The increased demand for independent researchers, coupled with high attrition rates on doctoral programmes, have focused attention on the support provided to aid doctoral researchers become ‘active relational agents’ in research communities (Pyhältö and Keskinen 2012). In this paper we explore how an analysis of doctoral researchers’ experiences as they negotiate community participation and engagement can further our understanding of the support needed to facilitate a move towards more participative culture for those at the early stages of their doctorates. The university research environment is often seen as key to supporting the development of creative, collaborative and autonomous researchers, with its significance noted in high-stakes assessments. Despite the attention on this, doctoral researchers in the UK consistently report lower levels of satisfaction with research culture than with other aspects of their experience (Neves 2022). The focus on improving the support provided to doctoral researchers has frequently been focussed on supervisors. These issues are also of concern elsewhere in Europe, for example through recent calls to develop research cultures where doctoral researchers have opportunities to engage with research communities from the start of their programmes (Corcelles-Seuba, Suñe-Soler, Sala-Bubaré & Castelló 2022).

Drawing on a communities of practice theorisation, we map the communities that doctoral researchers participate in, situating these in relation to the wider research environment, and the access to resources this affords. Then, using agency theories, we frame doctoral researchers’ relationships within and across communities and networks. We explore how these relationships vary, considering spatiotemporal dimensions (Aarnikoivu 2021), and ‘embodied, material or imaginary mediators of experience’ (Hopwood 2010, p109). The concept of professional agency, utilised in studies of teacher professional learning (Eteläpelto et al., 2013 p.61) frames an understanding of how experienced professionals engage in the early stages of researcher development. Previous studies of doctoral researchers’ engagement and participation in research communities have identified relational agency (Edwards 2005) and the development of relational expertise (Douglas 2020) as offering productive ways of thinking about support for doctoral researchers. In this paper we consider how relational pedagogical practices may be made more explicit, developing a research culture that offers both support and challenge to doctoral candidates in their journeying to become researchers. 

We focus on the following research question:

• How do  doctoral researchers in the first year of a professional doctorate navigate research communities?

The challenge of engagement with and participation in research communities for those at the start of their doctoral programmes has increasingly been the focus of research. Candidates on professional doctorates, typically experienced professionals with successful careers, may bring networking skills from practice that can be utilised to aid research networking. At the same time, they are aware of being ‘novices’ in research, facing the challenge of making sense of identity shifts as they begin the process of socialisation into research communities. In this paper, we consider the opportunities that professional doctorates provide and how the pedagogical affordances such programmes offer might be exploited for other forms of doctorate.

This paper explores doctoral student experiences through data generated in the context of a professional doctorate. Candidates in the first year of the Doctorate in Education (EdD), at one university in England, participated in tutorials designed to create spaces for sense-making as part of the initial phase of the doctorate. Each tutorial was scaffolded by a reading activity and/or suggested prompts for discussion. The research study involved their participation (subject to agreement) in tutorials that were audio recorded. These were followed by an invitation to take part in a one-to-one interview focussed on the tutorial experience with a member of the research team. At the time, we were also tutors on the EdD. Given the power dynamics involved, the study was informed by relational ethics practices (Clandinin, Caine & Lessard 2018): we maintained a focus on ethics throughout, attentive to shifting relationships and practices as we developed the study. This included conversations with the doctoral researchers, student representatives and peers, together with a successful application for institutional ethical approval. We were clear that there was no obligation to take part in the research, whilst also mindful of the privilege of our positions as course tutors. The somewhat novel (in education research) practice of studying tutorial talk in the context of learning, rather than data generated specifically for research purposes, provides access to alternative perspectives of how doctoral researchers make sense of their experiences of the research environment. The data from individual interviews provided an opportunity for doctoral researchers to elaborate on selected extracts from the discussion. Data was analyzed thematically using an approach adapted from Braun and Clarke's (2022) reflexive thematic analysis. This approach views knowledge as situated, shaped by our practices as researchers. We explore what researcher subjectivity does to analysis, recognising subjectivity as a resource and considering the ways in which this enriches analysis through reflections on our analytical memos. Themes generated were shared with participants, now further on in their doctoral programmes, as part of our commitment to transparency in the research.

Doctoral researchers began to participate as active agents in research communities through talk/interaction with others (both in the tutorial and in other interactional events), scaffolded pedagogical tasks and other resources the research environment provides e.g. writing retreat, academic writing workshops, opportunities to meet others, EdD seminars. Analysis revealed the influence of a complex network of diverse communities, with doctoral researchers variously positioned in relation to these. Participants demonstrated burgeoning confidence, situating themselves in the community with respect to other researchers and taking a stance in relation to their research. This participation provided evidence of their developing knowledge and understanding. Across the data, networking featured strongly as doctoral researchers discussed ways of meeting and engaging with others. The challenges identified in the data may be particularly keenly experienced by those on professional doctorates and include: the tension between professional and researcher roles; difficulties in uncovering aspects of their professional environment which are challenging, including questioning assumptions, looking with new eyes and moving from insider to outsider. Doctoral researchers derive support from their engagement with a complex network of communities, resources and tasks, using the tutorial spaces to reify practices of ‘being a researcher’. The tutorial space acted as a [kind of] ‘brave space’ where doctoral researchers (and tutors) were able to reveal vulnerabilities, work out questions and challenges, co-construct understanding, express emotions, make plans, debate, and formulate strategies. They provided a space for them to recount stories of sometimes small steps in active participation in research communities and for recognition of agentic actions by peers. We suggest that pedagogies of participation developed through professional doctorate programmes offer models that may inform the development of support programmes for all doctoral researchers.

Aarnikoivu, M. (2021). The spatiotemporal dimension of doctoral education: a way forward, Studies in Higher Education, 46:11, 2431-2443, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1723530 Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage. Clandinin, D. J., Lessard, S., & Caine, V. (2018). The relational ethics of narrative inquiry (pp. 230-230). New York: Routledge. Corcelles-Seuba, M., Suñe-Soler, N., Sala-Bubaré, A. & Castelló, M. (2022). Doctoral student perceptions of supervisory and research community support: their relationships with doctoral conditions and experiences, Journal of Further and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2142102 Douglas, A. S.. (2020). "Engaging Doctoral Students in Networking Opportunities: A Relational Approach to Doctoral Study." Teaching in Higher Education: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1808611. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168-182. Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45-65. Hopwood, N. (2010). "A Sociocultural View of Doctoral Students' Relationships and Agency." Studies in Continuing Education 32 (2): 103-117. doi:10.1080/0158037X.2010.487482. Neves, J. (2022). Postgraduate Research Experience Survey 2022: sector results report. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/reports-publications-and-resources/postgraduate-research-experience-survey-pres Pyhältö, K. & Keskinen, J. (2012). “Doctoral Students’ Sense of Relational Agency in Their Scholarly Communities.” International Journal of Higher Education 1(2): 136–149.