 59 completed open-ended questionnaires, 20 for interviews)

Qualitative primarily, followed by quantitative

Bliuc, A., Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2011). A blended learning approach to teaching foreign policy: Student experiences of learning through face-to-face and online discussion and their relationship to academic performance. Computers & Education, 56 , 856-864.

Sample

Quantitative - Undergraduate quasi students (n = 693) experiemental in computer science course at University in Spain

Method

Theories/concepts

Fragmented' and 'cohesive' to describe less elaborated and more elaborated sets of conceptions of learning; phenomenographic tradition of the experience of learning and learning as 'changing as a person'

Moderate constructivist instructional model - a model that organises and structures the educational contents to help build knowledge schemas for learners; composed of five phases: analysis, design, implementation, execution, and evaluation

Examined intrinsic (i.e., voluntary) forum participation and its relation to course performance - Exper. 1 looked at course performance in relation to forum participation - Exper. 2 controlled for initial measure of course performance

Study compared 3 conditions on course success – traditional, standard collaborative tool through Moodle LMS, advanced collaborative tool through Moodle LMS

Findings

A higher success rate on course assessment when an LMS system is combined with an advanced collaborative tool (GREWPtool: can exchange info with all students, just one student, or instructor, can record all communication, and can jointly develop the computer programs) during the teaching of programming languages in a Web-based environment. (t-tests). No difference between traditional learning and standard collaborative tool.

• WebCT site included student self-tests that act as a basic form of expert system or informative tutor by providing very specific feedback to answers students selected in this multiple choice experience • Use of a CMS yielded a measurable improvement in student achievement (t-tests)

• in both face-to-face and online contexts, the descriptions of the approaches to discussion varied considerably in terms of quality of learning • Students had higher marks in the class when they had cohesive conceptions of learning and deep approaches to learning through discussion • Some variation in what is considered “deep learning” in the online and face-to-face discussions

* No significant differences are found between grades of students in blended learning and e-learning, although both were higher than in face to face * also found that students in the blended learning model had a lower drop out rate

Collaborative knowledge construction Participating in the discussion forum, particularly reading posts discussion forums enhance the process of on the forum, slightly improved exam performance sharing knowledge among learners and "learning emerges out of efforts to construct shared meanings"; focused on a forum not connected to grades and used solely as a medium to ask questions and discuss

Mentions that the virtual learning environment explored in the study is derived from several learning theories most heavily constructivism; Mention two types of collaborative tools - standard collaborative tool vs. advanced collaborative tool which enables students to compute, save, and run prgorammes inside a collaborative tool

Describe the process and outcome when a Practical oriented article focuses on the professor of anatomy and physiology challenges of large class sizes for both made supplemental use of a course the instructor and learners, focuses on a management system (CMS) to assist with specific case study of designing a course the instruction of undergraduate students management system to improve quality while addressing constraints

How do students make sense of combined online and face-to-face discussion? Exploring qualitatively different ways in which students (a) approach learning across different learning contexts, that is, through face-to-face and online discussion and (b) conceive of learning through discussion in general

To analyze the impact that a constructivist blended learning system has had on the dropout rate and academic achievement of learners taking a course unit compared blended learning, distance learning, FTF

Question/Purpose

Review of Literature on Learning Management Systems/Blended Learning on Student Outcomes

Alonso, F., Manrique, D., Martinez, L., & Vines, J. M. (2011). How blended learning reduces underachievement in higher education: An experience in teaching computer sciences. IEEE Transactions on Education, 5 4, 471-478.

Reference

Organising resources for reviewing the literature

Appendix A

Quantitative experimental AND Qualitative

Undergraduate psychology students at University of North Texas (n = 209)

Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of learning management systems. Computers & Education, 53 (3), 686-694.

