The Scholarship of Research Degrees: Influential Publications and Influential Writers in The Discipline of Doctoral Education

The scholarship of research degrees: Influential publications and influential writers in the
discipline of Doctoral Education
Alistair McCulloch, Research & Innovation Services, University of South Australia.

Email: Alistair.mcculloch@unisa.edu.au
ABSTRACT
The results of a survey of the international community of scholars and professionals involved in the
practice and study of doctoral education are reported. Its purpose was to identify the most
influential publications in the discipline and its most influential writers. The use of citation analysis as
a method is discussed, and the reasons for rejecting it are explained. Instead, an online
questionnaire was developed and participation invited through an email circulated via the mailing
lists of a number of relevant and regularly-held conferences across the world, a number of relevant
Jiscmail mailing lists, a number of relevant LinkedIn groups and other channels. A total of 151
individuals accessed the questionnaire, although not all completed it in full. In addition to identifying
the most influential publications and the most influential writers in the discipline of doctoral
education, the paper also analyses the gender patterns of the authorship of the identified
publications.
The range of influential publications items including books (109), articles (94), short works/chapters
(12) and reports and other items (34) addressing a broad range of topics. The most common
countries from which first authors were drawn is Australia, the UK and the US. Of the most
frequently 13 nominated works, all but one had first been published after 2000, and five of them
had male first-authors and the remaining eight female. Of the 16 most influential writers identified
by respondents, all but two are female and the list includes individuals drawn from five countries
(Australia [8], UK [4], US [2], Canada [1] and Aotearoa/New Zealand [1]).
The article provides a guide to influential (and potentially useful) literature for use in development
activities designed for research students, their supervisors and others involved in the practice and
management of doctoral education. It also identifies areas for further research.
KEY WORDS
doctoral education, PhD education, research degrees, citation analysis, gender and authorship,
doctoral education as a discipline
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

2
INTRODUCTION
This article is part of a larger project examining the nature of doctoral education as an area of
academic practice or study. In a companion piece published recently, I argue that a good case can be
made for ‘doctoral education to be regarded as a discipline because it meets the large majority of the
(necessary) characteristics.’ These characteristics include a number of factors relating to either
ontology and epistemology or to organisational and social factors. (McCulloch 2018, p. 100 and
passim) Two of the key characteristics identified as necessary to the existence of a discipline are ‘a
significant body of work’ (what some might call a canon) and a body of ‘talented scientists’ who are
engaged in the scholarship of the subject. The arguments contained in that article would be
strengthened by empirical evidence concerning what might be considered to be the most important
and influential publications in the discipline and, also, who might be its most influential writers. During
the early stages of developing the 2018 article which claimed disciplinary status for doctoral
education, it became apparent that no empirical work had been undertaken on either of these areas.
This article reports a piece of research designed to address that gap in our knowledge.
Measuring influence – the limitations of citation analysis
For something or someone to be influential in an academic field is for them to be highly regarded and
to have had a ‘major impact on… thinking’. (Bedeian and Wren 2001, p. 221) As is often the case with
assessing impact, the apparent simplicity of this statement is belied by the difficulties of its
operationalisation. (McCulloch and Loeser 2016) The most common approach to identifying academic
influence involves citation analysis. (A useful review of the literature up to 2004 is provided by
Schmidgall et al., 2007.) At its simplest, this involves identifying the most-frequently cited publications
in a field and taking those publications as the most influential writings and the authors of those
writings as the most influential scholars. (Weller 2015 p. 261) This approach has been adopted in a
number of fields of study or disciplines including Critical Care Medicine (Rosenberg et al 2010),
Economics (Durden and Ellis 1993), Hospitality Management Education (Bedeian and Wren 2001), and
Higher Education (Tai et al 2013). A similar approach has been used to determine the most influential
journals and provide rankings for use by: scholars to help them decide where to publish; university
administrators in making decisions about academic promotions; and, others wanting to determine the
standing of individual academics and their departments. (Durden and Ellis 1993)

3
While citation analysis is relatively simple to undertake (although it can be time-consuming) it also has
significant limitations and especially so in an area like doctoral education. The first stems from the
need to identify a population of publications on which to perform an assessment of importance. One
way to do this is to identify journals central to the discipline or field and examine articles published in
those journals (for example, Cohn and Farringdon 1994; Lowe and Locke 2005) or, on occasion, only
one journal [Yan and Ding 2010]). As Bonner et al. say, the identification of journals for this purpose
‘can be a contentious exercise’ (2006, p. 664). More fundamental, however, is that it assumes that
there are core journals of relative long-standing dedicated to the area of study which is not so in the
case of doctoral education. (There are, however, journals in which the work of scholars in the discipline
focus their work. In the survey whose results are reported below, articles from Studies in Higher
Education appeared 27 times, from Higher Education Research & Development 8, from Innovations in
Education and Teaching International 5, from The Journal of Higher Education 4, and from Teaching in
Higher Education 4. There are also the relatively recently-established Studies in Graduate and
Postdoctoral Education and the online International Journal of Doctoral Studies). The alternative is to
use key words to identify publications from across the full range of journals and then perform the
analysis on those publications. This approach depends crucially on a consensus within an area about
the relevant keywords. This proved to be a significant issue in an analysis of the literature in Critical
Care where, despite only having a very limited number of generally agreed upon keywords to deal
with, ‘only 50% of the most cited and therefore arguably most influential articles’ were found.
(Rosenberg et al 2010, p. 158-9) In doctoral education, where the terminology is not agreed (doctoral
education, postgraduate research, research education, PhDs, graduate research degrees, higher
degrees by research, research training, and research degree candidature are simply some of the
variations), the problems faced are more intractable.
A second limitation, and one which applies directly to the current project, is that it cannot be assumed
that the most influential literature will be found only in the form of journal articles. It is well-
recognised that the collection and systematisation of citations is much more fully developed in the
areas of engineering, health, natural and the physical sciences than in the social sciences and
humanities where there “are limitations to using citation analysis to assess research” (Lang and
Canning 2010, p. 299). Citation collection is also much more developed for journals than it is for books,
chapters and other forms of publication. As the current article shows, influential works in doctoral
education can be identified across all forms of publishing and many of these would not have been
surfaced had a citation analysis approach been adopted.

4
A number of other, more generally applicable, issues associated with the use of citations to determine
influence are well-summarised by Weller:
(1) Citations do not measure readership and do not account for the impact of scholarly papers
on teaching, professional practice, technology development, and non-academic audiences (or
its impact on policy-makers); (2) publication processes are slow and it can take a long time
until a publication is cited; (3) publication practices and publication channels vary across
disciplines and the coverage of citation databases… may favour specific fields; and (4) citation
behaviour may not always be exact and scholars may forget to acknowledge certain
publications through citations or may tend to quote those papers that are already more visible
due to a high number of citations. (2015, pp. 264-5. See also Durden and Ellis 1993, pp. 2-3.)
Finally, Cohn and Farringdon (1994, pp. 216-221) provide a useful overview of both the positives and
negatives of using citation analysis as a means of assessing influence.
When measuring the influence of individual scholars, in addition to citation analysis, other approaches
have been suggested including ‘by peer ratings, (and) by the receipt of prizes or major offices in
scholarly societies’ (Cohn and Farringdon 1994, p. 205). Finally, one other way of examining influential
literature and writers would be to examine curriculum documents and reading lists on coursework-
based tertiary programs. Research on this approach has not yet been undertaken but, in any event, it
would not be applicable to doctoral education as there are very few coursework-based programs
focussed on research degrees.
Method
Given the shortcomings citation analysis would bring to the assessment of doctoral education’s most
influential literature and writers, it was decided instead to undertake a survey of members of the
global community of practice focused on doctoral education. An online questionnaire was developed
and participation was invited by email. The email included a link to the questionnaire and was
circulated to potential respondents via the mailing lists of a number of relevant and regularly-held
conferences across the world. These were the Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference
(Australia), the Postgraduate Supervision Conference (South Africa), the International Conference on
Doctoral Education (USA), and IDERN, the International Doctoral Education Research Network
(international). The invitation was also circulated via a number of relevant Jiscmail mailing lists

5
(‘Education-Doctorates’, Evaluating-Impact’, ‘Postgrad’, ‘RDScholarship’, ‘Sup-Development’, and

