Playing the PhD Game with Integrity:

Connecting Research, Professional

Practice and Educational Context John
A Bowden
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/playing-the-phd-game-with-integrity-connecting-resea
rch-professional-practice-and-educational-context-john-a-bowden/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

Research and Professional Practice in Specialised

Translation Federica Scarpa

https://textbookfull.com/product/research-and-professional-
practice-in-specialised-translation-federica-scarpa/

Advanced practice nursing roles : core concepts for

professional development 6th Edition Kathryn A. Blair
Phd Fnp Faanp

https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-practice-nursing-roles-
core-concepts-for-professional-development-6th-edition-kathryn-a-
blair-phd-fnp-faanp/

Mastering Unity 2017 Game Development with C Create

professional games with solid gameplay features and
professional grade workflow Second Edition Alan Thorn

https://textbookfull.com/product/mastering-unity-2017-game-
development-with-c-create-professional-games-with-solid-gameplay-
features-and-professional-grade-workflow-second-edition-alan-
The Clinical Practice of Educational Therapy Learning
and Functioning with Diversity Maxine Ficksman

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-clinical-practice-of-
educational-therapy-learning-and-functioning-with-diversity-
maxine-ficksman/

Methodologies For Practice Research: Approaches For

Professional Doctorates Carol Costley

https://textbookfull.com/product/methodologies-for-practice-
research-approaches-for-professional-doctorates-carol-costley/

Scientific Integrity The Rules Of Academic Research

Kees Schuyt

https://textbookfull.com/product/scientific-integrity-the-rules-
of-academic-research-kees-schuyt/

3D Game Environments Create Professional 3D Game Worlds

Luke Ahearn

https://textbookfull.com/product/3d-game-environments-create-
professional-3d-game-worlds-luke-ahearn/

Educational Robotics in the Context of the Maker

Movement Michele Moro

https://textbookfull.com/product/educational-robotics-in-the-
context-of-the-maker-movement-michele-moro/
Understanding Teaching-Learning Practice

John A Bowden
Pamela J Green

Playing the PhD

Game with Integrity
Connecting Research, Professional
Practice and Educational Context
Understanding Teaching-Learning Practice

Series Editors
Robert A. Ellis, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Peter Goodyear, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
This series publishes research on contemporary teaching-learning practices, and in
particular, studies that provide evidence of the intertwined relationship between how
practice informs research and how the outcomes of research can effectively inform
practice. The series publishes studies that make use of diverse methodologies and
conceptual framings that foreground real-world practice and trace the connections
between teaching, learning activities and experiences, and learning outcomes.
Focusing on research that goes beyond disciplinary, sectoral and national borders,
the series reflects the following views on understanding teaching-learning practice:
• Student learning is central: one cannot understand effective teaching without
understanding successful learning.
• Evidence of the quality and character of teaching-learning practice is best
understood in context; the broader landscape in which it occurs must figure
prominently in its analysis.
• A real-world application of research outcomes to improve teaching-learning is
best informed by a real world analysis of its practice; the challenge lies in
completing the circle.
• Innovations in learning and teaching practice, including those which involve
new technologies, create quality, coherence and sustainability issues, which
need to be addressed.
The series acknowledges the growing complexity of learning and teaching activities
in context and studies the roles of digital and material tools and new spaces in
teaching and learning. In doing so, it recognises the increasingly diverse nature of
educational work and aims to publish studies combining multiple data sources to
create richer, robust, more interpretable, more action-oriented evidence.
The ongoing goal of the series is to improve the scholarliness of practice - helping it
to be better informed by research - and synergistically, to improve the practical
applicability of research designs and outcomes.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14356

John A Bowden Pamela J Green
•

Playing the PhD Game

with Integrity
Connecting Research, Professional Practice
and Educational Context

123
John A Bowden Pamela J Green
Professor Emeritus Adjunct Professor
RMIT University RMIT University
Melbourne, VIC, Australia Melbourne, VIC, Australia

ISSN 2522-0845 ISSN 2522-0853 (electronic)

Understanding Teaching-Learning Practice
ISBN 978-981-13-6989-6 ISBN 978-981-13-6990-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6990-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019933842

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
For Mary (JB)
For Brit and Dylan (my PhD babies) (PG)
Preface

One function of a Preface is to provide some insights into what the authors were
thinking about when they conceived the ideas for the book. For us, there were two
dimensions to our thinking—the external need for serious debate about integrity in
the PhD system and our own internal motivation to further unravel and critically
reflect on some of the doctoral issues that we have been dealing with, both as
researchers and as teachers, in recent decades.
A question we have been asked by some who heard about our book is whether
we see PhD candidates as lacking integrity; is this what motivated us to write the
book? In fact, the direct opposite is true. Between us, we have supervised over 40
successful PhD candidates, using qualitative approaches and mixed methods, and
we have continued to supervise and advise PhD candidates up to and throughout the
writing of the book. We do believe that there is a need for serious debate about
integrity in the PhD system. However, our reasons for writing this book do not
include a perception of any growing malevolent purpose among doctoral candi-
dates. Rather, we see such candidates struggling within overly complex PhD sys-
tems that threaten to stifle their goal of becoming ethical researchers, mostly by
neglect, indifference or unbalanced prioritisation, rather than by design. In our view,
those system deficiencies arise because integrity in decision-making is not always
as prominent an issue as it should be across the system. Hence, this book is focused
on integrity in the PhD system, both in relation to its structure, principles, rules and
processes, and also in relation to the decision-making by various individuals within
the system. These do include candidates and supervisors, but also involve senior
academics and managers, university executive members, policy makers, relevant
state government bodies, national government departments and agencies, as well as
the governments and politicians themselves. All of these participants in the PhD
system influence the experiences of PhD candidates and their outcomes in various
ways; our development of a moral compass framework is directed towards an
ethical framework for the PhD system that optimises ethical behaviours and moral
outcomes, by all and for all.

vii
viii Preface

While our practice-based research has had a primarily qualitative focus, one of
us brings a science background to the task (Bowden’s PhD and university teaching
in chemistry, as well as a Dip. Ed., and teaching and research experience, in
university pedagogy) and the other a social science background (Green’s PhD in
literacy and sociology, and a wide range of teaching experience from primary
school, to university undergraduate teaching, to PhD supervision and research
management of graduate education). As experienced researchers within graduate
education and as providers of research training at university level within Australia
and internationally, we write about the PhD system on the basis of our knowledge,
skills, experience, research and publications, related to graduate research education.
Throughout our academic lives, each of us has experienced the joys as well as the
challenges associated with learning to do research, through our own PhD experi-
ences and also through supervision of the work of a range of postgraduate research
candidates over four decades, more recently as joint supervisors. We have been
impressed by the commitment and focus displayed by the candidates with whom we
have worked, given that most of them have sincerely sought to act with integrity.
Our aim with this book is to encourage all members of the PhD system to reflect on
their own actions and ensure that they go forward in ways that address integrity
perspectives more consciously and more directly. By doing so, they will make
positive contributions to the experiences of PhD candidates and their development
of research integrity.
Let us now address our own personal motivation for writing this book. Playing
the PhD Game with Integrity did not come out of nowhere. The book is grounded in
our practice-led research on doctoral work, such as projects about our moral
compass framework (MCF); moral development, moral advocacy and moral
mediation; the nature of capability; completion mindsets and completion contexts;
supervisor–candidate relationships; and joint authorship of research publications.
Consequently, the outcomes presented in the book are practice-determined and
some of the chapters are based on papers we had previously published on those
topics (mainly Chaps. 2–5). However, in transforming that material into chapters,
we found ourselves asking new questions and rethinking previous ideas, with the
book theme as the anchoring perspective. This also led to additional chapters
(Chaps. 6–11) on new topics, some of which were not part of the original book
proposal submission. That was because, as we forecast to the publishers, the very
process of writing, especially in a joint authorship project, almost always results in
the creation of new knowledge. In Chap. 9, we analyse joint authorship as a
knowledge creation process and provide a theoretical explanation for why we
discovered new ideas through the writing of the book. That explanation involves
both agreed mutual roles in playing devil’s advocate constructively and the intel-
lectual clash between our different academic backgrounds. The combination of both
contributed to making the joint writing process a learning one for us and the
creation of new knowledge for readers.
The task we then faced was to tie the various aspects, both old and new, together.
In order to take a holistic stance and to ensure coherence, we focused on connec-
tions between the nature of doctoral work; disciplinary and methodological
Preface ix

