The Future of Doctoral Research

Challenges and Opportunities 1st

Edition Dr. Anne Lee
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-future-of-doctoral-research-challenges-and-opport
unities-1st-edition-dr-anne-lee/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Future Foods: Global Trends, Opportunities and

Sustainability Challenges 1st Edition Rajeev Bhat

https://ebookmeta.com/product/future-foods-global-trends-
opportunities-and-sustainability-challenges-1st-edition-rajeev-
bhat/

Handbook of Research on Challenges and Opportunities in

Launching a Technology Driven International University
1st Edition Mehdi Khosrow-Pour

https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-research-on-challenges-
and-opportunities-in-launching-a-technology-driven-international-
university-1st-edition-mehdi-khosrow-pour/

Hamas Transformation Opportunities and Challenges 1st

Edition Ibrahim Natil

https://ebookmeta.com/product/hamas-transformation-opportunities-
and-challenges-1st-edition-ibrahim-natil/

Internet of Drones: Applications, Opportunities, and

Challenges 1st Edition Saravanan Krishnan (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/internet-of-drones-applications-
opportunities-and-challenges-1st-edition-saravanan-krishnan-
editor/
Biological Treatment of Microbial Corrosion:
Opportunities and Challenges 1st Edition Reza
Javaherdashti

https://ebookmeta.com/product/biological-treatment-of-microbial-
corrosion-opportunities-and-challenges-1st-edition-reza-
javaherdashti/

The Creative PhD Challenges Opportunities Reflection

1st Edition Tara Brabazon

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-creative-phd-challenges-
opportunities-reflection-1st-edition-tara-brabazon/

Taiwan's Economic and Diplomatic Challenges and

Opportunities 1st Edition Mariah Thornton

https://ebookmeta.com/product/taiwans-economic-and-diplomatic-
challenges-and-opportunities-1st-edition-mariah-thornton/

The Handbook of Food Research Anne Murcott (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-handbook-of-food-research-anne-
murcott-editor/

Enhancing the Role of ICT in Doctoral Research

Processes 1st Edition Kwong Nui Sim (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/enhancing-the-role-of-ict-in-
doctoral-research-processes-1st-edition-kwong-nui-sim-editor/
THE FUTURE OF DOCTORAL
RESEARCH

This book explores the future of doctoral research and what it means to be involved
in all stages of the process, providing international insights into what’s changing,
why it’s changing and how to work best with these changes. It looks at the key
issues that have been thrown into sharp relief by crises such as world pandemics.
Drawing on work from outstanding authors, this book shows the ways in which
the doctoral process has altered the supervisor/​supervisee model and the challenges
that now need to be managed, and demonstrates the importance of aligning all
the stakeholders, systems and processes to ensure a successful future for doctoral
education. Bringing together a range of perspectives, innovative practices and
rigorous research, this book tackles topics such as:

• how doctoral research changes in keeping with the global expansion and trans-
formation of doctoral education programmes
• the significant influence funding bodies –​be they charities, governments,
businesses or non-​governmental agencies –​can have on doctoral research
• the extent to which doctoral research penetrates daily life and vice versa
• how to encourage and embed an ethical approach to research, as well as uni-
versity responses to external challenges.

Uniquely international and bringing together the many stakeholders in the research
business, this book is essential reading for doctoral supervisors, candidates and
anyone involved in designing or organising research programmes for early career
researchers and doctoral students.

Anne Lee is a Research Fellow at the University of Bristol, UK and was formerly
Associate Professor at the University of Stavanger in Norway. Her books are widely
used by supervisors. Her Successful Research Supervision (2nd ed.) and the companion
volume, Successful Research Projects, were both published in 2020 by Routledge.

Rob Bongaardt is a Professor of Mental Health at the University of South-​Eastern

Norway, where he leads this university’s doctoral supervision training programme.
He has also offered supervisor training programmes at universities in Europe, Asia
and Africa.
THE FUTURE OF
DOCTORAL RESEARCH
Challenges and Opportunities

Edited by Anne Lee and Rob Bongaardt

First published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 selection and editorial matter, Anne Lee and Rob Bongaardt; individual chapters,
the contributors
The right of Anne Lee and Rob Bongaardt to be identified as the authors of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance
with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data
Names: Lee, Anne, Dr., editor. | Bongaardt, Rob, editor.
Title: The future of doctoral research : challenges and opportunities /
edited by Anne Lee and Rob Bongaardt.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020037426 (print) | LCCN 2020037427 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367858476 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367858490 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781003015383 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Universities and colleges–Graduate work. |
Doctoral students. | Doctor of philosophy degree.
Classification: LCC LB2371 .F87 2021 (print) |
LCC LB2371 (ebook) | DDC 378.2–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020037426
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020037427
ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​85847-​6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​85849-​0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​01538-​3 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Newgen Publishing UK
CONTENTS

List of figures  ix
List of tables  xi
List of contributors  xiii
Foreword by Ronald Barnett  xxiii
Acknowledgements  xxvii

Introduction: the global knowledge economy  1

Rob Bongaardt and Anne Lee

PART I
Doctoral research in the changing university  3

1 The changing face of doctoral education  5

Kate Whittington and Sally Barnes

2 Agency in doctoral education: towards Graduate School

cohesion and a heightened societal awareness  18
Søren Bengtsen

3 Doctoral reform for the 21st century  28

Susan Porter

4 Is it time for a central campus office to ensure quality in

doctoral education in the 21st century?  40
Maresi Nerad and Ziyan Bai
vi Contents