Quantitative - University survey AND instructors (n = log data 1357 and 1481) and university students at University of Michigan (n = 2485 in 2006 and n = 2281 in 2007)

Explored the uses (log data) and perceived benefits (reported value) of using a LMS to support traditional classroom teaching as reported by instructors and students; looked at two years of survey data to learn whether LMS is changing instructors’ pedagogical practice and students’ preferences for how they learn

Learning management systems as not only leading to efficiency but also moving beyond the 'transmission of information' towards providing opportunities for innovations in learning and active online engagement; student-centred knowledge construction

* Both instructors and students had high value for activities within the LMS that make the transmission of course materials and announcements more efficient * Teaching and learning activities were not as highly rated by instructors or students, although still generally valued * Students preferred a higher level of IT use than did instructors, and over 50% of students thought that efficiency was the most valuable benefit whereas the most valuable benefit of using IT for instructors was efficient communication * Value ratings consistent with actual tool use

Model of information systems by Delone The more involved a student is with the LMS site, the stronger and McLean (2003) as theoretical the benefits they report. On the other hand, student involvement framework - information quality, system did not have an effect on LMS use. Instructor involvement was quality, and service quality -> impacts use found to guide appropriate use, both in terms of the nature of and user satisfaction (student satisfaction) use and the extent of use. Furthermore, instructor involvement -> impacts net benefits (student benefits) contributed to student benefits by affecting information quality which affects the benefits students receive from use. (was student self-report, including student success in the course)

In the university’s use of Moodle, many more resources (89%) published fell under information than communication categories (11%) * The use of more IR does not stimulate communication interactivity in students * Teachers’ activities on the CMS (publishing resources or interacting in various forms) had a greater effect on themselves than on students

Active learning - collaborative/interactive, • Students in the blended sections successfully completed the authentic experimental learning, and course (i.e., receiving an A, B, or C) at a significantly higher rate problem-based learning; the importance (89.7%) than those in the F2F section (82.4%; p < .05). of learners becoming 'creators of • They reported experiencing more student interaction and knowledge rather than merely consumers authentic learning, and they felt a greater sense of community of it'; Bloom's taxonomy as a framework within the class for assessment student learning outcomes

1. To what degree was the use an social constructivist learning theory; information source and a communication concepts of information, communication, resources? 2. To what degree did teachers and interactivity; five levels of interaction implement resources and activities that grouped into two broad categories: could manage to generate interaction and informational level and communicational communication between participants? level; digital vestige: trace of events and actions

Reviewed literature on use and effectiveness of blended learning; present outcomes from a quasi-experimental comparison of blended vs. face-to-face lecture delivery methods in a human development course (course achievement and qual course feedback)

Quantitative - Students at a Tested the hypotheses that student and Klobas, J. E., & McGill, T. J. (2010). The University in instructor involvement with an LMS role of involvement in learning management survey Australia (n = 244) positively affects student use, satisfaction system success. Journal of Computing in with, and benefits from LMS use Higher Education, 22 , 114-134.

Hamuy, E., & Galaz, M. (2010). Information Quantitative - 70 virtual vs. communication in course management log data classrooms from a system participation. Computers & University in Chile Education, 54 , 169-177.

Cottle, N. R., & Glover, R. J. (2011). Teaching human development: A case for blended learning. Teaching of Psychology, 38 , 205-208.

214  Organising resources for reviewing the literature

I’d like to hear from you….

The ideas presented in this book are based on a combination of research evidence, observations and personal experience of working with a number of international doctoral and postdoctoral scholars. Having read and reflected on various aspects of international scholars’ journeys, I am very interested in hearing from you, particularly in learning what you decided to put into practice. Have you used any ideas from this book for navigating your own international doctoral or postdoctoral journey, or perhaps to assist others in their journeys? If you did, has the new model that explains the psychology behind international doctoral scholars’ journeys made a qualitative difference to your experience? Whether as an international scholar, supervisor or an institutional leader in a Higher Education Institution, have you considered and implemented any of the guidance in the final chapter? If so, I would very much appreciate if you could e-mail me at [email protected] Learning how this book might shape your international experience or someone you work with matters to me. Thank you very much in advance and I look forward to hearing from you.