contexts; the structure of, and range of roles within, the PhD system; doctoral
research processes, practices and outcomes; and consequences for professional
practice.
What is our target audience? Simply put, our target audience is the wide range of
people and organisations that form the PhD system. In essence, the book is both
about them and for them. Candidates and supervisors are directly engaged in the
learning process aimed at the candidate becoming an ethical researcher. That pro-
cess is enhanced by a broader knowledge of the nature of research integrity and
how it is best developed while learning to be a researcher. That includes the
relationship between candidates and supervisors. Our book addresses such issues in
detail. Throughout the learning process, both candidates and supervisors interact,
either directly or indirectly, with a range of other people throughout the PhD system
whose decisions and actions affect the candidate’s experiences and outcomes. Our
book is also directed, therefore, to senior academics and managers working to treat
candidates fairly while encouraging efficient progress, and within both formal and
implied contractual agreements. The latter can involve such resources as the pro-
vision of a safe space for experimentation, failure and new learning, as well as the
existence of an intellectually stimulating environment. This book examines all
of the above aspects in relation to system integrity.
University executive members are often torn by potentially incompatible
responsibilities, such as financial viability and quality outcomes, and consequently
wrestle with inherently difficult decisions. The need to make a profit and to enhance
the standing of the university can often lead to over-enrolment within a PhD pro-
gramme, in relation both to available infrastructure resources and the capacity of
current academic staff to provide quality supervision to higher numbers of PhD
candidates. Such conflicts of responsibility are directly addressed in this book in
relation to the concept ‘wicked problem’. The book provides a useful framework for
such decision-making.
Our book is also relevant to personnel in a range of state government bodies,
national government departments and agencies, the governments themselves and
politicians. In their various roles related to PhD programmes, normally focused on
local or national needs, fiscal responsibility and quality issues, they can make
apparently logical decisions that, in fact, adversely affect the experiences and
outcomes of PhD candidature. Decisions shaped by cost-saving, for instance, can
lead to diminished PhD outcomes and lowering of quality. This is another example
of a wicked problem. In this book, we argue for mechanisms that address such
responsibility clashes at government level.
As we were writing the book, it became apparent to us that many of the integrity
principles we were writing about had relevance beyond the PhD system and research
integrity per se. We were observing, on social media and in newspapers, reports of
behaviour that clashed with the integrity principles that we espouse. Consequently,
the last chapter emerged with a focus on the PhD graduate in the professional
workplace and analyses their roles in behaving professionally with integrity.
x Preface

A contrast is made between that ideal behaviour arising from learning to play the
PhD game with integrity and the behaviours we observe in the media that seem to
defy or even deny integrity principles.

Melbourne, Australia John A Bowden

January 2019 Pamela J Green
Contents

1 ‘Playing the PhD Game’ with integrity: An overview . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Why write this book? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 The book title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1 What does playing the game with integrity mean
in practice? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Three aspects of integrity that are our focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 The tasks facing candidates on the PhD journey . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5 Two central themes of the book: Integrity and coherence . . . . . 10
1.6 An overview of the book: By chapter and by key
construct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.7 The graduate research education landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.7.1 The contemporary Australian context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.7.2 International issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.7.3 Changing expectations for the PhD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2 Moral compass framework (MCF) for resolution of wicked
problems in doctoral education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 27
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 27
2.2 The research project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 30
2.2.1 Ethical issues gleaned from the ‘PhD journey’
project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 31
2.2.2 The doctoral system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 32
2.3 Doctoral research education and experiences . . . . . . . . ...... 32
2.4 The moral compass framework for resolution of wicked
problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4.1 Why is the MCF necessary? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4.2 Moral compass: A definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.4.3 Wicked problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

xi
xii Contents

2.4.4 Moral compass versus common constructs like

conscience and ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38
2.4.5 Liminality, mindfulness and capability for managing
the unknown future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
2.4.6 Collective morality within the MCF . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
2.4.7 A summary of the MCF with links to further
analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3 Moral development within the doctoral system . . . . . . . . . . ...... 45
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 45
3.1.1 Conflict between a number of relevant,
valid principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 46
3.1.2 Moral development models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 47
3.2 Four doctoral scenarios with integrity aspects . . . . . . . . ...... 49
3.2.1 Supervision influences: Teaching candidates
to write (Scenario A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 49
3.2.2 University dilemma: Limited PhD supervision
capacity (Scenario B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 51
3.2.3 Confidential issues confronting research deans
(Scenario C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 52
3.2.4 Research deans dealing with a PhD plagiarism
case (Scenario D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.3 Application of the MCF to the scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3.1 Collective morality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3.2 Moral advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3.3 Moral mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.4 Connected moral capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.4 Proposals for change in the doctoral education system . . . . . . . 58
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4 Connected moral capability: The missing link in doctoral
education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.2 Moral capability in the literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.3 Capability to handle the unknown future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.3.1 Learning at the individual, collective and local
levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 66
4.3.2 Learning for the unknown future: Discerning
critical aspects, experiencing variation, managing
simultaneity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 67
Contents xiii

4.4 Knowledge capability and connected moral capability:

A theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.4.1 Relationship of capability to experience:
A double helix model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5 Completion mindsets and contexts in doctoral education:
Pursuing efficiency and quality with integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5.1 Adopting a completion mindset when things go wrong . . . . . . . 77
5.2 Changing supervision models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.3 ‘Effective’ supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.4 Systemic pressures on candidates and supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.4.1 Reactions to imposed systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.5 Pressure to perform: ‘Complete or Retreat’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.6 Supervision spaces: From RIP to RIPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.6.1 Relational space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.6.2 Intellectual space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.6.3 Physical space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.6.4 Emotional space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.7 Completion mindsets: Individual and collective . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.8 Spaces of influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.9 Mindful approaches to ‘doctoralness’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.10 Completion contexts for success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.11 Implications for supervisory practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.12 A complex strategy for success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6 Integrity principles for the conduct of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.2 Integrity principles across all research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6.2.1 Honesty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.2.2 Integrity, responsibility and accountability . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.2.3 Good stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.2.4 Fairness, care and respect for others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.2.5 Misconduct listed in the national codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.3 Objectivity and subjectivity in research involving
human participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.3.1 Objectivity in the national codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.3.2 Dualism versus non-dualism: Inappropriate
inclusion of social sciences and humanities
under the science codes banner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.3.3 The myth of objectivity in research involving
human participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.3.4 Relationality and human research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
xiv Contents