5 Mind the gap: a description of US doctoral education,

challenges, and the skills gap  53
Maxine P. Atkinson and Richard W. Slatta

6 Working towards future epistemic justice: incorporating

transcultural and Indigenous knowledge systems in doctoral
education  65
Catherine Manathunga, Jing Qi,Tracey Bunda and Michael Singh

PART II
Collaborations and funding  77

7 Trust within capacity building for the development of

supervision training: a case study of Sweden and Mozambique  79
Cecilia Almlöv, Rehana Capurchande, Francisco Januário,
and Lars Geschwind

8 Identifying key factors in successful bidding for doctoral training  92

Paul Spencer and Jane Khawaja

9 The interplay between policy and funding  101

Anne-​Marie Coriat

10 Doctoral education in Norway and inter-​institutional

collaboration within doctoral education: a case study  110
Rune Johan Krumsvik, Bård Mæland, and Stein Helge Solstad

11 Paving the way for healthy and empowering working

environments: a joint action of institutes, early career
researchers (ECRs) and funders  120
Mathias Schroijen and Giulia Malaguarnera

PART III
Doctoral researchers’ perspectives  131

12 Professionalising doctoral education  133

Lucas Zinner and Melita Kovačević

13 Supporting supervisors in promoting doctoral researchers’

mental health and wellbeing  145
Rob Bongaardt and Vibeke Krane
 Contents vii

14 PhD candidates as informal caregivers in the Netherlands  155

Josephine Bergmans and Inge van der Weijden

15 What makes English flow and why? Understanding the

cultural difficulties facing novice postgraduate
second-​language writers in English  171
Karen Ottewell

16 Doctoral students as early career university teachers: what

hinders and what helps them to embrace the essentials of
good teaching?  182
Gabriela Pleschová and Agnes Simon

17 Networks as learning environments for doctoral education  195

Inger Mewburn, Cally Guerin and Claire Aitchison

PART IV
Doctoral supervisors’ perspectives  207

18 What influences how we supervise?  209

Kate Whittington, Sally Barnes and Anne Lee

19 Towards a framework for the recognition of good

supervisory practice  224
Stan Taylor and Karen Clegg

20 Integration of doctoral supervisor courses in the research

culture: a socio-​cultural approach  239
Anders Ahlberg

21 Action learning as means for supervisor development  249

Line Wittek and Thomas de Lange

22 Doctoral examiners’ judgements: do examiners agree on

doctoral attributes and how important are professional
and personal characteristics?  263
Gillian Houston

23 Enhancing the doctorate at ETH Zurich: towards a new

organisational culture –​a qualitative data analysis of the
ETH “Doctoral Supervision Symposium” 2019  277
Marion Lehner, Benno Volk, Alfredo Picariello and Antonio Togni
viii Contents

PART V
Ethics and accountability  293

24 How research on ethics in doctoral supervision can inform

doctoral education policy  295
Erika Löfström and Kirsi Pyhältö

25 Specialist courses in research ethics: more important now

than they used to be?  307
Rune Nydal

26 Research integrity training for early career researchers  318

Margaux Kersschot, Iryna Degtyarova and Peter Novitzky

27 Supporting students to complete their doctorate  333

Rachel Spronken-​Smith

Conclusion: the future of doctoral research in the light

of experience  345
Anne Lee and Rob Bongaardt

Index  354
FIGURES

1.1 Illustration of the relative contribution different continents and

their constituent countries make to the global award of doctorates  8
4.1 Basic structure of U.S. PhD programs  42
7.1 The organisation of the subcomponent of doctoral supervision
training  83
9.1 Researchers’ views on research careers  102
9.2 Constituent parts of the 2017 Wellcome review of PhD training
and key findings  104
9.3 Areas in which support for PhD students could be improved  105
9.4 Percentage of respondents: PhD-​qualified individuals; broken
down by year of completion of PhD asked, ‘As a PhD student,
how satisfied were you with your work–​life balance?’  106
9.5 Levels at which you can intervene in a system to effect change  107
10.1 The analytical focus in the case study  116
11.1 Transferable skills acquisition, a continuous process of both formal
and informal learning that constitutes the individual portfolio  124
15.1 Graphic representation of the movement of argument within a
paragraph  173
15.2 Differences between writer-​and reader-​responsible languages  177
18.1 A model of supervisory practice  212
20.1 The extensive supervisor course (Docent course) at Lund University
Faculty of Engineering aims to prepare co-​supervisors for Associate
Professorship, i.e. the eligibility to act as main supervisor  243
20.2 Research education-​related activities and overall strategy at the
Faculty of Engineering  244
21.1 The phases of the action learning groups  251
x List of figures

23.1 Most commonly used words by workshop participants portrayed in

word cloud  283
23.2 Most commonly allocated codes in first analysis phase, in numerical
terms  283
23.3 Three clusters with 12 main categories from second analysis phase  284
23.4 Frequency of codes for eight remaining categories  285
23.5 Three clusters with eight main categories from third analysis phase  287
24.1 A systems approach model to ethics in supervision  303
27.1 The 2018 winner of ‘Bake Your Thesis’: ‘I incyst you try some’  337
TABLES