‘UKCGE-Members’. (See www.jiscmail.ac.uk) It was also circulated to a number of relevant LinkedIn
groups. Finally, two well-networked personal contacts (one in Canada and the other in the European
Union, the latter of whom circulated the invitation via the European Universities Association-Council
for Doctoral Education) were asked to circulate the call for respondents via their networks. A total of
151 individuals accessed the questionnaire although not all completed it in full.
The questionnaire contained the following four questions:
1. Have you actively engaged with the academic scholarship of and research into higher degrees by
research (doctorates, Masters by research, research degrees) either as a researcher, a manager,
a practitioner or someone who works in some other capacity with research degree students?
2. In which part of the world are you currently based or working?
3. Who do you think have been or are the most influential writers in the broad field of research
degrees? Please feel free to name up to five individuals in order of their influence.
4. If you were asked to nominate up to ten published items (books, articles, reports etc) for inclusion
in a library of important and influential works in the field of the scholarship of higher degrees by
research/doctoral education, which items would you select? (Please provide the authors and titles
of the items.)
The first three questions are straightforward but the fourth requires a short explanation. It was posed
in this form so that respondents would be encouraged to think of identifying the canon of work in
doctoral education rather than simply those they themselves had found most helpful. It was also
posed this way and left deliberately open so that individuals could interpret ‘important and influential’
as they saw fit. It was hope that by doing this it would maximise the inclusion of publications reflecting
all the various dimensions of Weller’s ‘impact of scholarly papers on teaching, professional practice,
technology development, and non-academic audiences (or its impact on policy-makers)’ (Weller,
2015, pp. 264) and also reflect differing cultural and socialisation influences, discussion of which lies
outwith this paper. A total of 72 individuals moved through the questionnaire to complete one or both
of questions 3 and 4.
Ethical approval to undertake the survey was obtained from the University of South Australia’s Human
Research Ethics Committee and the survey was open to respondents between 6th July and 18th
September 2015. The remainder of the article describes and analyses the responses to the survey.

6
Publications
In total, respondents nominated 419 individual items for inclusion in the hypothetical doctoral
education library which they were being asked to populate. These items exhibited a range of formats
including books, short works (including individual chapters in edited collections), articles, reports
and blogs, and these are itemised in Appendix 1. An inclusive approach was taken when deciding
whether items should be included and the touchstone question was whether or not an item would
be of interest to all, or a significant subset (such as those in a broad cognate area) of, doctoral
students, their advisers or supervisors, or those involved in the administration of graduate research
degrees. If it would be, then it was included, if not it was excluded. Thus, some respondents
suggested subject-specific publications (e.g. legal textbooks, textbooks on international relations
theory, and publications related to school teachers and their training) and these have been excluded
from the analysis as not being relevant to the broader group of individuals interested in doctoral
education. On the other hand, items focused on methodology have been included as they do have a
broader relevance given the centrality of an understanding of the range of methodological
approaches to the education of a successful doctoral researcher. Similarly, items on the broader field
of higher education and teaching and learning in higher education have been included because of
their relevance to the development of doctoral students as academic professionals. A small number
of items could not be identified because the description (or citation details) provided by a
respondent was too sketchy. Finally, it is worth noting that there were a number of surprising
omissions. Readers will no doubt have their own view on what these might be.
Similar numbers of books (109) and articles (94) were nominated, alongside a smaller numbers of
short works/chapters (12), and reports and other items (34). Between them, they address a broad
range of topics of relevance to doctoral education as shown in Table 1. The allocation of items to
categories was undertaken by the author of the current article either on the basis of existing
knowledge of the literature or, where there was unfamiliarity with an item, followed a reading of the
abstract or contents page and one or more sections. Items were only included in one category and
allocation to a category was made on the basis of an item’s principal focus. Allocation to a category
should not be taken as meaning that an items does not include reference to another, simply that any
other category was not its prime focus. The most common category, which included more
recommended items than any other, was that of items whose focus was doctoral education in
general rather than a specific aspect of the subject. This included the ‘How to do a PhD…’ books that

7
address the full PhD process rather than a specific aspect of it (McCulloch and Stokes, 2006), and
also those addressing policy and management issues and the development of doctoral education.
Table 1: Main topic focus in the nominated publications
Books Articles Short Other Total

Topic areas Works &
Chapters
General doctoral education (inc. policy 19 20 2 12 53
and management)
Supervision 12 16 4 3 35
Student experience (inc. support, 11 18 1 4 34
retention/attrition)
Research and research methodologies, 25 3 1 0 29
philosophy of science
Academic writing (inc. thesis 21 4 3 0 28
development)
Academic literacies (exl. writing but inc. 4 10 0 1 15
identity and socialisation)
Careers 3 8 0 2 13
General higher education 5 2 0 3 10
Assessment 1 6 0 1 8
Skills development 3 1 0 4 8
Professional doctorates 1 3 0 2 7
Industry/partnership 0 3 1 2 6
Other 4 0 0 0 4
Totals 109 94 12 34 249
The second category (actually a set of sub-categories) included works focused on specific aspects or
elements of doctoral education and the processes it involves. (‘How to… books’ focusing on one part
of the doctoral process, for example supervision or examination, were included in the relevant sub-
category.) In order of number of recommended items, these were supervision, the student
experience (including support, retention and attrition), research and research methodologies
(including those addressing the philosophy of science), academic writing and thesis development,
academic literacies other than writing but including issues to do with identity and socialisation,
careers, higher education in general, assessment, transferable skills development, industry and
partnerships, and professional doctorates. Eleven books but only two articles were suggested five or
more times. Of the total number of nominated books, 34 (or 31%) fell into the category of ‘How to…’

8
books. These ‘How to…’ books were most likely to have UK-based sole or first authors (17), the US
(8), Australia (5), Aotearoa/New Zealand (3) and Japan (1) following.
Table 2 shows the frequency of mention of items in the categories of books and articles. (There were
few chapters or reports that were mentioned more than once. A notable exception with four
nominations was Park [2007].)
Table 2: Frequency of appearance of nominated publications
Number of Books Articles Short Other Total

times Works &
nominated Chapters
10+ 2 1 3
5-9 9 1 10
3-4 7 5 1 13
2 8 10 3 21
1 83 77 12 30 202
Total 109 94 12 34 249
Table 3 shows the geographic location of the first authors of the nominated works. For respondents
to the survey, the most influential literature on doctoral education is associated with the Anglo and
the US traditions with very similar overall numbers of nominated works involving first authors from
Australia, the UK and the US. The first authors of a further nine nominated items were based in
Canada, nine in Aotearoa/New Zealand, with only 22 first authors being based in other countries.
Relatively few of the nominated works were the result of international collaborations. Excluding the
Table 3: Geographical location of first authors of nominated publications
Books Articles Short Other Total

Works &
Chapters
Australia 18 44 5 10 77
US 39 22 2 7 70
UK 39 14 4 7 64
Europe (Exc UK) 3 5 0 6 14
Canada 2 5 1 1 9
New Zealand 5 4 0 0 9
Japan 3 0 0 0 3
South Africa 0 0 0 2 2
OECD 0 0 0 1 1
Total 109 94 12 34 249

9
single-authored works, only seven books, four articles and one short work had authors drawn from
different countries. This is not to suggest, of course, that individual authors had not worked across
countries in the course of their careers or that collaborations were bereft of cross-national input but
rather that, at the point of publication, where there was multiple authorship, authors of individual
co-authored items were largely working with authors from the same country.
Table 4 shows the number of authors or editors associated with each of the categories of nominated
works. Articles and chapters were slightly more likely to be single-authored with the ‘other’ category
containing reports, conference papers etc being the most likely to be multi-authored.
Table 4: Number of authors or editors of collections associated with nominated items
Number of Books Articles Short Other Total

authors/editors Works &
Chapters
1 47 45 7 5 104
2 48 31 5 8 92
3 11 12 4 27
4 1 4 3 8
5 or more 1 2 2 5
Not known/issued 1 0 0 12 13
under organisational
authorship
Total 109 94 12 34 249
Table 5 shows the 13 items most frequently nominated by respondents to the survey, that is,
nominated by five or more individuals. Of these items, six (including the five most-nominated) had a
first author based in Australia, four had US-based authors and three UK.
In addition to publication details, Table 5 also shows the number of nominations received, mode of
publication and topic area of the most frequently nominated items. All but one had been first
published after 2000. Five of the items had male first-authors and the remaining eight female. This
reflects the overall pattern of first-author gender for nominated works where women outnumber
male authors by 60% to 40%. The proportions vary across the four categories of item with female
first-authors being particularly dominant in the categories of articles (68%) and short works (83%).
Some interesting points emerge when the patterns of co-authorship are examined. While 83% of the
items with a female first-author only involved female authors (see Table 6), for items with a male