6.4 Qualitative research method case study: Developmental

phenomenography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.4.1 Clarifying and communicating methodology
and process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.4.2 The importance of a pilot study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.4.3 Finding appropriate participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.4.4 Analysis and interpretation of the collected data . . . . . . 122
6.4.5 Issues of integrity when reporting outcomes . . . . . . . . . 124
6.5 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
7 Decision-making with integrity in doctoral research practice . . . . . 127
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.2 Four vignettes: Differently doctoral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
7.3 The nature of the PhD journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.3.1 Beginning a PhD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.3.2 Turning research interests into research questions . . . . . 131
7.3.3 Characteristics of appropriate research questions:
Passion, knowledge contribution, manageability,
available supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.3.4 Matching research questions with research
approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
7.4 Matters of ethics, intellectual property and plagiarism . . . . . . . . 139
7.4.1 Formal ethics procedures, situated ethics
and the capable researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
7.4.2 Intellectual property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7.4.3 Plagiarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
7.5 Staying focused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7.6 Expectations and responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7.6.1 Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7.6.2 The supervisory panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
7.6.3 The faculty (or school) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.7 Supervision-related management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.7.1 Planning timelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.7.2 Meetings: Schedules, agendas and record keeping . . . . 150
7.7.3 Planning for timely feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.8 Progress and the nature of feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.9 Preparing for examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.9.1 Standards, processes and exemplars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.9.2 What do examiners want? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.9.3 Selection of examiners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Contents xv

7.10 Decision-making with integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8 Writing with integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
8.2 The nature of writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
8.2.1 Meaning making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
8.2.2 Double bind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.2.3 Rehearsal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.2.4 Writing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.2.5 Writing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
8.3 Doctoral writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
8.3.1 Research as writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
8.3.2 The PhD thesis: From academic style and systems
to voice and authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.4 Self as writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.4.1 Know your own capabilities, strengths, preferences
and writing history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.5 ‘Writing In’ and ‘Writing On’, not ‘Writing Up’: Strategies
for your writing arsenal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.5.1 Writing in: Oreparing to write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.5.2 Writing on: Strategies and focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.6 Writing for publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.6.1 Why publish? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
8.6.2 Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8.6.3 Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.7 Writing through love and hate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
9 Creative team authorship: Sequential and cascading mutual
catalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
9.1.1 National code statements on acknowledging
contribution of others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
9.1.2 Teamwork aspects: PhD candidates and supervisors
as joint authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
9.2 Joint authors’ framework: Creating new knowledge
through writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
9.2.1 Analysis of research methods intrinsic to three
cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
9.2.2 Method adopted for this chapter: process
of the present research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
xvi Contents

9.2.3 Three cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

9.2.4 Mutual catalysis: Sequential and cascading . . . . . . . . . 210
9.2.5 Assumptions underlying successful mutual
catalysis in writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
9.3 Teamwork development through joint authorship:
Mutual catalysis models for PhD and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
9.3.1 Attributes potentially enhanced by appropriate
joint authorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
9.3.2 Limitations imposed on phd candidature by policies,
rules and practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
9.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
10 Establishing integrity in doctoral research training . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
10.2 The changing nature of the PhD across time and context . . . . . 227
10.2.1 Knowledge economy and corporatisation . . . . . . . . . . . 227
10.2.2 Enrolments and attrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
10.2.3 Doctoral employment outcomes and the
skills push . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
10.2.4 Regulatory systems: An Australian example . . . . . . . . . 230
10.2.5 Highly regulated and systematic research
assessment activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
10.2.6 Global rankings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
10.2.7 A focus on research environments and research
support systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
10.2.8 A structured approach to PhD programmes . . . . . . . . . 237
10.3 Reframing research training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
10.3.1 Enrolment duration and supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
10.3.2 PhD experiences: Links to enrolment duration
and time on task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
10.3.3 More about capability development
and transferable skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
10.4 Research training in Australia: Integrity as imperative . . . . . . . . 251
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
11 Learning to use ‘negotiated sense’ on wicked problems
beyond the PhD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
11.1.1 PhD graduates’ capability for work
and community life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Contents xvii

11.2 Development of the construct ‘negotiated sense’ . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

11.2.1 Moral compass as a concept in the media . . . . . . . . . . 259
11.2.2 Negotiated sense: Universal basis for constructive
human interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
11.2.3 Negotiated sense contrasted with common sense
and reasoned sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
11.3 Using negotiated sense in workplace and sporting
relationships: An analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
11.3.1 Workplace teams in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
11.3.2 Invention of new products: The iPhone
as an example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
11.3.3 Co-authorship within academic teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
11.3.4 Sporting teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
11.4 Negotiated sense in relation to other key constructs
in the book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
11.4.1 Relationships between the constructs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
11.5 Using negotiated sense to resolve national and global issues . . . 277
11.5.1 PhD employment in health care, immigration
and refugee policy fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
11.5.2 Historical overviews of universal health care, refugee
policy and immigration law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
11.5.3 Value positions and principles underlying approaches
to global wicked problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
11.5.4 Overview of global issues through the lens
of negotiated sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
11.5.5 Healthcare Case Study: USA reform processes
in 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
11.5.6 Refugee Policy Case Study: Australia in late
twentieth century, early twenty-first century . . . . . . . . . 287
11.5.7 Immigration Law Case Study: USA reforms
in 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
11.6 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Chapter 1
‘Playing the PhD Game’ with integrity:
An overview

Abstract The notion of ‘playing the PhD game’ introduces the main focus of the
book: on working towards success, with integrity, within the PhD system. The nature
of integrity, a significant thread throughout the book, is unravelled. The main moti-
vations behind writing the book are presented in terms of research integrity and stan-
dards of research practices and outcomes. The ways of working of key participants,
such as candidates, supervisors and university managers, are central to achievement
of goals within the PhD programme. Such behaviours, at both individual and col-
lective levels, are key to ethical decision-making, progress towards success and the
overall integrity of the PhD endeavour. The main tasks of the PhD challenge, seen
through the lens of integrity, and what this means for coherence within all elements
of the PhD game, are introduced. This chapter launches the key constructs of the
book, in particular, our moral compass framework (MCF) for professional integrity.
Notions of collective morality, decision-making when faced with ‘wicked’ problems,
connected moral capability, as well as completion mindsets and contexts inform the
practice-based elements of the book. What such notions mean for the conduct of
doctoral research, research supervision, academic writing practices (PhD and pub-
lication), joint authorship and research training support systems are outlined (and
developed in subsequent chapters). An overview of the key constructs within the
book is presented as a map to guide the reader. Finally, the changing nature of the
graduate research education landscape is presented, from the origins of the PhD to
the increasingly complex context within which the PhD game is now played.

1.1 Introduction

This book is about how candidates can work for success within the PhD system and
do so with integrity. It addresses the activities of individuals, and the professional and
social principles on which their actions are based. It also involves the integrity with
which the system as a whole operates. Hence, within the PhD system, it examines the
nature of individual ethical behaviour for candidates, supervisors, university man-
agers and academic staff, government personnel, relevant politicians and examiners.
It explores the relationship among all of those and develops a framework to bridge
the individual and the collective. The failure of any part of the system to operate
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 1
J. A. Bowden and P. J. Green, Playing the PhD Game with Integrity, Understanding
Teaching-Learning Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6990-2_1
2 1 ‘Playing the PhD Game’ with integrity: An overview

with integrity has a consequential impact on the achievement of the goals of the PhD
system and its members. At times, the impact of such integrity principles beyond the
PhD system is explored, no more so than in Chap. 11.
Throughout the chapters of the book, the key issues are explored in relation to
explanatory frameworks that guide appropriate behaviour; notions of moral devel-
opment within a connected system; maintenance of integrity under time and work
pressure; decision-making in research and research training; and writing research
documents, both as a single author and in collaboration with others. Finally, the
lessons learned from this exposure of the PhD system to ethical scrutiny are applied
to wider personal, social, business and political contexts throughout the world.
In the process, 14 constructs that one or both authors have created, and previously
reported in refereed publications, are used to develop the argument in the book. Eight
constructs reported by other authors are adapted to contribute to the theme. In the
process of writing the book, the authors have in addition created six new constructs.
All 28 constructs are listed in Sect. 1.6 of this chapter. Further, their relationship to
each other and to various aspects of the PhD system is illustrated, along with a table
showing where in the book each construct is most relevant.