1.1 Illustration of year when research doctorate programmes were

introduced, or first awarded, across a range of countries  6
1.2 Numbers of doctorates awarded annually per country in all fields
of education  7
1.3 Comparison of key elements of the doctoral PhD examination
process in the top five awarding countries  12
7.1 Empirical material: type of source from the three universities
(SLU, UU, UEM)  84
8.1 A summary of the Salzburg Principles (2005)  93
8.2 EPSRC Centres for Doctoral Training at the University of Bristol  94
10.1 Preliminary analysis of the challenges within the WNGER II
consortium  114
14.1 Descriptives of main survey variables  158
14.2 Interview characteristics per interviewee  159
14.3 Effects of personal and PhD process characteristics and informal
caregiving on mental health of PhD candidates (logistic regression)  164
14.4 Effects of personal and PhD process characteristics and informal
caregiving on doctoral progress and retention (logistic regression)  166
16.1 Contextual factors that constrain the integration of knowledge
from educational development courses into participants’ teaching
practice  184
16.2 Factors that hurt or helped the outcome of becoming more
learning-​centred as seen by course participants  189
21.1 Four learning potentials in action learning groups  253
21.2 Four learning potentials emerging from the empirical data  259
xii List of tables

22.1 Attributes sought and where they are identified  273

23.1 Workshop themes and numbers of groups  280
23.2 Three main factors with criteria (subfactors)  284
C.1 Ethical questions prompted by the framework adapted from
Lee (2020)  352
CONTRIBUTORS

Anders Ahlberg has a background as an Associate Professor in Earth Sciences, Lund

University, Sweden. He is currently a Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Engineering
Education at Lund University. There he also acts as the Doctoral Education Study
Director for the Faculty of Engineering, primarily with training, educational strat-
egies and quality assessment.

Claire Aitchison has worked, published and researched in the field of doctoral
education, specialising in doctoral writing for over two decades. As co-​founder and
contributor to the DoctoralWriting blog, she regularly reflects on sector concerns
and delights in the collegiality of social learning networks. She currently works as
an Academic Developer at the University of South Australia, and also continues to
offer training for doctoral students and supervisors.

Cecilia Almlöv is a PhD student in education at Higher Education Organization

Studies (HEOS), Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, Sweden. She
is the Director of the Educational Development Unit at the Swedish University
of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala. Her field of study is doctoral supervision in
Sweden and Mozambique.

Maxine P. Atkinson is Professor of Sociology at North Carolina State University,

a research-​extensive university in Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Her area of spe-
cialty is the scholarship of teaching and learning. Her published work includes In
the Trenches: Teaching and Learning Sociology, Sociology in Action and Social Problems:
Sociology in Action.

Ziyan Bai is a PhD candidate in the College of Education at the University of

Washington. As a mixed-​method social science researcher focusing on higher
xiv List of contributors

education and with over seven years of professional experience at the University
of Washington Graduate School, she is responsible for the development and
coordination of professional development programmes for graduate students and
postdocs.

Sally Barnes is Professor of Doctoral Education and Deputy Director of the

Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching (BILT). She was also the Director of the
ESRC-​funded Southwest Doctoral Training Partnership (SWDTP), a collaborative
Doctoral Training Centre with the universities of Exeter, Bath, Plymouth and the
West of England. She was Graduate Dean/​Co-​Education Director for the Faculty
of Social Sciences and Law from 2009 to 2018.

Ronald Barnett is Emeritus Professor of Higher Education, University College

London Institute of Education, where he was a Pro-​Director and Dean. He has
been developing a social philosophy of higher education and has produced well
over 30 books and some hundreds of articles. He is the inaugural President of the
Philosophy and Theory of Higher Education Society and has been described as ‘the
master scholar of the university’.

Søren Bengtsen is Associate Professor and Deputy Director of the research centre
‘Centre for Higher Education Futures’ (CHEF) at Aarhus University in Denmark.
His main research areas include doctoral education and supervision, and the
philosophy of higher education. He is the co-​founder and current Chair of the
Philosophy and Theory of Higher Education Society (PaTHES).

Josephine Bergmans (MSc, F) is a Junior Researcher and Project Coordinator at

the Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University. In 2016, she
graduated from the double degree Master’s in Sociology and Social Research at
Tilburg University and Università degli Studi di Trento, and started working at the
TU Delft, followed by Leiden University. Her research interests are in the field of
academic careers and open science.

Tracey Bunda is a Ngugi Wakka Wakka woman who researches Indigenous women,
decolonisation of patriarchal white institutional power and Indigenous know-
ledge systems. As Professor of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies in the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit at the University of Queensland,
she focuses on developing pathways for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher
education engagement.

Rehana Capurchande is a Lecturer in Sociology and a Researcher in Society and

Policies Research at Eduardo Mondlane University (UEM), Maputo, Mozambique.
She is the head of the Central Training Department at the Centre of Gender
Coordination. Her main fields of study are gender and human rights, and sexual
and reproductive health.
 List of contributors xv

Karen Clegg is Head of Research Excellence Training at the University of York.

Her roles include supporting the University’s Research Strategy and coordinating
and delivering training for doctoral students and early career researchers. She is the
co-​editor of Innovative Assessment in Higher Education (2nd ed.) (Routledge, 2019).

Anne-​Marie Coriat’s background is as a research scientist (developmental biology).