10
Table 5: The most important and influential titles nominated in the survey
Title Nominations Mode Topic
Kamler, B. and Thomson, P., (2014, 2nd ed. [2006]). 17 Book Supervision
Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for
supervision. Routledge.
Boud, D. and Lee, A. eds., 2009. Changing practices 12 Book General doctoral
of doctoral education. Routledge. education
Mullins, G. and Kiley, M., 2002. 'It's a PhD, not a 10 Article Assessment
Nobel Prize': how experienced examiners assess
research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4),
pp.369-386
Aitchison, C., Kamler, B. and Lee, A. eds., 2010. 7 Book
Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and Academic writing
beyond. Routledge.
Denholm, C. and Evans, T., 2006. Doctorates 7 Book
downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in General doctoral
Australia and New Zealand. ACER Press, education
Camberwell, Vic. Australia
Golde, C.M. and Walker, G.E. eds., 2006. Envisioning 7 Book
the future of doctoral education: Preparing General doctoral
stewards of the discipline-Carnegie essays on the education
doctorate (Vol. 3). Jossey-Bass.
Wisker, G., 2012 (2nd ed) [2007]. The good 7 Book
supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and Student
undergraduate research for doctoral theses and experience
dissertations. Palgrave Macmillan.
Lovitts, B.E., 2007. Making the implicit explicit: 6 Book
Creating performance expectations for the Academic writing
dissertation. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Dunleavy, P., 2003. Authoring a PhD: How to plan, Book
draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or 5 Academic writing
dissertation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, L., Lee, A. and Green, B., 2000. The PhD
and the autonomous self: Gender, rationality and Article General doctoral
5
postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher education
Education, 25(2), pp.135-147.
Lovitts, B.E., 2001. Leaving the ivory tower: The Book
causes and consequences of departure from Student
5
doctoral study. Lanham, Maryland, Rowman & experience
Littlefield.
Murray, R. 2011 (3rd ed.) [2002]. How to write a Book
5 Academic writing
thesis. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Walker, G.E., Golde, C.M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A.C. Book
and Hutchings, P., 2009. The formation of scholars: General doctoral
5
Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first education
century. John Wiley & Sons.

11
first-author, the proportion involving only male authors was significantly lower at 66%. Further, the
number of multi-authored items led by an author of one gender but with a majority of authors from
the other gender was very small (three in the case of female-led work and five in the case of male-
led).
These findings about the gendered nature of authorship contribute to a developing literature. One
major study used the JSTOR repository of academic papers to examine authorship patterns by
disciplinary area in publications between the years 1990 to 2011, and found that, across all
disciplines, female authors were in a minority with Education having the highest proportion at just
over 46%. (West et al 2013) Patterns of authorship have been examined in a number of disciplinary
areas (see, for example, in Criminal Justice [Eigenberg and Whalley 2015, and Fahmy and Young
2017]; in Educational Technology [Scharber et al 2017] and in Philosophy [Wilhelm et al 2017]) but
to date there is no similar analysis in either the broader field of Education Studies or in the area of
doctoral education. These analyses note both the under-representation of women authors in the
literature across all disciplines, and also the ‘lack of empirical understanding of the relationship
between gender and co-authorship in the production of knowledge’ (Fahmy and Young 2017, p.
290), calling for ‘a more complex analysis of coauthorship trends’. (Eigenberg and Whalley 2015, p.
133) The current study suggests that the phenomenon of the gendered nature of scholarship in
doctoral education might provide a fruitful site for further research.
Places of publication
The nominated books came from a variety of global and local publishing houses, including university
presses and specialist education publishers. The nominated articles appear in a wide range of
journals with Studies in Higher Education publishing over a quarter of the total number (27 out of
94). It is of interest that, of the nine most frequently cited journals, five are associated with
associations concerned with higher education research and practice.

12
Table 6: Gender patterns in authorship (in order of authorship)
Books Articles Short Other Total % of

Authorship patterns Works gender
total
Mixed-gender female-
led authorship (male
majority) 2 1 3 2.1
led authorship (equal 7 5 2 1 10.4
balance) 15
led authorship (female 2 4 1 4.9
majority) 7
Sub-total of exclusive
female authorship (119) (82.7)
3 or more females 5 6 2 13 9.0
2 Females 18 18 2 6 44 30.6
Single Female 24 29 6 3 62 43.1
56 64 10 14
Total Female initiated
(%age of column total) (55%) (68%) (83%) (61%)
144
Single Male 22 16 1 3 42 45.7
2 Males 10 1 1 3 15 16.3
3 Males 3 1 4 4.4
Sub-total of exclusive
male authorship (61) (66.4)
Mixed-gender male-led 1 3 4.4
authorship (male
majority) 4
authorship (equal
balance) 13
authorship (female
majority) 5
42 30 2 9
Total Male Initiated
(%age of column total) (45%) (32%) (17%) (39%)
92
Not known 2 2
Totals 109 94 12 23 238

13
The most influential scholars in doctoral education
Table 7 shows the names of the writers regarded by respondents as being ‘the most influential
writers in the broad field of research degrees’. Deciding how to present this data was problematic.
While it would have been easy to present a long list of individuals with a simple count of the number
of times they were mentioned, this carried the grave danger of turning the exercise into a kind of
academic beauty pageant which I wanted as far as possible to avoid. I also wanted to avoid the
situation of identifying people who had received only one nomination. One of the respondents to
the survey1 emailed me separately to caution me about the danger of this and also the danger of
division and adding to the performativity culture currently besetting higher education. (Ball 2000)
Bearing in mind that one of the survey’s two purposes was to examine whether there was an
identifiable group of scholars working at the heart of a possible discipline of doctoral education and
having reflected on my correspondent’s concerns, I decided that the best way forward would be not
to list all the individuals mentioned but rather to identify in a non-ranked way the group of most
prominent scholars. Individuals were identified as influential if they met one of two selection
criteria. The first was the absolute number of times they were mentioned. For the second, a scale
was developed in which five points were allocated for a ‘first-place’ nomination, four points for a
‘second-place’ nomination and so on down to one point for a fifth-place nomination. The points for
each nominated person were then added together. If a nominated writer was mentioned five times
or if they received fifteen or more points, they were included in Table 7 in which the 16 individuals
who met either of the two selection criteria are listed alphabetically by their given name. Against
each name is the number of times an item authored by them was nominated (a chapter by them in a
book edited by them was only counted once). The relatively low numbers against some individuals
demonstrate that volume and influence are not directly related dimensions and that it is possible to
be a highly influential writer on the basis of a relatively small number of publications.
1
Sandra Acker, Professor Emerita at the University of Toronto, Canada. In addition to her initial email, when I
replied to let her know how I planned to present the results, Sandra also provided a number of very useful
comments and raised a number of questions which I have incorporated into the discussion. I am very grateful
to her for her contribution. I am also grateful to Lynn McAlpine, Emeritus Professor at McGill University,
Canada and Honorary Research Fellow at Oxford University in the UK for suggestions made on an earlier draft
of this piece some of which have been incorporated.

14
Table 7: Most influential scholars in the discipline of doctoral education and number of times
included in the list of most influential works as an author
Name (A-F) Country Name (G-Z) Country

Alison Lee (9) Australia Gina Wisker (6) UK
Aotearoa/New Australia
Barbara Grant (4) Inger Mewburn (4)
Zealand
Barbara Kamler (3) Australia Lynn McAlpine (8) Canada
Barbara Lovitts (4) US Margaret Kiley (7) Australia
Catherine Manathunga Australia UK
Pam Denicolo (6)
(7)
Chris Golde (3) US Pat Thomson (4) UK
Claire Aitchison (3) Australia Rowena Murray (4) UK
David Boud (4) Australia Terry Evans (4) Australia
Two points are worth noting about Table 7. First, of the 16 individuals, all but two are female which
complements the earlier comments about the gendered nature of the doctoral education discipline.
Second, that the list includes individuals drawn from five countries (Australia [8], UK [4], US [2],
Canada [1] and Aotearoa/New Zealand [1]) demonstrating that the disciplinary community is to
some degree international in nature. However, a limitation to the current study is that, despite the
invitation to participate in the survey being widely distributed, all 16 of the ‘most influential’
individuals emerging from it write in the English language and the proportions of the 16 from each of
the areas represented reflects to some degree the proportions of respondents to the survey from
each of the regions Australasia/Pacific (9 [22%]), UK (4 [20%]), and, North America (3 [25%]).
Concluding comments
This article seeks to contribute to our understanding of the nature and infrastructure of the
scholarship of doctoral education by drawing on the responses to a survey of those engaged with
that scholarship to identify, first, the most important and influential literature in the discipline and,
second, the most influential writers. It demonstrates that there is a degree of agreement over both a
core body of work and also the identity of a group of influential scholars in doctoral education. This
agreement is not hegemonic in nature but reflects a diversity of views and opinions. The results also
suggest that, for the respondents to the survey, doctoral education is a global discipline led by
scholars in Australia, the US and the UK and one in which the influential work is Anglophone in
nature. This finding, however, should not be taken to suggest that there is no work of value in
languages other than English, simply that this survey has not uncovered it and that work remains to