1.1.1 Why write this book?

The motivation to foster integrity in the PhD system emerges from the importance
of ensuring that candidates are given a fair opportunity to have a successful and
fulfilling PhD research experience, and their future need, when joining the research
community, to be suitably equipped with an ethical professional attitude and associ-
ated capability to engage in research with integrity. These issues will be explored in
detail throughout this book.
There is another motivation. To the extent that research integrity across the world
at any given time is less than it should be, there is considerable value to the research
community in encouraging new members who are capable of raising the standard of
research integrity among their professional peers. This could be a significant factor
because there is evidence that research integrity across the world may be at risk. It is
important that the next generation of researchers has the will and capability to help
raise integrity standards. This book is about the intersection between integrity in the
PhD system and research integrity. Our interest in integrity in research is in terms of
that contextual relationship.
In 2017, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine in the
USA made the following statements in a report on ‘Fostering integrity in research’:
Serious cases of research misconduct—including some that have gone undetected for
years—continue to emerge with disturbing regularity in the United States and around the
world. Increases in the number and percentage of research articles that are retracted and grow-
ing concern about low rates of reproducibility in some research fields raise questions about
how the research enterprise can better ensure that investments in research produce reliable
knowledge. (National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine 2017, p. ix)
1.1 Introduction 3

For example, Buckwalter et al. (2015) reported that, since 1975 in the field of
orthopaedic research, there has been a tenfold increase in the number of journal
articles that have been retracted. The academies’ report concludes that “failing to
define and respond strongly to research misconduct and detrimental research prac-
tices constitutes a significant threat to the research enterprise” (National Academies
of Science, Engineering and Medicine 2017, p. 2).
Edwards and Roy (2017) posit an explanation for such an observed decline in
research integrity. They attribute the reduction in ethical standards to what they term a
“perverse academic culture” comprising “perverse incentives” and hypercompetition
(pp. 51–52). They attribute the perverse incentives to the increasing use of quantitative
measures of research productivity (in some situations called performance indicators),
“including publication count, citations, combined citation-publication counts (e.g.,
h-index), journal impact factors (JIF), total research dollars, and total patents” (p. 52).
There are, in their view, consequences and “because these measures are subject to
manipulation, they are doomed to become misleading and even counterproductive”
(p. 52).
Elton (2004), while assessing the deficiencies in the use of such performance
indicators (PIs) for research, referred to Goodhart’s law,
which states that ‘when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure’ (from
McIntyre in a BBC programme in 1999). The basic reason for this is that PIs, when used
for control, are unreliable: they do not measure performance itself, distort what is mea-
sured, influence practice towards what is being measured and cause unmeasured parts to get
neglected. (Elton 2004, p. 121)

Edwards and Roy (2017) claim that a continued overemphasis on quantitative

metrics “will pressure all but the most ethical scientists, to overemphasize quantity
at the expense of quality, create pressures to “cut corners” throughout the system,
and select for scientists attracted to perverse incentives” (p. 53).
Such unethical research practices include fabrication, falsification and plagiarism.
The references quoted in this section provide a range of examples. One example of
falsification relates to the 1998 report in Lancet by Wakefield and 12 other co-authors
on, among other falsified findings, a link between childhood vaccination and the
onset of autism. The evidence in their report has been shown to have been altered,
to skew the conclusions in favour of financial sponsors, and a range of follow-up
research projects has refuted the reported link between vaccination and autism [see
Buckwalter et al. 2015, e2(2)]. Yet, despite retraction of the article by the journal
Lancet in 2004 and 2010, and subsequent contrary research findings, the effects
of that falsified research are pervasive. There has been intense political and social
dispute in various countries about the safety of childhood vaccination, a concern that
owes its origin to that falsified research (Davidson 2017). The issue of concern here is
not whether there is (or is not) a link between vaccination and autism. Rather, it is the
fact that the 1998 research findings were falsified and that they influenced community
responses in both the short and the long terms. Discovery and exposure of unethical
research do not necessarily solve the problems in society that the fraudulent practice
has generated. It is necessary to stop such unethical practices from occurring at all.
4 1 ‘Playing the PhD Game’ with integrity: An overview

Ensuring that PhD graduates enter the research profession with a commitment to
professional integrity is one important factor.
It might be argued that such falsified research reports are rare but, while that is
debatable, there are other sinister practices that, in the context of perverse incen-
tives and hypercompetition, have become commonplace. By becoming common-
place, they have changed the nature of research and the perspective of researchers on
research integrity for the worse. Instances of a researcher publishing the same paper
more than once, albeit with slight variations, and the breaking up of what should
have been reported in one paper into several smaller papers are examples elabo-
rated by Elton (2004). He adds: “This goes beyond Goodhart’s law by amounting
to ‘playing academic games’ and even sharp practice. This ‘playing of games’ is
perhaps the most demoralising feature of PIs, as it leads to an active discouragement
of professional standards” (p. 122). These practices fail to address the ‘big picture’
and in turn distort research goals and project planning. Society is the victim, as its
research funding is used more to further the career ambitions of researchers within
that perverse culture than to address world problems more comprehensively.
The various quantitative measures (or PIs) play a role in a range of decision-
making in universities about academic appointments, tenure, promotion and research
funding, as well as awards and honours. Given the decreasing number of career
academic opportunities, the reduction in research funding and the shift of university
management systems towards a business model based on profit, individuals face a
hypercompetitive market governed by these perverse incentives. There is a strong
temptation to comply and that brings with it the doubtful ethical behaviour discussed
above. This is not restricted to individual researchers or universities. Edwards and Roy
(2017) suggest that government agencies are also subject to perverse incentives and
hypercompetition, giving rise to a new phenomenon of institutional scientific research
misconduct (p. 55). Edwards and Roy are also scathing about the use of university
ranking systems, as they encourage institutional misuse. They argue that the reliance
of the ranking systems on subjective proprietary formulae and algorithms, whose
original validity has been undermined by Goodhart’s law, has meant that “universities
have attempted to game the system by redistributing resources or investing in areas
that the ranking metrics emphasize” (p. 54). Several publications (e.g. Edwards and
Roy 2017, p. 57; National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine 2017,
p. 3) argue for more effective education and other programmes that support the
integrity of research, and Edwards and Roy suggest that a PhD programme “should
also be viewed as an exercise in building character” (p. 57).
This book addresses that last idea—how PhD candidates can achieve success
within a system that is conducted with integrity, develop within themselves a con-
tinuing, spontaneous orientation towards doing research with integrity and have the
capability to act ethically at all times. While Edwards and Roy’s (2017) table of
growing perverse incentives in academia is compelling in terms of the need for
change, we would argue for the inclusion of, as additional effects of perverse incen-
tives, the consequential impact on research supervision, the potential for misuse of
doctoral candidates in the pursuit of research outcomes and the side effects of PhD
fast tracking. The need to address the problems of research misconduct as well as
1.1 Introduction 5

the ‘unintended’ consequences on PhD candidates is a recognised global imperative.

Our book is about the intersection between integrity in the PhD system and research
integrity across global contexts.

