Topic and aim

A growing body of scholarly literature has extensively focused on doctoral student experience, highlighting the multifaceted challenges they face in completing their doctoral degrees and achieving their other relevant objectives (e.g., refs). The doctoral journey is arguably complex and multifaceted, extending beyond the acquisition of the academic proof of disciplinary expertise and requiring a range of support beyond academic foundations (Elliot et al., 2020). Recent years have witnessed the increasing scholarship highlighting that doctoral students’ experiences are profoundly influenced by the hidden curriculum i.e. unspoken norms and expectations, and cultural values that are embedded in doctoral education but rarely articulated (Elliot et al., 2016; Elliot et al., 2020).

This autoethnographic study aims to shed light on the role of shared office spaces in shaping the hidden curriculum within doctoral education. The authors of this paper have shared the same office space (office 681) since 2017 at a UK university, with some leaving the tangible space but maintaining a close connection with others, and some joining at times. Throughout years, the office has remained a dynamic and cohesive environment for meaningful engagement, academic development, and collective celebration of success. Data was collected through reflective writing and analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Drawing on the conceptual framework proposed by Elliot and colleagues (2020), this paper explores the lived experiences of doctoral students sharing an office to highlight the diverse trajectories of learning and thriving through the hidden curriculum embedded in such spaces. Findings of this study demonstrate how the office stands as an enabling space for informal learning, emotional support, long-term co-creation of knowledge base, and implementation of community practices. This intangible but significant value embedded in the shared office space critically denotes a need to synthesise a novel dimension in relation to four “S”s – spatiality, sustainability, self-agency and safety –  to the framework, and provides key directions for future developments in doctoral education in the UK.  

Theoretical/Conceptual framework

Elliot and colleagues’ framework (2020) of the formal and hidden curriculum within doctoral education outlines four dimensions for supporting doctoral students’ achievements in psychological wellbeing, transformational growth, and doctoral qualification. The four dimensions include emotional, academic, social, psychological. Through the prism of this framework, this study looks at the ways in which informal and hidden curriculum is developed by sharing an office in the four dimensions and how office facilitates doctoral students to go through the four stages. As an outstanding example of student-initiated informal learning (ref. in one Dely’s work), the shared office is arguably an enabling space that helps harness the informal or hidden curriculum for doctoral students. Drawing on this conceptual framework to articulate this could further illuminate the critical roles of peer interactions, embodied space, and other diverse aspects regarding hidden curriculum in doctoral education.

Autoethnography integrates autobiography and ethnography to investigate personal experiences within situated contexts (Adam et al., 2017; Ellis et al., 2011; Starr, 2010). While embracing researcher subjectivity (Chang, 2016; Ellis et al., 2011), it uniquely articulates cultural phenomena and integrates absent narratives into existing knowledge (Adam et al., 2017; Chang, 2016; Poerwandari, 2021). However, the focus on self-reflection raises concerns regarding validity, reliability, and potential "self-indulgence", alongside the vulnerability of others in terms of relational ethics (Adam et al., 2017; Cooper & Lilyea, 2022; Méndez, 2013; Ellis, 2007). Collaborative autoethnography (CAE) improves reliability and ethical rigor through cooperative procedures (Ngunjiri et al., 2010). By foregrounding critical, interpersonal lenses, CAE offers deeper interpersonal understanding and anonymity (Hernandez, 2021; Lapadat, 2017). This paper employs CAE to explore the "hidden curriculum" developed among ten doctoral candidates in a shared UK university office, addressing a gap in literature regarding the role of shared-office spaces. Data Collection From September to December 2025, all authors used reflective writing to document their experiences in the shared office space. This method allowed for critical and free articulation of thoughts, guided by a co-created plan involving prompts on academic development, social interaction, well-being, and community belonging. A mid-period group meeting was held to deepen reflections and ensure research alignment. By the end of December, ten reflective pieces (1000–2000 words each) were collected, capturing rich narratives and critical evaluations of the shared doctoral workspace. Data Analysis Guided by the conceptual framework of Elliot et al. (2020), the data underwent a multi-stage thematic coding process. The first author performed initial coding, followed by independent coding by two other authors to ensure reliability. While most codes aligned - identifying key themes like tangible space, affective connections, and co-production - discrepancies in wording were resolved through collaborative meetings. The first author then synthesized these results into final themes, which were shared with all authors for member checking to ensure the analysis accurately reflected their lived experiences.

Four themes were identified from the data. The first theme is spatiality, bond, and extendibility. It illuminates the cruciality of having a tangible shared space, where concrete bonds were established by sharing small objects within the office and advanced towards an infinite space that carries continuously. The second theme is intergeneration, legacy, and co-curated knowledge, which denotes a form of knowledge that is collectively and informally co-produced and sharpened across multiple batches of officemates. The third theme is about the office as a holding space for belonging, emotion, and trust. This theme particularly sheds light on the safety and trust embedded in the office, enabling the authors to share their authentic feelings, seek company, and obtain attuned support. The last theme, agency, ownership, and embodiment, demonstrates the power of the self-governed office as key in strengthening the development of it to meet doctoral students’ diverse needs, such as community building. Overall, the findings of this study suggest that the shared office space could be shaped as a pivotal site for harnessing hidden curriculum in doctoral education. This particular space provides a consistent ground for initiating and gaining ethical support and understanding, intergenerational knowledge sharing and co-curating, and necessary academic support in completing a PhD. In a summary, this informal form of learning is featured by spatiality that enables initial connections, sustainability that co-produces a transgenerational legacy, safety that holds compassion and carefulness, self-agency that embodies and maintains the office in shape. These four “S”s substantiate the original framework (Elliot et al., 2020) by detailing what are needed to start and maintain a form of student-initiated, informal hidden curriculum. Overall, the shared office space constitutes a great source of support for doctoral students, facilitating their development to go through the four stages of competences.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Chang, H. (2016). Autoethnography as method. Routledge. Cooper, R., & Lilyea, B. (2022). I’m interested in autoethnography, but how do I do it. The qualitative report, 27(1), 197-208. 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. Elliot, D. L., Baumfield, V., Reid, K., & Makara, K. A. (2020). The hidden curriculum in doctoral education. Palgrave Macmillan. Elliot, D. L., Bengtsen, S. S. E., Guccione, K., & Kobayashi, S. (2020). What is the hidden curriculum? In The hidden curriculum in doctoral education (pp. 1–19). Palgrave Pivot. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: an overview. Historical social research/Historische sozialforschung, 273-290. Hernandez, K. A. C. (2021). Collaborative autoethnography as method and praxis: Understanding self and others in practice. In Autoethnography for librarians and information scientists(pp. 61-76). Routledge. Lapadat, J. C. (2017). Ethics in autoethnography and collaborative autoethnography. Qualitative inquiry, 23(8), 589-603. Méndez, M. (2013). Autoethnography as a research method: Advantages, limitations and criticisms. Colombian applied linguistics journal, 15(2), 279-287. Ngunjiri, F. W., Hernandez, K. A. C., & Chang, H. (2010). Living autoethnography: Connecting life and research. Journal of research practice, 6(1), E1-E1. Poerwandari, E. K. (2021). Minimizing bias and maximizing the potential strengths of autoethnography as a narrative research. Japanese Psychological Research, 63(4), 310-323. Starr, L. J. (2010). The use of autoethnography in educational research: Locating who we are in what we do. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education/Revue canadienne des jeunes chercheures et chercheurs en éducation, 3(1).