15
be done to explore and integrate into the Anglo-US traditions represented here competing traditions
of non-English language doctoral education scholarship. This is one of the major limitations of this
research. Another is that the respondents were self-selecting and there was not check on whether
self-nomination of work was taking place.
The discussion has identified areas of doctoral education scholarship where there is less work
regarded as influential including those of broader academic literacies, the assessment of research
degrees, skills development, professional doctorates and industry/end-user engagement and
partnership suggesting that further high-quality work remains to be undertaken in these areas.
The findings also point to the gendered nature of the scholarship of doctoral education, and further
research on the reasons and possible consequences of this could usefully be pursued as could the
underlying reasons for the patterns of female and male team authorship. A further possible area of
research could be the exploration of ways in which the identified items have influenced the field.
This could be undertaken either through a content analysis of written work or by selecting one
writer’s body of work and tracking its influence on the field over a period of years. Pursuing these
other dimensions of influence would build on the initial groundwork undertaken in the current
piece. Finally, as part of the process of selecting a methodology, the article shows the
inappropriateness of citation analysis as a tool for unpacking the structure of a discipline such as
doctoral education which does not have a long-standing dedicated journal associated with a
disciplinary association and whose influential works can be identified across a wide range of forms of
publication.
I hope that the article and the accompanying bibliography of influential publications will both
stimulate further research and also provide a resource for scholars of doctoral education. A further
hope is that it will be of use to those engaged in academic, professional, social or employment-
related development work with research students and their supervisors.

16
APPENDIX ONE
Appendix ONE – Influential works in the discipline of doctoral education: the bibliography
(Where an item has seen more than one edition, the date of the most recent is included in (round
brackets) and the original date of publication in [square brackets])
Books
Aitchison, C. and Guerin, C. (2014), Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond: Innovations in
practice and theory, Routledge, London.
Aitchison, C., Kamler, B. and Lee, A. (Eds) (2010), Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and
beyond, Routledge, London.
Arkoudis, S., Richardson, S. and Baik, C. (2012), English language standards in higher education: From
entry to exit, ACER Press, Camberwell, Vic. Australia
Becher, T. and Trowler, P.R. (2001) [1989 by Becher, T. (sole author)], Academic tribes and
territories, SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
Becker, H.S. (2007) [1986], Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or
article, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) [1999], Teaching for quality learning at university, SRHE and Open
University Press, Buckingham, UK.
Billig, M. (2013), Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Bitchener, J. (2017), A guide to supervising non-native English writers of theses and dissertations:
Focusing on the writing process, Routledge, New York.
Bolker, J. (1998), Writing your dissertation in fifteen minutes a day: A guide to starting, revising, and
finishing your doctoral thesis, H. Holt, New York.
Booth, W., Colomb, G., and Williams, J. (2008) [1995], The Craft of Research, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Boud, D. and Lee, A. (Eds) (2009), Changing practices of doctoral education. Routledge, London.
Bowen, W. and Rudenstine, N. (1992). In pursuit of the PhD. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Burgess, R. (1997). Beyond the First Degree: graduate education, lifelong learning and careers, SRHE
and Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
Carter, S., Kelly, F. and Brailsford, I. (2012), Structuring your research thesis. Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke UK.
Carter, S. and Laurs, D. (2014), Developing Generic Support for Doctoral Students: Practice and
Pedagogy. Routledge, London.
Casanave, C. (2002), Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in
higher education. Laurence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

17
Casanave, C. (2014), Before the Dissertation: A Textual Mentor for Doctoral Students at Early Stages
of a Research Project. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Casanave, C. and Li, X. (2008). (Eds) Learning the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders'
reflections on academic enculturation, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
Clifford, J. and Marcus, G.E. (1986), Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography: a School
of American Research advanced seminar, University of California Press, Oakland.
Clough, P. and Nutbrown, C. (2012), A student's guide to methodology, Sage, London.
Coghlan, D. and Brydon-Miller, M. (2014), The Sage Encyclopaedia of Action Research, Sage, London.
Cotterill, P., Jackson, S. and Letherby, G. (Eds) (2007), Challenges and negotiations for women in
higher education, Springer, NY.
Creswell, J.W. (2013), Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches,
Sage, London.
Day, T. (2013), Success in Academic Writing, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke UK.
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. and Parry, O. (2000), The doctoral experience, Routledge, London.
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. & Parry, O. (1997), Supervising the PhD: A guide to Success. SRHE and
Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
Denholm, C. and Evans, T. (2006), Doctorates downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in
Australia and New Zealand, ACER Press, Camberwell, Vic. Australia.
Denholm, C. and Evans, T. (2007), Supervising doctorates downunder: Keys to effective supervision in
Australia and New Zealand, ACER Press, Camberwell, Vic. Australia.
Denholm, C. and Evans, T. (2009), Beyond doctorates downunder: Maximising the impact of your
doctorate from Australia and New Zealand, ACER Press, Camberwell, Vic. Australia.
Denscombe, M. (2014) [1998], The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects,
Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2018) [1994], The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, Sage, Los
Angeles.
Dunleavy, P. (2003), Authoring a PhD: How to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or
dissertation, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke UK.
Eley, A.R. and Murray, R. (2009), How to be an Effective Supervisor: Best practice in research student
supervision. Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
Ellis, C. (2004), The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography, Altamira Press,
Rowman, California.
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Downing, M. and Vinz, R. (2001) [1997], On writing qualitative research: Living by
words, Falmer Press, London.
Etherington, K. (2004), Becoming a reflexive researcher: Using ourselves in research, Jessica Kingsley
Publishers, London.

18
Evans, E. and Grant, C. (2008), Mama, PhD: Women write about motherhood and academic life,
Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Fernández-Armesto, F. (1999) [1997], Truth: A History and a Guide for the Perplexed, Thomas Dunne
Books, NY.
Gardner, S. and Barnes, B. (2014), Advising and mentoring doctoral students: A handbook,
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Gatrell, C. (2006), Managing Part-Time Study: A guide for Undergraduates and Postgraduates, Open
University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
Golde, C. and Walker, G. (Eds.) (2006), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing
stewards of the discipline-Carnegie essays on the doctorate, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Green, H. and Powell, S. (2005), Doctoral study in contemporary higher education, Open University
Press, Maidenhead, UK.
Green, B. (2009), Understanding and researching professional practice, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
Gunnar, H. and Lauvås, P. (2006), Forskningsveilederen (English translation: Research Supervisor),

Cappelen, Oslo.
Hinchcliffe, R., Bromley, T. and Hutchinson, S. (Eds.) (2007), Skills training in research degree
programmes: Politics and practice, Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
James, E. and Slater, T. (2013), Writing your doctoral dissertation or thesis faster: A proven map to
success, Sage, London.
Kamler, B. and Thomson, P. (2012), Writing for peer reviewed journals: strategies for getting
published, Routledge, London.
Kamler, B. and Thomson, P. (2014) [2006], Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for
supervision, Routledge, London.
Kearns, H., Gardiner, M., Marshall, K. and Banytis, F. (2009), The PhD experience: What they didn't
tell you at induction, Flinders University, Adelaide.
Kompf, M. and Denicolo, P.M. (Eds.) (2013), Critical issues in higher education (Vol. 8), Springer
Science & Business Media, Berlin/Heidelberg.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. and Whitt, E. (2011), Student success in college: Creating conditions that
matter, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Kuhn, T.S. (2012) [1962], The structure of scientific revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lather, P. (1991), Getting smart, Routledge, London.
Lather, P. (2012), Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double (d) science, SUNY Press, NY.
LeCompte, M. and Preissle, J. with Tesch, R. (1993) [1984]. Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research, Academic Press Inc, Orlando, Florida.
Lee, A. and Danby, S. (Eds.) (2012), Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and
pedagogies, Routledge, London.