She is currently Head of UK and Europe Research Landscape for the Wellcome
Foundation and a member of the UK Council for Graduate Education. She has
over 20 years’ experience in planning, policy, delivery and funding of research and
is passionate about developing a more positive culture for careers in research, with
a key focus on postgraduate training. She received a degree from Cardiff University,
was a research technician at Baylor College of Medicine,Texas and worked as a hos-
pital biochemist before completing a PhD in biology at Manchester. Before joining
Wellcome, she was Director for Capacity, Skills and Infrastructure at the Medical
Research Council and Chair of Research Councils UK (RCUK).

Iryna Degtyarova has a PhD in Political Sciences and Administration (Warsaw

School of Economics SGH) and in Linguistics (National Academy of Sciences of
Ukraine). She specialises in higher education governance, public policy, research
integrity and career development. She is involved in the high-​level representative
and advisory bodies in higher education in Ukraine, Poland and across Europe. She
is coordinator of the Eurodoc Working Group Research Integrity and a member
of their advisory board. Currently she is a Senior Researcher at the Polish Rectors
Foundation.

Lars Geschwind is Professor in Engineering Education Policy and Management

and coordinator of the research group Higher Education Organization Studies
(HEOS), Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Sweden. His main research interests
are higher education policy, institutional governance, academic leadership and man-
agement and academic work.

Cally Guerin has worked in doctoral education since 2008, teaching, researching
and publishing on best practice in researcher development. Currently she works
at the Australian National University in the Researcher Development team.
Along with Claire Aitchison and Susan Carter, she is a founding co-​editor of the
DoctoralWriting blog.

Allyson Holbrook is the Founding Director of the centre for the Study of Research
Training and Impact (SORTI) at the University of Newcastle, NSW. She has led
a large number of national competitive grants and played a number of roles in
connection with research including membership of the Australian Research Council
College of Experts, Chair of the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics
Committee and Research Coordinator for the Australian Association of Research
in Education (AARE).
xvi List of contributors

Gillian Houston has wide-​

ranging experience of UK and international higher
education. Latterly she has focused on assessment of students and doctoral educa-
tion. Gill chaired the UK Council for Graduate Education’s board of trustees until
July 2020. In 2018 she completed a part-​time PhD entitled ‘A study of the PhD
examination: process, attributes and outcomes’, at: https://​ora.ox.ac.uk/​objects/​
uuid:07291f0e-​e80b-​4b06-​a6af-​b3ac8b90a00e.

Francisco Januário is Professor of Education at Universidade Eduardo Mondlane

(UEM), Maputo, Mozambique. He is the coordinator of the supervision and gen-
eric skills component at UEM and the Sweden Collaboration Program. His research
areas include evaluation, research methods, gender in education and public policy.

Jane Khawaja is Head of Research Development UK at the University of Bristol.

Jane has a degree in Physics and PhD in Plasma Physics. She specialises in strategy
development relating to research funding and partnerships, thus facilitating a growth
in research volume for the University. Before joining Bristol in 2013, Jane worked
at the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), and prior to
that at Applied Materials, a global leader in the semiconductor industry. Jane led the
process for the 2018–​19 EPSRC Centres for Doctoral Training exercise, resulting in
Bristol coming top in the country with 10 Centres for Doctoral Training awarded.

Margaux Kersschot is Policy Advisor YUFE (Young Universities for the Future of
Europe) at the University of Antwerp’s Department of Research and Innovation.
During her PhD (Leuven, Antwerp) Margaux became President of the European
Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers (Eurodoc). She was on the
advisory board of the H2020 PRINTEGER project on Research Integrity.

Melita Kovačević is a Full Professor at the University of Zagreb. She has been
involved in higher education policy for two decades and held different positions
on a national and European level related to higher education. She contributed
globally on a number of topics in higher education. She is a former Chair of the
European University Association Council for Doctoral Education (EUA-​CDE),
and Vice Chair of the PRIDE association.

Vibeke Krane is a clinical social worker and has a PhD in Psychology. She is an
Associate Professor and Manager of the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Team,
University of South-​Eastern Norway. Her research fields are students’ mental health,
teacher–​student relationships, children’s living conditions and service development.
Krane has worked for 20 years as a therapist in mental health services.

Rune Johan Krumsvik is Professor, Dr.Philos of Education, Head of Western

Norway Graduate School of Research (WNGER II) and head of the research group
Digital Learning Communities at the University of Bergen, Norway. He is currently
editor-​in-​chief of the Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. He has published widely in
 List of contributors xvii

Norwegian and English and has extensive experience as a doctoral supervisor. He

is the project leader of two projects on PhD level: doctoral education (https://​
app.cristin.no/​projects/​show.jsf?id=516570) and remote teaching on doctoral level
during societal crisis (https://​app.cristin.no/​projects/​show.jsf?id=2058054).

Thomas de Lange is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education at the

University of Oslo, Norway. His research interests relate to teaching, supervision
and student learning in higher education with a particular focus on developing
supportive educational teaching practices at the university level. He has also been
involved in research on the use of technology in teaching and digital assessment
and is on a daily basis involved in practical teacher training and professional devel-
opment at the University of Oslo.