1.2 The book title

Advice about choosing a book title commonly argues for the title to be short, memo-
rable, easy to say, describe what the book is about and to be provocative or attention-
grabbing (e.g. see Berkun 2012; Tucker 2015). We have tried to follow that advice
in creating the title of this book—Playing the PhD Game with Integrity. While we
were conjuring up a title, we wanted it to give potential readers a fairly accurate idea
of what the book is about—to the extent that any six words could do so. The title that
we have adopted first came to mind as a description of how we saw the PhD system.
It is a complex array of policies, rules and procedures at individual, institutional and
national levels, through which the candidate must negotiate a personal pathway to
successful completion, in a specified period of time.
We also wanted the title to be somewhat provocative and to trigger potential
readers’ interest in querying its logic and wondering what the book is about. Isn’t
game playing inconsistent with ethical behaviour? Surely the book is not advocating
deceit! What is the ‘PhD game’ anyway? Our hope is that potential readers will
assume that the juxtaposition of two seemingly contrary ideas is indeed resolved
within the book and that they become intrigued enough to begin reading it.
The apparent inconsistency is not real, so far as this book is concerned. Our
notion of ‘playing the PhD game’ is not of the same kind as some common neg-
ative perceptions of game playing or Elton’s (2004) referral to deceptive research
practices as ‘playing academic games’ that we reported earlier. Such deception is
not a perspective we would espouse in relation to the PhD system. Our meaning is
about playing the PhD game honestly and fairly, which corresponds with one dic-
tionary meaning of ‘play the game’ (Cambridge Dictionary 2018). This involves
taking every opportunity to enhance outcomes, within the particular circumstances
and time constraints. Edwards and Roy (2017) remarked that “academia and sci-
ence are expected to be self-policing and self-correcting” (p. 51). Professional golf,
where there are detailed rules to cover virtually every possible situation, provides
an interesting while imperfect analogy. The PhD system is by its nature complex,
and the tasks facing candidates are more intellectually challenging than golf. How-
ever, the key role of professional integrity in world golf does represent a parallel to
our advocacy of integrity within the PhD system. The rules of golf are carefully and
sometimes, it may seem, tediously policed by golf authorities, but such is the integrity
culture among professional golfers that most breeches of the rules are notified by the
person who transgressed. The rules are formulated in absolute terms to reduce ambi-
guity, and as a consequence, many players penalise themselves for breaking a rule,
even when they were not advantaged by the action they took; they are punctilious
about observing the rules (corresponding with the Thesaurus.com 2018 definition of
6 1 ‘Playing the PhD Game’ with integrity: An overview

‘playing the game’) even when their lapse is accidental. That is the kind of integrity
that playing the game of golf requires. For example, a professional player named Ernie
Els hit a ball into rough ground in the 2017 BMW golf tournament. Els explained:
I thought it was plugged, so I asked my guys (playing partners) if I could check it and they
said yeah. I put it back and I hit my chip shot and I just felt uncomfortable by the way the
ball came out. The ball came out way too good so I felt I didn’t quite probably put it exactly
where I should have. Under the rules you try and put it back the way you think it should be,
but I still felt uncomfortable with it, so we took a two-shot penalty. I know deep down the
ball wasn’t quite where it should be and I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. (Stafford
2017)

This particular case follows a long tradition, as shown in a story reported by Harig
(2007) about a famous amateur golfer named Bobby Jones who, more than 80 years
earlier, was competing in the 1925 U.S. Open. Without him or anyone else seeing
it, Jones believed his ball had moved slightly as he addressed it in long grass. The
movement gave him no advantage, and no one saw it move. Yet Jones penalised
himself one stroke as designated in the rules of golf for when the ball moves. That
eventually lost him the championship. Harig comments that it is a badge of honour
to play by the rules and call penalties on yourself. It is a game of integrity.
We have a similar goal for the PhD system—that all candidates, supervisors,
university managers and academic staff, government personnel, relevant politicians
and examiners will automatically embrace integrity in all that they do, and that they
will spontaneously act with integrity at all times. That is as far as the analogy with
playing golf extends. Within the PhD system, the rules are not unambiguous and
applied without contextual sensitivity, as they are in golf. Our meaning in this book
for playing the PhD game involves achieving goals, within a particular context, by
negotiating an ethical pathway through a range of somewhat arbitrary and ambiguous
expectations. It matches the self-discipline and integrity of golf, but in a context where
the rules are more ambiguous. The PhD system is complex. There are many rules
spread across various parts of the system, so that observing them all unambiguously
is impossible, especially as they are often at cross purposes. The implication is that
all participants in that PhD system have opportunities and intentions for independent
action, which creates ongoing uncertainty and ambiguity for any individual. Our
book is about the PhD system as the overarching context, and we focus on PhD
candidates playing the PhD game in a way that both enhances the integrity of their
professional behaviour, their outcomes and their future work, and also contributes to
a system that is ethical in all of its actions, for all of its participants. It is a game in the
sense that individuals have personal goals and try to manage their own environment
in ways that maximise their chances of success. However, our theme is around the
ethical aspects of those processes, with each individual embarking on their journey
with the intention of operating with integrity.
Playing the PhD game with integrity is the driving metaphor behind this book. The
ways in which the PhD game is played depend upon how the game is scoped, what
mindsets are in place, how progress is reviewed, as well as detailed expectations, such
as can be found in ‘rule books’ and other boundary-setting policy documents. Also
central to the success of the game is the impact of mentors who induct candidates into
1.2 The book title 7

the PhD system and help them move towards significant and successful outcomes.
Other stakeholders within the system, such as academic managers, policy makers,
administrative managers and examiners, also play vital roles. What does this have to
do with integrity? Everything, we claim.
Through pursuing this line, we untangle key issues related to doctoral work, in
particular, the ways in which crucial decisions are made that determine the integrity
associated with processes, interactions and outcomes. The concept of the PhD game
provides a lens through which doctoral pathways, interactions and destinations can
be elaborated upon, scrutinised and strategised.

1.2.1 What does playing the game with integrity mean

in practice?

We argue for PhD candidates (and supervisors) to play the game by behaving with
integrity in any context. Such behaviour must, therefore, be fair, ethical and moral
with respect to self, others and the context. Integrity centres on the individual’s moral
compass and the actions taken based on the many decisions that are made throughout
candidature. As such, integrity encompasses respect, honesty and trustworthiness,
as well as fairness, ethical practice and mindfulness. These key elements are the
connecting pathways within the doctoral game and provide the central threads of this
book. One key difference between the PhD game and, say, its sporting equivalent, a
difference that adds to its complexity, is that the goal is for all players to be successful,
a win-win objective that contrasts with most sports in which there is always at least
one loser for each winner. That difference makes the characteristics of the PhD game
described above both more important and more difficult. A challenging feature of
the PhD game for the candidate is the balancing act that must be first achieved,
and then maintained throughout, in order to complete successfully and in a timely
manner. At the same time, the candidate must maintain integrity with respect to the
inherent research decisions, processes and quality outcomes, as well as supervisory
and publication matters (let alone some form of balance between doctoral life and
personal life). The satisfaction and well-being of all members of the PhD system are
a goal that can sometimes be in conflict with successful completion of the PhD. This
balancing act is dependent upon not only the candidates but also the supervisors and
other stakeholders such as progress panels, policy makers, managers (such as deans
of graduate research education and research training co-ordinators) and examiners.
This book is grounded in our practice-led research on doctoral work. While we
lean more towards the social sciences, together we do bring a science-based back-
ground (PhD and university teaching in the chemistry field, Dip Ed and teaching
in tertiary education) to the task and a social science background (a PhD in liter-
acy and sociology and a wide range of teaching experience from primary school to
PhD). Between us, we have supervised over 40 successful PhD candidates, using
qualitative approaches and mixed methods, and continue to do so. As experienced
8 1 ‘Playing the PhD Game’ with integrity: An overview

providers of research training at university levels within Australia and internation-

ally, we write about the PhD game on the basis of our knowledge, skills, experience,
research and publications, related to graduate research education. While the data on
which the book is based emanate from practice-led research within the Australian
doctoral system, such as projects about our moral compass framework (MCF), com-
pletion mindsets and completion contexts, supervisor–candidate relationships and
joint authorship of research publications, the conclusions drawn have global import.
Consequently, the outcomes presented here are practice-determined. A focus on con-
nections between the nature of doctoral work; the disciplinary and methodological
contexts; the doctoral research processes, practices and outcomes (theses and other
examinable outcomes, publications, presentations); and ensuant professional prac-
tice is made in order to take a holistic stance and to ensure coherence.