19
Lee, A. [Anne] (2011), Successful research supervision: Advising students doing research, Routledge,
London.
Leonard, D. (2001), A woman’s guide to doctoral studies, Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
Liamputtong, P. (2006), Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods, Sage,
London.
Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985), Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75), Sage, London.
Lovitts, B. (2001), Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral
study, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
Lovitts, B. (2007), Making the implicit explicit: Creating performance expectations for the
dissertation, Stylus Publishing, Sterling, Virginia.
Machi, L. and McEvoy, B. (2012) [2008], The literature review: Six steps to success, Corwin Press,
Newbury Park, Calif.
Maki, P. and Borkowski, N. (2006), The assessment of doctoral education: Emerging criteria and new
models for improving outcomes, Stylus Publishing, Sterling, Virginia.
Manathunga, C. (2014), Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Reimagining time, place and

knowledge, Routledge, London.
Mutua, K. and Swadener, B. (Eds.) (2004), Decolonizing research in cross-cultural contexts: Critical
personal narratives, State University of New York Press, NY.
Maxwell, T., Green, B. and Shanahan, P. (Eds.) (2001), Doctoral education and professional practice:
The next generation?, Kardoorair Press, Armidale, NSW, Australia. http://e-
publications.une.edu.au/1959.11/985
McAlpine, L. and Akerlind, G. (Eds.) (2010), Becoming an academic, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
UK.
McAlpine, L, & Amundsen, C (Eds.) (2011), Doctoral education: research-based strategies for doctoral
students, supervisors and administrators, Springer, Doldrecht, Netherlands.
McNiff, J. with Whitehead, J. (2013) [1988], Action research: Principles and practice, Routledge,
London.
Montgomery, S. (2003), The Chicago guide to communicating science, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Murray, R. (2011) [2002], How to write a thesis, Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
Murray, R. (2015), Writing in social spaces. A social processes approach to academic writing,
Routledge, London.
Murray, R. and Moore, S. (2006), The handbook of academic writing: A fresh approach, Open
Mutua, K. and Swadener, B, (2004), Decolonizing research in cross-cultural contexts: Critical personal
narratives, State University of New York Press, NY.

20
National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (2007) (revised 14 Oct 2008], The
handbook of doctoral programs: Issues and challenges, National Council of Professors of Educational
Administration, Rice University Houston, Texas. OpenStax Connexions, Houston. Retrieved from
http://cnx.org/contents/0a4udjQO@3.3:IMbgmOkn@3/DEDICATION
Nerad, M. and Evans, B. (Eds.) (2014), Globalization and Its Impacts on the quality of PhD education:
Forces and forms in doctoral education worldwide, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
Nerad, M. and Heggelund, M. (Eds.) (2008), Towards a global PhD? Forces and forms in doctoral
education worldwide, University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Nettles, M. and Millet, C. (2006), Three magic letters: Getting to Ph. D., Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
Newby, P. (2010), Research methods for education, Pearson Education, London.
Paltridge, B. and Starfield, S. (2007), Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A
handbook for supervisors, Routledge, London.
Pascarella, E. and Terenzini, P, (2005), How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol.
2), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Patton, M. (2015) [2002], Qualitative research and evaluation methods, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Petre, M. and Rugg, G. (2010) [2004], The unwritten rules of PhD research, McGraw-Hill/Open
Phillips, E. and Pugh, D. (2015) [1987], How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their
supervisors, McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
Powell, S. and Green, H. (2007), The doctorate worldwide, McGraw-Hill/Open University Press,
Maidenhead, UK.
Pring, R. (2004), The philosophy of education, Continuum, London.
Ravitch, S.M. and Riggan, M. (2011), Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research,
Sage, London.
Reason, P. (Ed.) (1988), Human inquiry in action: Developments in new paradigm research, Sage,
London.
Salmon, P. (1992), Achieving a PhD--Ten students' experience, Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA.
Simon, G. and Chard, A. (Eds) (2014), Systemic inquiry innovations in reflexive practice research,
Everything is Connected Press (no location).
Simpson, R. (1983), How the PhD came to Britain. A century of struggle for postgraduate education,
Society for Research in Higher Education, Guilford, UK.
Simpson, R. (2009), The development of the PhD degree in Britain, 1917-1959 and since: An
evolutionary and statistical history in higher education, Edwin Mellen Press, Lampeter.
Swales, J. (1990), Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

21
Swales, J. and Feak, C. (2012) [1994], Academic writing for graduate students: essential tasks and
skills, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Swartz, D. (2012), Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago
Sword, H. (2012), Stylish academic writing, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Taylor, S. and Beasley, N. (2005), A handbook for doctoral supervisors, Routledge, London.
Tinkler, P. and Jackson, C. (2004), The doctoral examination process: A handbook for students,
examiners and supervisors, Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
Tinto, V. (1987), Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Trafford, V. and Leshem, S. (2008), Stepping stones To achieving Your doctorate: Focusing on your
viva from the start, McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2010) [1999], Critical thinking for students. How To Books Ltd, Kidlington,
Oxfordshire.
Walker, G., Golde, C., Jones, L., Bueschel, A., and Hutchings, P. (2009), The formation of scholars:
Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Walker, M. and Thomson, P. (Eds.) (2010), The Routledge doctoral supervisor's companion:
Supporting effective research in education and the social sciences, Routledge, London.
Wallace, M. and Wray, A. (2011), Critical reading and writing for postgraduates, Sage, London.
White, B. (2011), Mapping your thesis: The comprehensive manual of theory and techniques for
masters and doctoral research, ACER Press, Camberwell, Vic. Australia.
Wisker, G. (1996), Empowering Women in Higher Education, Stylus Publishing,Sterling, VA.
Wisker, G. (2007) [2001], The postgraduate research handbook: Succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD
and PhD, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.
Wisker, G. (2012) [2007], The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate
research for doctoral theses and dissertations, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke UK.
Articles
Aitchison, C. and Lee, A. (2006), “Research writing: Problems and pedagogies”, Teaching in Higher
Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp.265-278.
Anderson, G. and Herr, K. (1999), “The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner
knowledge in schools and universities?”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp.12-40.
Austin, A. (2002), “Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty to face changing
expectations in a shifting context”, The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp.119-144.
Austin, A. (2002), “Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the
academic career”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp.94-122.

22
Austin, A. (2009), “Cognitive apprenticeship theory and its implications for doctoral education: A
case example from a doctoral program in higher and adult education”, International Journal for
Academic Development, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp.173-183.
Baker, V. and Lattuca, L. (2010), “Developmental networks and learning: Toward an interdisciplinary
perspective on identity development during doctoral study”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 35 No.
7, pp.807-827.
Barnacle, R. (2005), “Research education ontologies: exploring doctoral becoming”, Higher Education
Research & Development, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp.179-188.
Barnacle, R. and Dall’ Alba, G. (2011), “Research degrees as professional education?”, Studies in
Higher Education, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp.459-470.
Barnacle, R. and Mewburn, I. (2010), “Learning networks and the journey of ‘becoming doctor’”,
Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp.433-444.
Barrie, S. (2007), “A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate
attributes”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp.439-458.
Boud, D. and Lee, A. (2005), “’Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education”, Studies
in Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 501-516.
Boud, D., Brew, A., Dowling, R., Kiley, M., McKenzie, J., Malfroy, J., Ryland, K. and Solomon, N.
(2014), “The coordination role in research education: emerging understandings and dilemmas for
leadership”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp.440-454.
Bruce, C. (2001), “Interpreting the scope of their literature reviews: Significant differences in
research students' concerns”, New Library World, Vol. 102 Nos. 4/5, pp.158-166.
Casey, B. (2009), “The economic contribution of PhDs”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp.219-227.
Chickering, A. and Gamson, Z. (1999), “Development and adaptations of the seven principles for
good practice in undergraduate education”, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 80,
pp.75-81.
Colbeck, C. (2008), “Professional identity development theory and doctoral education”. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 113, pp.9-16.
Connell, R. (1985), “How to supervise a Ph. D.” Vestes, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp.38-42.
Cumming, J. (2010), “Doctoral enterprise: A holistic conception of evolving practices and

arrangements”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp.25-39.
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. and Parry, O. (1997). “Critical mass and doctoral research: reflections on
the Harris Report”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp.319-331.
Deem, R. and Brehony, K. (2000), “Doctoral students' access to research cultures-are some more
unequal than others?”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp.149-165.
Delamont, S., Parry, O. and Atkinson, P. (1998), “Creating a delicate balance: the doctoral
supervisor's dilemmas”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 157-172.