Marion Lehner is a member of the ETH Educational Development and Technology

(LET), Zurich and has worked in the Faculty and Curriculum Development Team
since February 2016. She is responsible for the teaching competence development
of student and doctoral teaching assistants. She is especially interested in attitude and
values development in higher education teaching, good practices in doctoral super-
vision and programme evaluation, as well as the transfer of didactic training. Marion
studied Business Education and Educational Management with a focus on organ-
isational psychology at the Ludwig-​Maximilian-​University in Munich, Germany
and at the University of Sydney in Australia. She specialised in higher education
teaching competence development during her doctorate at the University of St
Gallen in Switzerland.

Erika Löfström, PhD is Professor of Education at the University of Helsinki,

where she serves as the Chair of the non-​medical ethics review board and steering
committee member of the Doctoral Programme in School, Education, Society
and Culture. Her research areas include research ethics and integrity and related
teaching, learning and supervision processes. She previously served as Vice-​Rector
at Tallinn University, and is currently affiliated with Tallinn University as Visiting
Professor. See full list of publications: https://​researchportal.helsinki.fi/​en/​persons/​
erika-​l%C3%B6fstr%C3%B6m/​publications.

Bård Mæland is Professor of Theology and currently serving as the Rector of VID
Specialized University. He is the Chair of the Board of Western Norway Graduate
School of Research (WNGER II) and has also been the chair of the Board of
the Research School Religion-​Values-​Society (RVS). He has published widely in
Norwegian and English and has extensive experience as a doctoral supervisor.

Giulia Malaguarnera has a PhD in Neuropharmacology and is a Marie Skłodowska-​

Curie Actions (MSCA) Individual Fellow, working in a microfluidic start-​up in
France. Giulia is a General Board Member of Eurodoc with a specific focus on
open innovation, intersectoral mobility and mental health. Based on her interests,
xviii List of contributors

she is also supporting the communication activities of Eurodoc, representing the

association in discussion with research collaborations in Europe and interviewing
early researcher-​innovators as role models in intersectoral mobility.

Catherine Manathunga is an historian in the School of Education at the

University of Sunshine Coast (USC), who brings an interdisciplinary historical,
sociological and cultural studies perspective to higher education research. She is the
Co-​Director of the Indigenous and Transcultural Research Centre at USC. She is
undertaking research projects on doctoral education and the history of universities
in Australia, Aotearoa/​New Zealand and Ireland.

Associate Professor Inger Mewburn is the Director of Researcher Development

at the Australian National University and the creator of the Thesis Whisperer blog.
She writes books on writing, does research on post-​PhD employability and is
the co-​creator of the PostAc app. You can find out more about Inger’s research
here: https://​thesiswhisperer.com/​about.

Maresi Nerad is Director, Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate

Education (CIRGE); Professor, Higher Education, University of Washington (UW),
Seattle; native of Germany; PhD, University of California, Berkeley; directed research
on doctoral education at the Graduate Division of Berkeley, as Dean-​in-​Residence
at the Council of Graduate Schools, D.C., US and as Associate Dean of the UW
central Graduate School; and has published three books on (post)graduate education.

Peter Novitzky holds a PhD in Applied Philosophy at Dublin City University

(Ireland), where he specialised in the ethics of artificial intelligence for vulnerable
populations. His research interests focus on the intersection of bioethics, ethics
of technology and research integrity. Peter is a magna cum laude graduate of the
Erasmus Mundus Master of Bioethics obtained at the consortium of Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven (Belgium) –​Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen (Netherlands) –​
Università degli Studi di Padova (Italy). He also studied and performed research at
Pázmány Péter Catholic University (Hungary) and Charles University in Prague
(Czechia).

Rune Nydal is Associate Professor on the Programme for Applied Ethics,

Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology. Nydal teaches research ethics and the ethics of technology. His
publications include papers on research misconduct and conflicts of interest, and an
edited book analysing a national fraud scandal in Norway. He has been a co-​editor
for Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics for eight years. Nydal is a member of the National
Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT).

Karen Ottewell is the Director of Academic Development and Training for

International Students at the University of Cambridge. Her research interests
 List of contributors xix

include rhetorical transfer in academic writing, assessment design and what’s going
on behind the writing at postgraduate level.

Alfredo Picariello is the head of the doctoral administration office of ETH Zurich
and one of the members of the organisation committee of the Symposium on
Doctoral Studies held there in January 2019. He is responsible for all adminis-
trative matters around the doctorate –​from admission to graduation. The legal
foundations and organisational structure of a doctorate are his main interest and
field of expertise. He started his work at the doctoral administration office in 2007
and can be referred to as one of today’s many ‘Third Space’ employees who have
recently positioned themselves at universities between the scientific field and the
classical administration.

Gabriela Pleschová is the Director of a joint teacher development course for begin-
ning teachers at the University of Economics in Bratislava and Masaryk University.
She is a graduate of Oxford University (2012, MSc in Education) and Comenius
University in Bratislava (2004, PhD in Political Science). Her studies have appeared
in journals such as Studies in Educational Evaluations, European Political Science, Journal
of Political Science Education and International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in
Education. She is the co-​editor of Teacher Development in Higher Education: Existing
Programs, Program Impact and Future Trends (Routledge, 2012). She serves as the co-​
convenor of the Teaching and Learning Politics standing group of the European
Consortium for Political Research. In 2013, she was awarded a Senior Fellowship
from the Higher Educational Academy.