1.3 Three aspects of integrity that are our focus

Doctoral graduates who have successfully completed the PhD enter the professional
workplace with responsibilities to the community they serve, through engagement in
creative, postdoctoral activity. If PhD graduates are to succeed in creating new knowl-
edge or new applications for society, their professional activities must be beyond
reproach and inspire confidence among their stakeholders. They must both act with
integrity and be seen to do so. That is the first aspect of integrity in our title.
The PhD experience is the fertile ground upon which such responsible, profes-
sional practice is built. It is the vehicle by which doctoral candidates develop a
profound sense of what doing research with integrity entails. Through the experi-
ence of the PhD, candidates develop patterns of behaviour that have integrity as an
implicit core principle. That is the second aspect of integrity in our book title.
PhD candidature is also an enterprise awash with challenges. Gaining access to
a doctoral programme, developing a project, learning how to do research, undertak-
ing the investigation, writing a thesis (or other outcome) and succeeding with the
examination have all to be undertaken within a context of constrained resources,
whether human-, material- or time-related. We address all of those aspects in this
book. There are people aplenty who are more than willing to provide tips for short
cuts to completing a PhD, and there may well be organisations that shape their pro-
grammes in ways that favour timely completion over quality of achievement. This
can entice pressured, time-poor PhD candidates to act less than honestly and con-
trary to their own espoused principles. Doctoral candidates need to approach their
research journey with integrity, the third aspect of integrity in our title, lest unethical
short cuts undermine the development of the other two aspects. It is not possible to
develop as a researcher who approaches all professional work with integrity if that
attribute is not learned, practised and made second nature during PhD candidature.
Inappropriate short cuts do not meet that requirement. We explore the implications
of all three aspects of integrity throughout the book.
1.4 The tasks facing candidates on the PhD journey 9

1.4 The tasks facing candidates on the PhD journey

One reason that the PhD journey involves a game aspect is that every candidate
is trying to find a balance among a range of seemingly conflicting goals for their
activities. Within the one enterprise, they are simultaneously:
• Learning what research entails and how to do it;
• Developing the capabilities to be a successful researcher;
• Undertaking a real research project that must, by definition, create significant new
knowledge if their candidature is to be successful;
• Communicating to a set of examiners both their outcomes and evidence of their
own freshly minted research capabilities.
At first glance, these goals seem to be at cross purposes. Learning to conduct
research implies acquiring relevant knowledge and skills, practising what has been
learned, making mistakes and modifying practices accordingly. One goal therefore
is to become a capable researcher by the end of candidature, despite being less
than capable along the way. This seems to be in conflict with the goal of engaging
across the whole candidature period in a successful research project that creates
new knowledge. It would certainly be feasible to achieve both if it were possible
to access consistently high-quality support and there was sufficient time to make
errors, recover and begin again, perhaps several times. However, the context for a
PhD candidate is that all of the goals have to be achieved within a particular, limited
time frame, and within the limits of the resources provided by the institution in which
the candidate is enrolled. The latter includes institutional policies and procedures that
determine access to supervision and availability of materials, equipment and other
systems necessary for the successful conduct of PhD research.
In practice, such support is often not at an ideal level nor of consistently high
quality, and this substantially affects the ability of a candidate to achieve the agreed
goals. Access to adequate supervision greatly influences the ways in which candidates
learn about research and how to do it. It is well accepted that supervision is a central
element of doctoral progress (Lee 2008; Murphy et al. 2007). Furthermore, the nature
of the resources available and the nature of supervisory experience in each case
affect the kind of research that a candidate may be able to undertake. In addition, as
discussed above, there is the significant impact of government policy that globally
has focused, in the past decade or more, on timely completion, as well as increased
fees and severe penalties for lack of timeliness.
PhD candidature can be portrayed as a form of reality game. Clear goals are set but
in a pure sense they are not easily attained within the context within which PhD study
is undertaken. Candidates need to negotiate optimal conditions with supervisors and
the institution, and then manage their own capacities to learn and become capable
as a researcher. At the same time, candidates need to navigate through local policies
and procedures, some of which may appear to be deliberate impediments thrown
up by the university. Denial of resources, less than appropriate supervision levels,
and inadequate institutional systems, all are barriers to smooth pathways to success.
10 1 ‘Playing the PhD Game’ with integrity: An overview

Getting around such obstacles is a game that PhD candidates need to learn to play.
However, we would add ‘with integrity’ to that statement. The challenge is to get the
balance right between taking time to learn, to develop research capability on the one
hand and getting on with a research project that has a chance of real success within a
reasonable time frame. That balance has to be achieved in honest, principled ways,
that is, by playing the PhD game with integrity.
It is imperative for PhD candidates to maximise the value that they derive from
every day of their candidature and from every person who supports them. There are
many factors that influence achievement of the multiple goals that make up the PhD
challenge, and candidates must develop a plan to maximise the positive and minimise
the negative factors. In that sense too, the PhD journey is a game; there are many
choices about how to proceed, and each candidate must find a pathway most likely
to lead to success. A candidate without foresight may quietly read the literature for
6–12 months and then spend 6 more months developing what they perceive as a
‘perfect’ research project. It may be that none of the assigned supervisors has the
capacity to support such a project and more time is spent finding suitable supervision.
Whatever the relationship was between the candidate and the original supervisors,
effort is now needed to develop the new relationships. It may be that data collection
does not begin until more than 2 years after initial enrolment and could take up to
a year to complete. The formal completion time of 3 (or even 4) years has been
reached before analysis begins, and this takes a further 12 months to complete. By
this stage, the university policy is that supervision officially ceases, and the candidacy
is in jeopardy. The thesis (examinable outcome) has still to be written, but there is
no formal support from supervisors or the university system per se. Termination of
candidacy looms large, especially given the economic rationalist landscape in which
the PhD resides. The question then arises as to how this might be avoided. Our
response is by playing the PhD game better while maintaining (even restoring in
some areas) integrity within the entire PhD system.