23
Fox, M. and Stephan, P. (2001), “Careers of young scientists: Preferences, prospects and realities by
gender and field”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp.109-122.
Gardner, J. (1986), “The Freshman Year Experience”, College and University, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp.261-
74.
Gardner, S. (2007), “”I heard it through the grapevine”: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry
and history”, Higher Education, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 723-740.
Gardner, S. (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, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp.
326-350.
Gardner, S. (2010), “Contrasting the socialization experiences of doctoral students in high-and low-
completing departments: A qualitative analysis of disciplinary contexts at one institution”, The
Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp.61-81.
Golde, C. (2000), “Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition
process”, The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp.199-227.
Grant, B. (2003), “Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision”, Discourse, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp.175-
190.
Grant, B. (2005), “Fighting for space in supervision: Fantasies, fairytales, fictions and fallacies”,
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp.337-354.
Grant, B. (2008), “Agonistic Struggle Master—slave dialogues in humanities supervision”, Arts and
Humanities in Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp.9-27.
Grant, B. and Manathunga, C. (2011), “Supervision and cultural difference: rethinking institutional
pedagogies”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp.351-354.
Green, B. (2005), “Unfinished business: Subjectivity and supervision”, Higher Education Research &
Development, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp.151-163.
Green, B. and Lee, A. (1995). “Theorising postgraduate pedagogy”. Australian Universities' Review,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp.40-45.
Halse, C. and Malfroy, J. (2010), “Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work”. Studies in
Higher Education, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp.79-92.
Hancock, S. and Walsh, E. (2016), “Beyond knowledge and skills: rethinking the development of
professional identity during the STEM doctorate”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 41 No. 1, pp.1 -14.
Holbrook, A. and Bourke, S. (2004), “An investigation of PhD examination outcome in Australia using
a mixed method approach”, Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, Vol. 4,
pp.153-169.
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H. and Lovat, T. (2014), “The focus and substance of formative
comment provided by PhD examiners”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 983-1000
Hopwood, N. (2010), “Doctoral experience and learning from a sociocultural perspective”, Studies in
Higher Education, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 829-843.

24
John, T. and Denicolo, P. (2013) “Doctoral education: A review of the literature monitoring the
doctoral student experience in selected OECD countries”, Springer Science Reviews, Vol. 1 Nos. 1-2,
pp. 41-49.
Johnson, L., Lee, A. and Green, B. (2000), “The PhD and the autonomous self: Gender, rationality and
postgraduate pedagogy”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp.135-147.
Jones, M. (2013), “Issues in doctoral studies - Forty years of journal discussion: Where have we been
and where are we going?”, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, Vol 8, pp. 83-104.
Jorgensen, T. (2014), “Global trends in doctoral education and the European perspective”, Journal of
the European Higher Education Area, Vol. 1, pp. 17-34.
Kearns, H., Gardiner, M. and Marshall, K. (2008), “Innovation in PhD completion: The hardy shall
succeed (and be happy!)”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp.77-89.
Keefer, J. (2015), “Experiencing doctoral liminality as a conceptual threshold and how supervisors
can use it”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 17–28.
Kiley, M. (2009), “Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral
candidates”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp.293-304.
Kiley, Margaret. 2011. “Developments in research supervisor training: Causes and responses”,
Studies in Higher Education Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 585–99.
Kiley, M. and Wisker, G. (2009), “Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of
threshold crossing”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp.431-441.
Kulik, C., Kulik, J. and Shwalb, B, (1983), “College programs for high-risk and disadvantaged students:
A meta-analysis of findings”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp.397-414.
Lee, A. (Anne) (2008), “How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research
supervision”, Studies in Higher Education Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 267–81.
Lee, A. and Boud, D. (2003), “Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development
as local practice”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp.187-200.
Lin, L. and Cranton, P. (2005), “From scholarship student to responsible scholar: a transformative
process”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp.447-459.
Lovat, T., Monfries, M. and Morrison, K. (2004), “Ways of knowing and power discourse in doctoral
examination”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp.163-177.
Lovitts, B. (2005), “Being a good course‐taker is not enough: a theoretical perspective on the
transition to independent research”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp.137-154.
Lovitts, B. and Nelson, C. (2000), “The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition from Ph. D.
programs”, Academe, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 44-50.
McAlpine, L. and Amundsen, C. (2012), “Challenging the taken-for-granted: how research analysis
might inform pedagogical practices and institutional policies related to doctoral education”, Studies
in Higher Education, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 683–694.

25
McAlpine, L., Amundsen, C. and Turner, G. (2013), “Constructing post-PhD careers: negotiating
opportunities and personal goals”, International Journal for Researcher Development, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp.39-54.
McAlpine, L., Amundsen, C. and Turner, G. (2014), “Identity‐trajectory: Reframing early career
academic experience”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp.952-969.
McAlpine, L. and Asghar, A., (2010), “Enhancing academic climate: Doctoral students as their own
developers”, International Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), pp.167-178.
McAlpine, L. and Norton, J. (2006), “Reframing our approach to doctoral programs: an integrative
framework for action and research”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp.3-
17.
Maher, M., Fallucca, A. and Mulhern Halasz, H. (2013), “Write on! Through to the Ph. D.: using
writing groups to facilitate doctoral degree progress”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp.193-208.
Manathunga, C. (2005), “Early warning signs in postgraduate research education: A different

approach to ensuring timely completions”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp.219-233.
Manathunga, C. (2005), “The development of research supervision: “Turning the light on a private
space””. International Journal for Academic Development, Vol. 10 No 1, pp.17-30.
Manathunga, C. (2009), “Research as an intercultural ‘contact zone’”, Discourse: Studies in the

Cultural Politics of Education, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp.165-177.
Maxwell, T. (2003), “From first to second generation professional doctorate”, Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp.279-291.
Maxwell, T. (2011), “Australian professional doctorates: mapping, distinctiveness, stress and

prospects”, Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp.24-43.
Mewburn, I. (2011), “Troubling talk: Assembling the PhD candidate”, Studies in Continuing
Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 321-332.
Mewburn, I., Tokareva, E., Cuthbert, D., Sinclair, J. and Barnacle, R. (2014), “‘These are issues that
should not be raised in black and white’: the culture of progress reporting and the doctorate”,
Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 510-522.
Mullins, G. and Kiley, M. (2002), “'It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': how experienced examiners assess
research theses”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 369-386.
Neumann, R. and Tan, K. (2011), “From PhD to initial employment: the doctorate in a knowledge
economy”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 601-614.
Park, C. (2005), “New variant PhD: The changing nature of the doctorate in the UK”, Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 189-207.
Pearson, M. (1996), “Professionalising Ph. D. education to enhance the quality of the student
experience”, Higher Education, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 303-320.
Pearson, M. (1999), “The changing environment for doctoral education in Australia: Implications for
quality management, improvement and innovation”, Higher Education Research & Development,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 269-287.

26
Pearson, M. (2005), “Framing research on doctoral education in Australia in a global context”, Higher
Education Research & Development, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 119-134.
Pearson, M. and Brew, A. (2002), “Research training and supervision development”, Studies in
Pearson, M, Evans, T. and Macauley, P. (2016), “The diversity and complexity of the doctoral
experience in an experienced research environment: some implications for doctoral education”,
Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 2110-2124.
Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2007), “University–industry relationships and open innovation:

Towards a research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No, 4, pp. 259-
280.
Quaye, S. (2007), “Voice of the researcher: Extending the limits of what counts as research”, Journal
of Research Practice, Vol. 3 No. 1, Article M3. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/60/129
Rae, I. (2002), “False start for the PhD in Australia”, Historical Records of Australian Science, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp.129-141.
Reason, R., Terenzini, P., and Domingo, R. (2006), “First things first: Developing academic
competence in the first year of college”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 149-175.
Rip, A. (2004), “Strategic research, post-modern universities and research training”, Higher
Education Policy, Vol. 17 No, 2, pp. 153-166.
Servage, L. (2009), “Alternative and professional doctoral programs: what is driving the demand?”,
Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 34 No, 7, pp.765-779.
Sinclair, J., Barnacle, R. and Cuthbert, D. (2014), “How the doctorate contributes to the formation of
active researchers: what the research tells us”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 1972-
1986.
Spillett, M. and Moisiewicz, K. (2004), “Cheerleader, coach, counselor, critic: Support and challenge
roles of the dissertation advisor”, College Student Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 246-256.
Sweitzer, V. (2009), “Towards a theory of doctoral student professional identity development: A

developmental networks approach”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 1-33.
Taylor, S. (2014), “Towards a framework for the professional development of doctoral supervisors.”
SDF Digest: A Practitioner Journal for HE Staff Development, No. 2, pp. 74–87.
Thune, T. (2009), “Doctoral students on the university–industry interface: a review of the literature”,
Thune, T. (2010), “The training of “triple helix workers”? Doctoral students in university–industry–
government collaborations”, Minerva, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 463-483.
Trafford, V. and Leshem, S. (2009), “Doctorateness as a threshold concept” Innovations in Education

and Teaching International, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 305-316.
Turpin, T., Woolley, R., Marceau, J. and Hill, S. (2008) “Conduits of knowledge in the Asia Pacific:
Research training, networks and country of work”, Asian Population Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 247-
265.