Index

Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables, italic page numbers refer to figures and page numbers followed by “n” denote endnotes. academic acculturation 12, 39, 41–43, 86, 88–89, 97 academic culture 15, 35–41, 62, 81–85, 90–92, 96 academic writing 43, 54, 58, 69, 87, 88, 111, 153, 157, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201 active engagement 74, 122 Åkerlind, G. 15 Albertyn, R. 30, 110 Amery, E. 164, 177 Amundsen, C. 58 a new model for international doctoral scholars 153–172 authoring 67 aware 137 Ayres, Z. J. 170 Balgabekova, D. 190 Barry, K. M. 30, 73, 158 Becher, T. 81 Belavy, D. L. 130 Bennett, K. 110 Bengtsen, S. S. E. 7, 157 Berman, J. 10, 157, 168

Blackmore, C. 32, 89, 158, 170, 172, 196 Boud, D. 147 Boynton, P. 189 Buckler, S. 44 building bridges 139–142 Byrom, N. C. 30, 202 Cai, L. 29, 71 Carless, D. 147 case study: Benjiro 119–122; Hamza 179–181; Ikemba 56–57, 65; Jing 195; Meerim 131–136; Omkar 181–182; Shimeca 93–98 career 1, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 33, 53–55, 57, 58, 65, 72, 103, 149, 163, 185 Castle, P. 44 chess playing mindset 8–9 cognitive dissonance 85, 192–195 cognitive isolation 31 Colman, A. M. 36, 133 common interests and needs 73

218  Index

communities outside academia 73 compass 3, 6, 134, 135 complementary approach 201–202 conscious competence 111, 111, 113 conscious incompetence 111, 113 contextual challenge 62–63 creating knowledge 28, 112–113 culture/cultural: communities 29, 73, 190; crossing 2, 80, 86–87, 87, 94–95; cultural patterning 37–38; defined 36; dissonance 85, 194–195; distance 38, 40; and influences. 36–37, 37; isolation 31 Daborn, E. 39 Dai, K. 190 Deci, E. L. 44, 46, 107 Deconinck, K. 65 departmental communities 70 Devos, C. 29 didaktik tradition 144–145, 150n2, 178 disciplinary communities 71 doctoral:development journey 161, 163, 185, 193; education 16–17, 21, 30, 66, 84, 103, 116, 142, 157, 171–172; genre 13, 18, 19, 53, 111, 154; intelligence framework 30; isolation 31; pedagogy 157, 189; puzzle 19, 65, 66, 69, 177; research journey 160–163, 184,

193; standards 123, 141, 154; supervisors 196–197 Dunleavy, P. 67–68 Dunning-Kruger effect 114 Elliot, D. L. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 28–30, 32, 35, 40, 41, 46, 47, 57, 59–61, 63, 67, 73, 84, 86, 89, 90, 98, 104, 107, 109, 110, 113, 114, 116, 135, 144, 145, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 171, 182, 184, 190, 194, 197, 200, 202, 203, 205 emotional isolation 31 expecting the unexpected 53–75, 193 formative tasks 201 feedback literacy 142, 147–149 Gardner, S. K. 29, 31, 70, 107, 157 global outlook 89–90 Guccione, K. 7, 58, 157 Guerin, C. 190 Heng, T. T. 41 hidden curriculum 9, 29, 116–117, 121, 164 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) 83–84, 202–206 Holliday, A. 85 Holmes, P. 66 imposed isolation 31 imposter syndrome 71, 113, 199 Inouye, K. S. 143 institutional communities 70

Index  219

institutional research culture 32–35, 129, 142, 154, 158, 178, 184, 203 intellectual challenge 60–61 intercultural 2, 38; awareness 5, 8, 21, 163, 176, 177, 184, 185, 203, 204; competence 89, 162; engagement 1, 21, 153, 162, 176–177, 181, 205; interaction 95; journey 161–164, 177, 184–185, 193, 205–206; relations 141, 147, 149, 157–158, 159, 162, 172, 188 interdependence 107–108, 108, 121, 141, 188–190 international learner drivers 84, 166–167, 171 international scholars 2–3, 5, 7, 12, 16, 22n1, 29, 35, 38–41, 44–45, 47, 54–55, 59, 69, 80, 85, 90–93, 140, 157–158, 162–163, 166–167, 176, 179–183, 206 international scholarship 9–15 international student ­mobility 9 Janssen, S. 197 Janta, H. 15, 31, 96, 105 Kadar, D. Z. 36–38 Kiley, M. 66 knowledge brokers 90 Kuhn, D. 22n4, 66 laboratory 71 learning adjustment challenge 61–62