1.5 Two central themes of the book: Integrity

and coherence

In order to illustrate the provocative title we chose for this book, we have so far
addressed various aspects through a game metaphor. We will move away from that
explicit metaphor now, as we discuss the two main themes that form our focus on the
PhD challenge. Throughout the rest of this book, the metaphor will not be addressed
explicitly but it remains as a driving force behind the writing.
The first theme is integrity. We focus on the issue of integrity in relation to the
capabilities developed by doctoral candidates for professional practice; the man-
ner in which they conduct their candidature; the influence of policies and processes
developed by their university and their supervisors; and the impact of goals, funding
systems and management processes at the levels of state and national governments.
Our emphasis is on the development of a capability to act with integrity as a con-
sequence of engaging successfully and ethically with PhD candidature. We argue
1.5 Two central themes of the book: Integrity and coherence 11

that such a capability is significantly influenced by the moral positions taken by

supervisors; the university, local and national government agencies; and the research
community. We take the firm stance that how candidates experience the PhD is sig-
nificantly influenced by how others throughout the system behave. Upon completion,
PhD graduates then bring such capability development to previously unseen profes-
sional situations and become well positioned to contribute significantly to practice
with integrity. The impact on others is potentially ongoing.
Viewing the PhD through a lens of integrity, it is strikingly apparent that coherence
is vital. This is the second theme of the book. We argue the need for coherence
across all aspects of the PhD, especially between research findings, candidature
matters, contextual influences, teaching–learning practices and learning outcomes as
represented by capability to engage in professional practice. The book is structured
around the first theme, and the second theme is highlighted within each chapter as
relevant to its content.
Those involved in the PhD system are concerned with integrity, especially in terms
of decisions that determine options, practices and outcomes. Our goal is to inform,
challenge and perhaps even reassure those involved in the PhD system (doctoral
candidates, prospective candidates, research supervisors, doctoral examiners, gradu-
ate research education policy makers and enforcers, academics involved in research
training, those involved in risk management, methodological experts and academic
writers). As the book title indicates, we focus on the PhD and the production of the
thesis as the final examinable outcome. However, the issues raised here hold true
for those pursuing doctorates in other forms, such as exegesis and artefact doctor-
ates, professional doctorates and industry doctorates. Compelling implications for
professional activity after graduation and inspiration for ongoing research flow from
the themes of the book. Further and perhaps most importantly, the implications for
integrity as a universal attribute are relevant to all situations and contexts in life.

1.6 An overview of the book: By chapter and by key

construct

Our MCF for professional integrity, which is introduced in Chap. 2, informs decision-
making within higher education, including within the PhD. One aspect of the integrity
story is the system in which it operates; our MCF takes into account individual
decision-making, through the lens of collective morality and moral development
within multi-level systems (local, national, global). This mirrors the entire global
research enterprise as presented in the Academies’ report:
The research enterprise is a system of individuals, organizations, and relationships that
requires its constituents to fulfill their responsibilities in order to be effective. In contrast to
simple systems, which are stable and whose components interact through well-understood
cause-and-effect relationships, the research enterprise is more akin to a complex adaptive sys-
tem characterized by dynamism and self-organization … some components of the research
enterprise operate at a local level (research institutions) or a national level (research funding
12 1 ‘Playing the PhD Game’ with integrity: An overview

systems, to a large extent). Other components, such as publication and the dissemination of
knowledge, operate largely at a global level. (National Academies of Science, Engineering
and Medicine 2017, p. 14)

In Chaps. 2 and 3, we show that for such complex systems to be viable, our
recently reported constructs—collective morality, moral advocacy and moral medi-
ation—have to be embraced (Bowden and Green 2014; Green and Bowden 2015).
Using Rittel and Webber’s (1973) notion of ‘wicked’ problems to frame decision-
making where there are no clear solutions but only resolutions, we look at the PhD
journey and the major decisions that need to be made along the way. We show how
the uncertainty that arises in transitional periods (Baillie et al. 2013; Meyer and
Land 2006), while the wicked problems are being dealt with, can be managed. This
is achieved by using the MCF to guide comprehensive, collective resolutions and
avoiding narrowly perceived, less useful short cuts. In Chap. 3, the framework is
extended through a lens of moral development (Bazerman and Messick 1996; Jones
1991; Kohlberg 1973; Rest 1986; Trevino 1986; Velasquez and Rostankowski 1985).
This leads to the ways in which we face conflict in times of considerable uncertainty
and change.
The MCF then leads to a construct that we created during the writing of this
book—connected moral capability. In Chap. 4, we show how this construct represents
the attributes necessary to behave with integrity in complex situations involving a
range of people and perspectives. The MCF is the framework that guides action,
and connected moral capability comprises the related attributes needed to respond
appropriately.
The new double helix model of capability development is introduced in Chap. 4
and is focused on knowledge capability, research capability and moral capability. It
represents the interplay between capability development and experience. Chapter 4
draws on work done earlier by one of the authors on capability for an unknown future,
in which the constructs’ knowledge capability and relationality, as well as discern-
ment and simultaneity, are central factors (Bowden 2004; Bowden and Marton 2003).
It builds on the notion that the capability to act effectively in future professional roles
should be the central curriculum goal in undergraduate education (Baillie et al. 2013;
Bowden 2004; Bowden et al. 2000). University undergraduate students learn through
interaction with current knowledge so as to become capable, some years in future,
of dealing with situations in professional, personal or social contexts that cannot be
specified in advance. It is argued in Chap. 4 that this capability notion is central
to research training in the PhD environment and that its implementation is neces-
sarily principle-based. Development of the capability to discern key aspects of any
situation, consideration of the range of possible responses and formation of ethical
judgements about how to proceed are represented as key elements of acting as a pro-
fessional with integrity. Examples from PhD projects are presented, and the range
of potential responses is canvassed and analysed, in terms of their integrity status.
Chapter 5 presents our theoretical model of completion mindsets and completion
contexts. In essence, this model emerged as we responded to the pressures on candi-
dates and their supervisory panels to complete well and on time. Our research shows
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
roses which look like miniature red cabbages. If a woman in Ruth's rank
of life is a genius, let her learn music or drawing by all means. But oh,
fathers and mothers of Great Britain and Ireland, do give up the idea
that "a little music" and "just half a dozen lessons in flower-painting" are
necessary for all your daughters.

Well, one lovely day in April, Ralph was alone in the garden in front of
his house. Ruth had gone to meet Ollie on his way home from school.
Ralph was sitting on a chair close to his door, enjoying the warmth of the
sun and the scent of a little patch of violets which were just coming into
bloom. Ruth and Ollie had contrived to make the front garden quite
pretty, and to grow some common vegetables in the one at the back of
the house. Looking up, because he heard the little gate squeak, as it
always did when opened, Ralph beheld a gentleman in deep mourning
coming up the walk. A slight, well-made young man, with a moustache
and small imperial—not an Englishman, evidently, Ralph concluded.

"Excuse me, sir," said the stranger, "is your name Ralph Trulock?"

"It is, sir," said Ralph, standing up.

"I shall be glad to have a little private conversation with you. Shall we be
interrupted or overheard here?" With a glance of his quick black eyes
towards Mrs. Short's window, where truly the worthy creature was
flattening her nose against the glass with great ardour.

"We can go to the parlour," said Ralph, inwardly wondering who the man
might be.

They went in accordingly, and sat down.

"Mr. Trulock, my name is Mordan,—Oliver Mordan, of Bordeaux."

"Indeed!" cried Ralph with a start. "Then I suppose I know why you are
here, sir. I wrote to Mr. Mordan about a year ago,—but not, I should
think, to you."

"You wrote! You know why I am here!" exclaimed Mr. Mordan, flourishing
his hands about rather more than Ralph thought becoming. "Doubtless it
was to my dear father that you wrote; but I never heard of it, nor did I
find your letter among his papers. My father, Mr. Trulock, died some
months ago."

Ralph tried to look sorry, but he was so full of anxiety to know why Mr.
Mordan was here, that he did not succeed particularly well.

"Will you tell me why you wrote to my father, sir? I was in the East,
travelling for my proper distraction—for my own amusement, I would
say. I returned in haste, to find my father dying. Business has occupied
every moment since his death. I could not fulfil the request of my poor
friend until now, nor seek for his children, concerning whose fate I am
extremely anxious."

"Anxious about the children, sir! Then it was not to see them that you
came here?"