27
Vakkayil, J. (2007), “A portrait of the researcher as a boundary crosser”, Journal of Research Practice,
Vol 3 No. 1, p.11Article M11. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/61/137.
Watts, J. (2012), “Preparing doctoral candidates for the viva: issues for students and supervisors”,
Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 36 No 3, pp. 371-381.
Williams, C. and Lee, A. (1999), “Forged in fire: narratives of trauma in PhD supervision pedagogy”,
Southern Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 6-26.
Wintre, M., Bowers, C., Gordner, N. and Lange, L. (2006), “Re-evaluating the university attrition
statistic: A longitudinal follow-up study”, Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 111-132.
Zeegers, M. and Barron, D. (2012), “Pedagogical concerns in doctoral supervision: A challenge for
pedagogy.” Quality Assurance in Education, Vol 20 No. 1, pp.20–30.
Special editions of journals (This section includes special editions of journals or introductions to
special editions of journals that were nominated by respondents)
Devos, A. and Manathunga, C. (2012), Australian Universities' Review, Special Issue: Contemporary
Issues in Doctoral Education (Vol. 54 No. 1).
Halse, C. and Mowbray, S. (2011), “The impact of the doctorate”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 36
No. 5, pp.513-525. (Introduction to a special edition)
McGinn, M. and Niemczyk, E. (2013), “Research practice in research assistantships: Introducing the
special issue on research assistantships”. Journal of Research Practice, Vol. 9 No. 2, Article E2.
http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/issue/view/20.
Wisker, G. and McAlpine, L. (2009), “Embracing contraries in research on doctoral education: the
richness of conceptual diversity”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol 46, No. 3.
(Introduction to special edition titled ‘Embracing contraries in research on doctoral education’.)
Chapters and short works
Cadman, K. and Cargill, M. (2007), “Providing quality advice on candidates' writing” in Denholm, C.
and Evans, T. (Eds.) Supervising doctorates downunder: Keys to effective supervision in Australia and
New Zealand. ACER Press, Camberwell, Vic., Australia, pp.182-191.
Denicolo, P. (1999), Supervising students from public sector organisations, Society for Research into
Higher Education, London.
Denicolo, P. and Park, C. (2010), Doctorateness – An elusive concept? , Quality Assurance Agency,
Gloucester. Available in Kompf, M. and Denicolo, P. (Eds.) (2013), Critical Issues in Higher Education,
Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 191-197.
Harman, K. (2008), “Challenging traditional research training culture: industry-oriented doctoral

programs in Australian cooperative research centres”, in Valimaa, J. and Ylijoki, O-H. (Eds.), Cultural
perspectives on higher education. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 179-195.
Malvern, D. and Richards, B. (2009), “A new method of measuring rare word diversity: The example
of L2 learners of French”, Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface
between theory and application, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, pp. 164-178.

28
Manathunga, C. (2007), “Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Ethnographic journeys of identitiy

and power”, in Palfreyman, D. and McBride, D. (Eds.), Learning and teaching across cultures in higher
education, Palgrave, New York, pp. 93-113.
Nerad, M. (2010), “Increase in PhD production and reform of doctoral education worldwide”,
Hiroshima University: Research Institute for Higher Education, Vol. 7, pp. 69-84.
http://www.education.uw.edu/cirge/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Increase-in-PhD-Production-
and-Reform-of-Doctoral-Education-Worldwide.pdf
Paré, A.( 2011), “Speaking of writing: Supervisory feedback and the dissertation”, in McAlpine, L. and
Amundsen, C. (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students,
supervisors and administrators, Springer, Netherlands, pp. 59-74.
Richardson, L. (1994), “Writing. A method of inquiry”, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research, Sage, London.
Smyth, R. and Maxwell, T. (2009), The Research Matrix: An approach to supervision of Higher Degree
Research, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Hammondville, NSW,
Australia.
Starfield, S. (2010). “Fortunate travellers: Learning from the multiliterate lives of doctoral students”,
in Thomson, P. and Walker, M. (Eds), The Routledge doctoral supervisor’s companion, Routledge,
London, pp. 138–46.
Wisker, G. and Sutcliffe, N. (Eds.) (1999), Good practice in postgraduate supervision, Staff and
Educational Development Association, Birmingham, UK
Other items
Reports
AACSB (2013), The promise of Business Doctoral Education–Setting the pace for innovation,
sustainability, relevance, and quality: Report of the AACSB International Doctoral Education Task
Force. Tampa, Florida. http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/researchreports/doctoraleducation
Academy of Science of South Africa (2010), The PhD study, An evidence-based study on how to meet
the demands for high-level skills in an emerging economy, Academy of Science of South Africa,
Pretoria. https://www.assaf.org.za/files/2010/11/40696-Boldesign-PHD-small.pdf
Blackburn, R. and Lingenfelter, P. (1973), Assessing Quality in Doctoral Programs: Criteria and
Correlates of Excellence, University of Michigan, School of Education, Center for the Study of Higher
Education Ann Arbor, Mich. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED078728
Borrel-Damian, L. (Ed.) (2009), Collaborative doctoral education: University-industry partnership for

enhancing knowledge sharing. Doc-careers project, European University Association, Brussels.
http://www.eua-cde.org/downloads/2009_Collaborative%20Doctoral%20Education%20DOC-
CAREERS.pdf
Boyer, E. (1997) [1990], Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate, Jossey-Bass

Publishers, San Francisco. (Revised and expanded edition authored by Moser, D., Ream, T., Braxton,
J. and associates published by the same publishers in 2015.)

29
Clarke, G. and Lunt, I. (2014), International comparisons in postgraduate education: quality, access
and employment outcomes, HEFCE, Bristol, UK.
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/Year/2014/pginternational/Title,92156,en.html
Council on Higher Education (2009), Postgraduate studies in South Africa: a statistical profile. Higher
Education Monitor 7. Council on Higher Education, Pretoria.
Cullen, D., Pearson, M., Saha, L. and Spear, R. (1994), Establishing effective PhD supervision,
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
https://nccastaff.bournemouth.ac.uk/hncharif/MathsCGs/Desktop/PGCertificate/230_full.pdf
Duranczyk, I., Higbee, J. and Lundell, D. (2004). Best practices for access and retention in higher
education, Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, University of
Minnesota. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/CRDEUL/pdf/monograph/5-a.pdf
Emery, F. and Metcalfe, J. (2009), Promoting the UK doctorate: Opportunities and challenges,
(Research Report), Universities UK, London. http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-
analysis/reports/Documents/2009/promoting-the-uk-doctorate-challenges-and-opportunities.pdf
European University Association (2007), Doctoral programmes in Europe's universities: Achievements

and challenges, EUA, Brussels.
https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/graduate_research/pdfs/doctoral_programmes_in_europe_s
_universities.pdf
Group of Eight (2013), The changing PhD, Group of Eight, Turner, ACT, Australia,
https://go8.edu.au/publication/discussion-paper-changing-phd
Herrmann, K., Wichmann-Hansen, G. and Jensen, T. (2014), Quality in the PhD process: A survey
among PhD students at Aarhus University.: Center for Undervisning og Læring, School of Business
and Social Sciences, Aarhus University.
http://www.au.dk/fileadmin/www.au.dk/kvalitetiphd/KVALITET_I_PHD__UK_.pdf
Hodge, A. (2010), Review of progress in implementing the recommendations of Sir Gareth Roberts
regarding employability and career development of PhD students and research staff: A report for
Research Councils UK by an independent review panel October 2010, Research Councils UK, Swindon.
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/publications/policy/hodge/
Kinzie, J., Cruce, T., Shoup, R. and Gonyea, R. (2006), Connecting the dots: Multi-faceted analyses of
the relationships between student engagement results from the NSSE, and the institutional practices
and conditions that foster student success, Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University.
nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/connecting_the_dots_report.pdf
Kottmann, A. and Weyer, E. (2013), Exploration of the implementation of the principles for innovative
doctoral training in Europe: final report. European Commission, DG RTD, Brussels. Reference:
ARES(2011) 932978. http://doc.utwente.nl/88802/
Laycock, A., Walker, D., Harrison, N. and Brands, J. (2009), Supporting Indigenous researchers: a
practical guide for supervisors, Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health. Casuarina, NT,
Australia. https://www.lowitja.org.au/lowitja-publishing/C023
OECD (2012), Transferable skills training for researchers: Supporting career development and
research. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/science/transferableskills.htm
Park, C. (2007), Redefining the doctorate. Higher Education Academy, York, UK.