Susan Porter is the Dean and Vice-​Provost of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
at the University of British Columbia (UBC) (since 2013), and President of the
Canadian Association for Graduate Studies (2017–​19). She is also a Clinical Professor
in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at UBC. A strong focus over the past six
years has been the advancing of conversations and action towards a rethinking of
the core of doctoral education –​students’ research and dissertations –​to better meet
the urgent needs of the 21st century. Among other initiatives, she co-​led a national
task force on the subject, and implemented an award-​winning program at UBC
(the Public Scholars Initiative) that demonstrated the immense value and legitimacy
of this perspective.

Kirsi Pyhältö, PhD is Professor of Higher Education in the Faculty of Educational

Sciences, Center for University Teaching and Learning, at the University of Helsinki,
and Professor of Educational Sciences in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at
the University of Oulu. She is also Extraordinary Professor at the Department of
Curriculum Studies, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. Her research interests
include researcher community and supervisory support, doctoral experience and
researcher careers. Pyhältö is leading two active research groups: ‘From PhD
Student to Academic Expert’ (https://​researchondoctoraleducation.wordpress.com)
xx List of contributors

and ‘Learning and Development in School’ (www.learninginschool.fi). See

full list of publications: https://​tuhat.halvi.helsinki.fi/​portal/​fi/​persons/​kirsi-​
pyhaltoe(677db559-​b36b-​44a4-​90c6-​d3e4bd87e94b)/​publications.html.

Jing Qi is an educational researcher in the School of Global, Urban and Social

Studies, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) who draws together
research experience in multilingual, sociological, cultural and technological studies
to bring an innovative perspective to educational research. Her research focuses
on the politics of knowledge in international education (particularly knowledge
contributions from the Global South), language education and blended/​online
learning.

Mathias Schroijen is a member of the Postgraduate Office at the Université

Libre de Bruxelles (ULB). As a project leader, he is responsible for the develop-
ment of transferable skills training programmes and career development services for
researchers. Mathias has a research background in health psychology (respiratory
psychophysiology, KU Leuven) and as secretary of Eurodoc, he focused on the
representation of young researchers at the European level.

Agnes Simon is an Educational Development Advisor at Masaryk University,

working on the Erasmus+ project, ‘Extending and Reinforcing Good Practice in
Teacher Development’. She earned her PhD in Political Science at the University
of Missouri in 2012 and has dual interests in political science and teaching and
learning. She specialises in American foreign policy, summit diplomacy, Central
European politics and the relationship between science fiction and politics. Her
current research focuses on US presidential summit meetings, the US–​Soviet
Hotline and teaching about foreign policy decision-​making. She taught in various
private and public liberal arts and research schools in the United States, was invited
to lead academic writing workshops and has been a facilitator in the European
Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Teaching and Learning Summer
School.

Professor Michael Singh’s research in sociocultural education focuses on educa-

tional leadership for national and international education. His research brings to
the fore the relationship between knowledge and the languages through which
it is produced and disseminated, and through which relationships are built. He
has advanced knowledge of postmonolingual research methods and pedagogies for
decolonising education and research by addressing the tensions between structural
multilingualism and monolingual mindsets.

Richard W. Slatta is Professor Emeritus of History at North Carolina State

University. He is the author of 10 books and dozens of scholarship of teaching and
learning articles.
 List of contributors xxi

Stein Helge Solstad is an Associate Professor at Volda University College in

Norway. His main research interest is expertise and cognition, mainly related to
jazz improvisation, and his book Strategies in Jazz Guitar Improvisation: A Cognitive
Approach (Routledge, 2020) deals mainly with this subject. Research stays include
work as a visiting scholar at Columbia University (NYC) in 2010–​11 and as an
independent researcher in Brisbane (Australia) in 2018.

Paul Spencer is Postgraduate Research Environment Development Manager,

Bristol Doctoral College, University of Bristol, UK. Paul has a PhD in Oral
Microbiology and has extensive experience in researcher development, having
worked in this field since 2004. Joining the University of Bristol in 2017, Paul now
oversees the continued improvement and strategic direction of the Bristol Doctoral
College’s support for its postgraduate researcher community.

Rachel Spronken-​Smith is a Professor of Higher Education and Geography and

Dean of the Graduate Research School at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New
Zealand. She continues to teach and supervise, and has research interests in doc-
toral education –​particularly doctoral outcomes and supporting the professional
development of doctoral candidates, as well as undergraduate research and inquiry.

Stan Taylor is Honorary Professor in the School of Education of Durham

University, UK. Recent publications include (with Margaret Kiley and Robin
Humphrey) A Handbook for Doctoral Supervisors (Routledge, 2018). He is the archi-
tect of the Research Supervisor Recognition Programme of the UK Council for
Graduate Education, an honorary life member of the Council and Chair of its
Research Supervisors’ Network.

Antonio Togni, born in 1956 in Switzerland, studied chemistry at ETH Zurich

and obtained a PhD in 1983. After a postdoctoral stay (1983–​4) at the California
Institute of Technology, he returned to ETH as a research associate. In 1985 he
joined the Central Research Laboratories of Ciba-​Geigy Ltd, where he worked
as a research scientist and group leader in the field of asymmetric catalysis. He
returned to ETH in 1992 as an Assistant Professor and became Full Professor of
Organometallic Chemistry in 1999. His research interests are in the field of asym-
metric catalysis, organometallic chemistry and organofluorine chemistry. Togni has
served as a member of the National Research Council with the Swiss National
Science Foundation and since 2016 as Vice-​Rector for Doctoral Studies at ETH.