"No; but do you tell me in seriousness that they are here? Ah, what a
relief! It is only lately that the circumstances of my poor friend's death
became known to me. I was far away—no letters reached me for a very
long time. The packet containing his last letter missed me, and was sent
to me by a friend from Damascus, quite recently. I returned, summoned
because my father was ill; I never heard his voice again, though he lived
for many weeks; he was speechless. Then, as no doubt you are aware,
there was a change of Government in France; this naturally occasioned
difficulties in business, and seriously injured our house, so recently
deprived of its experienced chief. I have been obliged to devote every
moment, every energy, to the work of saving our house. Then came
these letters—my friend's last among them. Then I make inquiries more
particular—begin to fear his children may be in want—follow him to
England, partly to see you, sir, still more to find the helpless little ones.
But I presume their father gave them directions how to act. I had feared
that his death was too sudden to admit of that."

"So it was," replied Ralph. "He only said they were to go to Fairford, to
their grandfather."

"But that was enough," said Mr. Mordan, smiling.

"They came on, poor children," pursued Ralph, wondering what on earth
the man meant by that, "and began to inquire for their grandfather."
"And they found you?" said Mr. Mordan, still mysteriously pleased about
something.

"Well, I don't know about finding," said Ralph, slowly, with a puzzled
look. "I made acquaintance with Ruth Garland accidentally, and was led
on by little and little to take an interest in her. They live with me now, and
I hope, sir, that you won't take them from me, for it would break my heart
to part with them now; though I know I have no claim to keep them, if
they wish to go, and you can do better for them than I can—as I make
no doubt you could, sir."

Mr. Mordan was the one to look puzzled now. After a little thought, he
said:

"We are at cross-purposes, Mr. Trulock. You call the children Garland;
do you know them only by that name?"

"Why, of course, only by that name," replied Ralph.

"And they came here, acting on the few words from their father of which
you have spoken; and they failed to find their grandfather?"

"Failed entirely," said Ralph. "Never was a Garland in Fairford."

"And you took them to your home, and now love them as if they were
your own?" went on Oliver Mordan, earnestly.

"Just so, sir," said Ralph.

"Mr. Trulock, the ways of God are very wonderful, as my dear mother
used to say. Let me think a little. I must not be too sudden. I must ask
you a question which may agitate you. Tell me, sir, had you not once a
son?"

"Yes, one son."

"Named Frederick," said Mr. Mordan, "the same name as my poor

friend."

Ralph turned white—then tried to rise from his chair, gasping out,—
"Frederick—oh, it cannot be—yet I always thought Ruth like my Annie;
oh, sir, tell me quickly, are these his children? Tell me!"

Mr. Mordan sprang up and opened the window; then seizing a

newspaper which lay on the table, he fanned the old man vigorously
until he had recovered himself a little. Then he said,—

"You were too quick for me. But you have guessed rightly. No one knew
his real name, not even myself. He told me his story when he came to
Bordeaux, but not his name. He told me he had wronged his father, that
he feared he had ruined his business; that the only reparation he could
make would be to provide for the old age of this father whom he had so
injured, and he asked me to help him. To save money, he denied himself
and his family every luxury. I managed his affairs, for he had no head for
business; all his money was in my hands. My father knew nothing of it,
he never much liked my friend—I know not why. I owed my life to him,
but without that I should have loved him. This letter of which I speak—
his last—told me his real name, and told me also that his father, after a
long and gallant struggle with misfortune, had been obliged to give up
his business—had been forced to accept an asylum here."

"'I know my father,' he wrote; 'this will break his heart. I dared not
interfere while I still hoped he would succeed; but now I will go to him,
with the children. Surely he will forgive me, and let me pay what he has
not been able to pay, and make his old age comfortable, even though I
cannot restore to him what he has lost by my misdoing.'"

"Oh, my boy, my dear Fred! So your mother was right; the good she
taught you was not forgotten!"

"He was a good man, Mr. Trulock. A repentant, humble-minded man. My

mother liked him well, and she was angel."

"He must have been good, from the way he taught his children. And my
little Ruth! How the look of Annie puzzled me, and I even tried to
persuade myself it was fancy."

Mr. Mordan rose.

"I will leave you now," he said, "for I see you are unable just now to
attend to business. But, if you will permit, I will come in the evening. You
will wish to tell the children,—yes, I will come at six this evening."

"You are very kind, sir; I feel it more than I can say. I shall be better able
to thank you then. Truly at this moment I am not good for much."

Fancy Ruth's amazement to meet "Monsieur Oliver" in the gateway of

Lady Mabel's Rest. Ollie had quite forgotten him, but Ruth knew him at
once. He kissed them both, and told them that he had been very
unhappy about them, and had come to Fairford to seek them. Then he
bid them run home, as Mr. Trulock had something truly surprising to tell
them. So they rushed home, in no small excitement, to find Ralph crying
like a child.

"Oh, what is it?" said Ruth. "He said—Monsieur Oliver did—that you had
something to tell us; but it must be something bad. He wants to take us
away, but we won't go. We cannot leave you now; can we, Ollie?"

"It is nothing bad," said Ollie; "I can see that. Wait a little, Ruthie, and he
will tell us."

"Ruth, Ollie! My dear, dear children! No one can take you from me now.
Wonderful are the guidings of the Almighty! He led you to your rightful
home, He prepared my hard heart to welcome you. Children, your father
was my son, my only son, Frederick. Ruth, you have a good right to be
like my dear Annie. Oh, if she had but seen this day!"

I need not describe the children's excitement and delight. For a long
time they could talk of nothing else.

"Do you remember that we wished our grandfather might be just like
you?" said Ollie, kissing Ralph affectionately. "Well, Ruth, what have you
discovered now? You look so surprised."

"Because, Ollie, do you remember how dear father tried to say

something, and I thought it was 'You lock,' and locked his box. It was
'Trulock,' I am sure it was; don't you think so, Mr. Trulock?"
"I am sure you are right, dear. My poor Fred! But you must learn to call
me grandfather, now, Ruthie."

"That won't be hard," said Ruth fondly.

When Mr. Mordan returned to the Rest at six o'clock, he found Mr.
Trulock quite himself again, and Ruth and Ollie ready to welcome him
with delight, and to give him a cup of tea, which he greatly enjoyed; also
Ruth's tea-cake, for the cookery at the Fairford inn did not much please
him. He showed them the letter written just before his journey to
England by Frederick Trulock, and a copy of the poor fellow's will, a brief
document, leaving all he had to his father, and his two children to his
father's care. The sum thus made over was not a very large one, not a
fortune, by any means, but it was enough to make the future of the
children no matter of anxiety to their grandfather.

Ralph's first step was to write to Mr. Arnott, offering to pay the two-and-
sixpence in the pound, which had once made him so miserable. His
creditors, one and all, begged him not to do so, and Ralph thanked
them, and accepted their kindness frankly, for the children's sake.

Ralph made no change in his life for some months for he was anxious to
act prudently for the interests of his charge. Then, as Ollie declared that
of all things he wished to be a bookseller, he purchased the shop and
good-will of a person in that line of business in the chief town of the
county in which Fairford stood. And so, of course, he gave up his house
in Lady Mabel's Rest.

Ruth was quite sorry to leave it, and to part with her kind friend, Miss
Jones. From her other friend, Mrs. Cloudesley, she would not be parted,
as Mr. Cloudesley had accepted a living in the very town to which the
Trulocks were going. Ralph manages the business so well that they are
very comfortable and prosperous, and the old man's life is a very happy
one.

"My Christmas Roses," he says sometimes to May Cloudesley, "they

make my old age the brightest time I have known!"
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RALPH
TRULOCK'S CHRISTMAS ROSES ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
 copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.