30
Roberts, G. (2002), SET for success: the supply of people with science, technology, engineering and
mathematics skills: the report of Sir Gareth Roberts' review.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/d/robertsreview_introch1.pdf
Salimi, N., Bekkers, R. and Frenken, K. (2013), Governance and success of university-industry
collaborations on the basis of Ph. D. projects: an explorative study. Eindhoven Center for Innovation
Studies (ECIS), working paper, (13.05). https://ideas.repec.org/p/ein/tuecis/1305.html
Sowel, R., Zhang, T., Bell, N. and Kirby, S. (2010), PhD completion and attrition: Policies and practices
to promote student success. Executive summary, Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, DC.
http://www.phdcompletion.org/information/executive_summary_student_success_book_iv.pdf
Western, M., Boreham, P., Kubler, M., Laffan, W., Western, J., Lawson, A. and Clague, D. (2007), PhD
graduates 5 to 7 Years out: Employment outcomes, job attributes and the quality of research
training: FINAL REPORT (Revised), The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC),
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43510253_PhD_graduates_5_to_7_Years_out_Employm
ent_outcomes_job_attributes_and_the_quality_of_research_training_FINAL_REPORT_Revised
Winfield, G., 1987. The Social Science Phd: the ESRC inquiry on submission rates: A report
commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council. London: Economic and Social Research
Council.
Conference papers
Kiley, M., McCormack, C., Maher, B. and Cripps, A. (2004), “Learning plans for higher degree by
research students at the University of Canberra”, in Kiley, M. and Mullins, G. (Eds.), Quality in
Postgraduate Research conference, Adelaide, 22-23 April, The Centre for the Enhancement of
Learning, Teaching and Scholarship, University of Canberra, ACT, Australia, pp. 32-34.
http://www.qpr.edu.au/?page_id=15
Maxwell, T. and Shanahan, P. (1996) (Eds.), Which way for professional doctorates? Context and
cases. Proceedings of the 1st National Conference on Professional Doctorates, Coffs Harbour, 16-18
October, Faculty of Education, Health and Professional Studies, Armidale.
Maxwell, T. and Shanahan, P. (1998) (Eds.), Professional doctorates: Innovations in teaching &
research, proceedings, Coffs Harbour, 8-10 July, Faculty of Education, Health and Professional
Studies, Armidale.
Meek, L., Teichler, U. and Kearney, M. (Eds.) (2009), Higher education, research and innovation,
changing dynamics: report on the UNESCO forum on higher education research and knowledge,
2001-2009. International Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER), Kassel, Germany.
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001830/183071E.pdf
Blogs
Patter, Pat Thomson's blog (https://patthomson.net/)
The Thesis Whisper (https://thesiswhisperer.com/)
The Research Whisper (https://theresearchwhisperer.wordpress.com/)
Other

31
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., Kiley, M., Paltridge, B. and Starfield, S. (2015), Cross national viva
study: A cross-national study of the relative impact of an oral component on PhD examination
quality, language and practice: ARC Discovery Project (DP110103007), University of Newcastle.
(http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP110103007 )
BIBLIOGRAPHY TO THE ARTICLE
Ball, S. (2000), “Performativities and fabrications in the education economy: Towards the
performative society?”, The Australian Educational Researcher, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 1-23.
Bedeian, A. and Wren, D. (2002). “Most influential management books of the 20th Century”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 221-225.
Bonner, S., Hesford, J., Van der Stede, W. and Young, S. (2006), “The most influential journals in
academic accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol, 31 No. 7, pp. 663-685.
Cohn, E. and Farrington, D. (1994). “Who are the most influential criminologists in the English-
speaking world?”, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 204-225.
Durden, G. and Ellis, L. (1993). “A method for identifying the most influential articles in an academic
discipline”. Atlantic Economic Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Eigenberg, H. and Whalley, E. (2015), “Gender and publication patterns: Female authorship Is
increasing, but is there gender parity?”, Women & Criminal Justice, Vol. 25 Nos. 1-2, pp. 130-144.
Fahmy, C. and Young, J. (2017), “Gender inequality and knowledge production in criminology and
criminal justice”, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 285-305.
Lang, I. and Canning, R. (2010), “The use of citations in educational research: the instance of the
concept of ‘situated learning’”, Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 291-301.
Lowe, A. and Locke, J. (2005), “Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm: results of a
web-based survey of British accounting academics”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 81-98.

32
McCulloch, A. and Loeser, L. (2016), “Does research degree supervisor training work? The impact of
a professional development induction workshop on supervision practice”, Higher Education Research
& Development, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 968-982.
McCulloch, A., 2018. The disciplinary status of doctoral education. Higher Education Review, Vol. 50,
No. 2, pp. 86-104.
Rosenberg, A.L Tripathi, R. and Blum, J. (2010), “The most influential articles in critical care
medicine”, Journal of Critical Care, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 157-170.
Schmidgall, R., Woods, R. and Hardigree, C. (2007), “Hospitality's most influential scholars: Fifteen
years of citation analyses (1989–2004)”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 32-43.
Stokes, P. and McCulloch, A. (2006), “Beyond the doctoral process: A call for the re-focussing of
“How to…Get a PhD” literature”, Journal of Graduate Education, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 107-115.
Tai, C., Lee, C. and Lee, Y, (2013), “Analysis of higher education texts in selected databases: A
comparison between 2002-2006 and 2007-2011”, International Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 306-310.
Weller, K. (2015), “Social media and altmetrics: An overview of current alternative approaches to
measuring scholarly impact”, in Welpe, I., Wollersheim, J., Ringelhan, S. and Osterloh, M. (Eds.),
Incentives and performance, Springer International Publishing, New York, pp. 261-276.
West, J., Jacquet, J., King, M., Correll, S. and Bergstrom, C. (2013), “The role of gender in scholarly
authorship”, PLoS ONE Vol. 8 No. 7, e66212. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066212
Wilhelm, I., Conklin, S. and Hassoun, N. (2017), “New data on the representation of women in
philosophy journals: 2004–2015”, Philosophical Studies, pp.1-24.
https://philpapers.org/rec/WILNDO-7
Yan, E. and Ding, Y. (2010), “Weighted citation: An indicator of an article's prestige”, Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 1635-1643.

The Scholarship of Research Degrees: Influential Publications and Influential Writers in The Discipline of Doctoral Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Scholarship of Research Degrees: Influential Publications and Influential Writers in The Discipline of Doctoral Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The scholarship of research degrees: Influential publications and influential writers in the

discipline of Doctoral Education

Alistair McCulloch, Research & Innovation Services, University of South Australia.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Measuring influence – the limitations of citation analysis

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

(‘Education-Doctorates’, Evaluating-Impact’, ‘Postgrad’, ‘RDScholarship’, ‘Sup-Development’, and

The questionnaire contained the following four questions:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Table 1: Main topic focus in the nominated publications

Books Articles Short Other Total

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Table 2: Frequency of appearance of nominated publications

Number of Books Articles Short Other Total

Table 3: Geographical location of first authors of nominated publications

Books Articles Short Other Total

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Table 4: Number of authors or editors of collections associated with nominated items

Number of Books Articles Short Other Total

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Table 6: Gender patterns in authorship (in order of authorship)

Books Articles Short Other Total % of

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

The most influential scholars in doctoral education

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Name (A-F) Country Name (G-Z) Country

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Clough, P. and Nutbrown, C. (2012), A student's guide to methodology, Sage, London.

Day, T. (2013), Success in Academic Writing, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke UK.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Gunnar, H. and Lauvås, P. (2006), Forskningsveilederen (English translation: Research Supervisor),

Lather, P. (1991), Getting smart, Routledge, London.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Manathunga, C. (2014), Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Reimagining time, place and

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Newby, P. (2010), Research methods for education, Pearson Education, London.

Pring, R. (2004), The philosophy of education, Continuum, London.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Wisker, G. (1996), Empowering Women in Higher Education, Stylus Publishing,Sterling, VA.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Cumming, J. (2010), “Doctoral enterprise: A holistic conception of evolving practices and

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Manathunga, C. (2005), “Early warning signs in postgraduate research education: A different

Manathunga, C. (2009), “Research as an intercultural ‘contact zone’”, Discourse: Studies in the

Maxwell, T. (2011), “Australian professional doctorates: mapping, distinctiveness, stress and

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2007), “University–industry relationships and open innovation:

Sweitzer, V. (2009), “Towards a theory of doctoral student professional identity development: A

Trafford, V. and Leshem, S. (2009), “Doctorateness as a threshold concept” Innovations in Education

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Chapters and short works

Harman, K. (2008), “Challenging traditional research training culture: industry-oriented doctoral

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557711

Manathunga, C. (2007), “Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Ethnographic journeys of identitiy