Benno Volk is head of the team for Curriculum and Faculty Development in the
Educational Development and Technology department (LET) at ETH Zurich.
He is former president of the SFDN –​Swiss Faculty Development Network
(www.sfdn.ch), the association of university didactic institutions at universities
in Switzerland. Benno studied pedagogy (major field of study: adult education/​
xxii List of contributors

andragogy), psychology, sociology and communication science at the University

of Bamberg (Germany). He received his PhD degree (Dr. Phil.) in 2011 at the
University of Dresden for his work on ‘Competence-​oriented development for
academic teaching staff as a basis for innovation at universities’.

Inge van der Weijden (PhD, F) is a Senior Researcher, Lecturer and PhD
Coordinator at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden
University. She coordinates the hub on academic careers at CWTS. Inge conducts
both qualitative and quantitative research on work experiences and evaluation of
scholars in order to better understand the career development of scientists. Inge is
President of The Netherlands Centre of Expertise for Doctoral Education.

Kate Whittington is a Professor of Health Sciences Education at the University of

Bristol. She spent a number of years as Education Director of Graduate Studies in
the Faculty of Health Sciences and is currently a University Education Director for
Academic Quality and Standards.

Line Wittek is a Professor in the department of Educational Research at the

University of Oslo. Her research is on teaching and learning in higher education;
in particular she focuses on PhD education, supervision, peer feedback and writing
for learning. She is currently leading the project ‘Faculty peer tutoring in teaching
and supervision –​innovating teacher collaboration practices in Norwegian higher
education’ (PeTS).

Lucas Zinner is Head of the Research Service and Career Development at

the University of Vienna. As a trained mathematician, he has specialised in and
committed himself to various topics in higher education and is involved in different
international activities on several continents. In 2017, he co-​founded the PRIDE
association to promote the role of professionals in doctoral education.
FOREWORD
Ronald Barnett

I recall very well the ceremony at my university when my PhD was formally con-
ferred. It was back in the 1980s and then the University of London was fully a fed-
eral university and held unitary degree ceremonies for all of its constituent colleges
(which included institutions that were world famous). The ceremony was held in
the Royal Albert Hall, a great Victorian cavern of a place. Those wearing the red
doctorate gown struck me then as being incredibly numerous: we formed a huge
phalanx in our seats and then, as we filed towards the stage, had a long time to wait
before each of processed across the dais. What was apparent even then was that the
PhD had been –​to use a term –​massified. The term ‘mass higher education’ –​
coined by Burton Clark –​has normally been interpreted to apply to undergraduate
education, but much less noticed is that it has characterised doctorate education
for quite some time. And in the process, doctorate education has come to take
different forms, and has come to be a repository of multiple and even conflicting
interpretations.
Inevitably, in this process, the doctorate has undergone considerable changes,
not least as its availability has widened across the world and across different kinds of
institution. These changes are not just peripheral –​for example, over the presenta-
tion of the dissertation –​but reach into the very idea of the doctorate. Just what is
to count as a doctorate dissertation? Are there any general criteria that a disserta-
tion should possess or may it legitimately vary considerably, discipline by discipline,
institution by institution and country by country? Or is there no unifying essence
to doctoral work, with all the varieties barely forming family resemblances?
Here, for example, is just one issue. I have probably examined around 80 doc-
toral dissertations across the last three decades, and in several countries. From time
to time, during the oral examination –​which is part of the examining process for
the doctorate in most but by no means all countries –​and especially if matters are
going reasonably well, with a smile on my face, I remark to the candidate that, in
xxiv Foreword

the English language, the word ‘thesis’ is ambiguous. It can refer to the elemental
kernel of the candidate’s work, whether that be in the form of a central finding, or
an argumentative claim, or a new theory of a phenomenon or whatever the work
may be. Or it can refer simply to the massive and heavy 300-​page text on the desk
in front of the candidate. This second sense has come largely to displace the first
sense so that the thesis may have no thesis!
Students may be very diligently conducting their study, working methodically
through its components –​the literature review, the methodology, the fieldwork, the
data collection and the data analysis –​but emerge somewhat lacking in a thesis; that
is, in a definite claim of the kind we see in good abstracts. Examinations in which
I am involved where the dissertation has that character usually end simply with the
candidate being asked to write a further chapter so as better to clarify, state and
articulate the thesis for which they are contending, not least by reflecting on the
lines of the conversation in the oral examination; which they happily do and then
they receive their doctorate degree not long afterwards.
There are two points to this story. Firstly, what counts as a satisfactory doctoral
dissertation is far from fixed and is always on the move. Secondly, the idea that a
doctoral dissertation is a space in which a student grabs hold of an issue and, on the
basis of much research or scholarship, argues a unified set of claims is in jeopardy.
And this is readily explicable. Globally, the expansion of the university is under-
standable –​in large part –​in it becoming a machine for the growth of ‘cognitive
capitalism’, in Boutang’s (2011) memorable phrasing. And the doctorate has inevit-
ably been caught up in this latest stage of societal development.
What are called for now from doctorate students are precisely a set of skills that
testify to a capacity to conduct research projects wheresoever they might be called
for in the economy and society.What is not on the cards is the capacity to forge rad-
ically new insights into the world and to formulate them in strong claims or theses
about the world. After all, therein lies original thought, and although ‘thinking
provokes general indifference, [it] is dangerous exercise nevertheless’ (Deleuze and
Guattari, 2013: 41).
The doctorate is the highest academic qualification that is commonly available,
and so the central question is precisely that implied in the title of this volume: what
is the future of doctoral research to be in the light of experience? The question begs
a further question: which experience –​that of the doctorate and/​or that of the
wider world? As this is being written, the world has been besieged by a virus: the
streets of many cities are empty, as citizens are confined to their homes, in peril of
their lives. This is a very telling experience, and one that should hold lessons in the
recasting of the doctorate.
The Coronavirus vividly shows up the interconnectedness of the world. This
is an interconnectedness that is horizontal and vertical, that is geographical and
epistemic, and in which the world and its knowledges influence each other.
(Knowledge is not simply a mirror on the world.) Just some of the systems of
the world that are implicated in this immediate crisis are statistics, the biological
and the natural sciences, zoology, social health, politics, health systems, transport
 Foreword xxv