Levecque, K. 29, 73, 158 Lovitts, B. E. 61–62 Lowe, J. 40, 145–146 Mantai, L. 30, 141 McAlpine, L. 15, 58, 143 McCray, J. 29, 35, 59–61, 63, 73, 105, 130, 196 metacognition 66, 133–134, 136–137, 141, 159 metacognitive approach 128–129, 129, 136, 141, 149, 158–160, 159; to learning 128–149, 153–172 metacognitive thinking 65–66, 69, 130–131, 134, 136–138, 160, 164 Mewburn, I. 153 motivation 128–149, 153–172 Murray, R. 67 Navarro, J. L. 168 Nygaard, L. P. 80 opposing perspectives 90 Overall, N. C. 107, 197 Paltridge, B. 16 pedagogy of kindness 148, 197–202 peer support group 198–199 personal assessment 96 personal challenge 61 PhD: as an adventure 11, 12, 28, 154; experience 1–2, 4–6, 10–16, 18–19, 21, 22n5, 27–31, 33–35, 45–47, 54–55, 55–65, 69–74, 104–107, 111,

220  Index

119–122, 130–132, 134, 136, 154–155, 160–165, 168, 185–188; purposes of 15, 16; standards 16, 61, 109, 123, 141, 154 physical isolation 31 positive intercultural engagement 176–207 positive research culture 34, 128, 140 Pretorius, L. 10, 31, 73, 89, 143, 158 receptivity vs. conformity 97 reflective 137 research culture 18, 32–35, 43, 74, 114, 118, 128, 129, 136, 140, 142, 154, 158, 178, 184, 203 Researcher Development Concordat 33 The Role Perception Scale 16 Rowe, N. 12, 28 Ryan, R. M. 44, 46, 107 Sakurai, Y. 98 Savva, M. 80 Sawir, E. 105 schemas 182, 206n2 scholarly communities 29, 32, 70, 71, 95, 116, 135 scholarly writing 67 Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) 199 scrap patchwork 153–154 self-appraisals 133, 138 Self-Determination Theory (SDT) 43–47, 47n1, 103, 106–119, 121, 130, 136, 140, 142, 157–158, 160, 165, 168, 177; autonomy

45–46, 106–108; competence 45–47, 108–114; relatedness 45, 47, 114–118 self-management 133–134, 138–139 sharing knowledge and resources 200–201 Shift Learning 35 Skipper, Y. 4 social challenge 61 social connections 47, 114–115, 115, 118, 130, 140, 161, 171, 181, 199 socialisation process 29, 36–38, 72, 114 socialised learning 47, 47n1, 95–96, 106–107, 117, 148, 154–155, 161–162 social isolation 31 sojourn 11, 38–41, 44–45, 87–88, 176, 183 Spencer-Oatey, H. 36–38, 40, 62, 82, 87, 157, 195, 204 stages of competence development 109–111, 134, 137, 148, 189 Starfield, S. 16 Stoicheva, M. 170 strategic learners’ thinking 137 student-advisor community 71 supervisors 2, 4, 5, 7, 13, 15–17, 21, 28, 34, 42, 54, 55, 63, 71, 86, 90, 92, 98, 105, 107, 113, 116, 118, 119, 131, 132–134, 143, 145, 147, 148, 162, 170, 171, 177, 178, 187, 188, 193, 194, 196–204, 206 Sverdlik, A. 10, 15, 28, 31

Index  221

tacit 137; understanding 90 Thomson, P. 67–68 threshold concepts 66 Tian, M. 40, 145–146 transversal competences 66–67 Trowler, P. R. 81 Tsvetkova, N. 170 Tudge, J. R. H. 168 uncertainty 59, 105, 110 unconscious competence 110, 111, 113 unconscious incompetence 110, 111, 112 undergraduate 28, 56, 59–60, 62, 75n2, 112, 114, 130, 154 Vygotsky, L. 36 vignettes 17, 21, 63, 93, 95, 118, 131, 133, 179, 181

Watson, D. 33, 158, 199, 205 Wegerif, R. 199 well-being 12, 18, 28, 30–33, 42, 48, 53–55, 63, 72–74, 89, 96, 107, 124, 141, 149, 156, 157, 167, 181, 184, 185, 188, 190, 192, 200, 202, 204, 205 Wellcome Trust study 33 Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) 81 Williams, A. 39 Wilmot, K. 196, 201, 203 Winchester-Seeto, T. 32, 48n5 Winstone, N. E. 142, 143, 148, 204 Wisker, G. 66, 196 yearly strategy plan 186