systems, social psychology, organisations, professional life, mental states, univer-

sities, academic knowledge as such, corporations, global and national finance,
social media, computer systems, death systems, religions and cultures, and politics,
That is, the objects of the world that are implicated by the virus are both elem-
ents in the world and are knowledges of the world; and these interact, in both
directions.
It follows that a doctorate in any of these areas is, at best, an investigation into a
fragment of a sea of interconnections. It follows, too, therefore, that unless it hints at
least at some nearby interconnectivities, its findings will be rudimentary.
We have, therefore, a paradox. Just at the very moment that the world is
crying out for synoptic studies, for academic work that can offer large insights,
for dissertations that say something and state a significant thesis with confidence,
the doctorate is tending to dwindle. It is turning from theoria and episteme, from
understanding and knowing, to becoming discrete forms of techne, of doings of
particular kinds. Dissertations may connect with the world but they do so in a
feeble way, failing to offer illumination of a substantial kind.This is why the present
volume is so important and so timely. If doctoral research is to be reformed in the
light of experience (say, of a world crisis such as the Coronavirus or of planetary
destruction), then a fundamental reshaping is called for.
For many years, there have been calls for doctoral work to be more interdiscip-
linary, and in vain. Reforms have got hardly anywhere. What is required is nothing
less than a complete overhaul. And again, this is where this volume so handsomely
scores, in drawing attention to the institutional and systems aspects that have to
come into consideration. We need a radical rethink about both doctoral education
and its provision. Here are 10 suggestions:

(i) The idea of a dissertation requiring students to provide a definite thesis –​an
argued central claim or set of claims –​should be reinstated. And that central
claim –​finding, concept, theory, policy or whatever –​should be clearly stated
in the abstract.
(ii) The dissertation should show evidence of an awareness of pertinent connections
with contiguous matters in adjacent territories.
(iii) It should contain something of a synoptic view, and a reconnecting of the doc-
torate as an exemplification of wisdom.
(iv) Within reason, it should intimate how the world might benefit –​in whatever
way –​from the study in question.
(v) Universities offering doctoral studies should set up a doctoral school in which
students are collectively provoked by difficult questions that in turn promote a
synoptic perspective.
(vi) Supervisors should be given support in enabling students to develop a
life-​enhancing study.
(vii) Senior leadership should be brought to bear, so that a university’s doctoral
studies work is publicly positioned so as to become a form of the university’s
public engagement.
xxvi Foreword

(viii) Examiners should be briefed, in Notes of Guidance, that they will be expected
to assess candidates’ dissertations for the qualities of clarity and incisiveness
of the thesis (within the ‘thesis’), connectedness and life-​enhancement. The
viva should expose and test the candidate’s thesis as such (that is, in the proper
sense of ‘thesis’).
(ix) National audit processes should pay specific attention to doctoral work (so
far almost entirely overlooked), and should especially review the examination
arrangements which should include the character of the oral examination.
(In some systems, it is symbolic or non-​existent.)
(x) There should be a reflective statement at the end of each dissertation which
is not autobiographical as such but which interrogates the character and the
rigour of the text itself.This would enhance the candidate’s powers of critical
self-​reflection.

A 10-​fold set of reforms of this kind could help substantially to reposition doctoral
research ‘in the light of experience’, and this volume surely offers many clues as to
the details of proceeding in this way.

References
Boutang,Y. M. (2011) Cognitive Capitalism. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2013) What Is Philosophy? London and New York: Verso.
newgenprepdf

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Gabriela Pleschová and Agnes Simon (Chapter 16) thank Jaromír Novák and
Ladislav Pasiar, who coded course graduates’ assignments against course outcomes,
and Zuzana Mészárošová, who was the second coder of the observation protocols.
This study resulted from the international cooperation project Extending and
Developing Good Practice in Teacher Education that has been funded through
an external grant under the KA2 –​Cooperation for Innovation and the Exchange
of Good Practices of Strategic Partnerships for higher education scheme of the
Erasmus+ grant (Grant No. 2016-​1-​SK01-​KA203-​022551). This project is co-​
funded by the European Union.
We would like to thank the UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) for
giving their permission to reproduce the ‘Framework for good supervisory practice’
(2020) by Stan Taylor in Chapter 19.
Line Wittek and Thomas de Lange (Chapter 21) thank the university teachers
for their participation in the project. Gratitude also goes to Marit Kirkevold for
her generous role in the implementation of action learning groups in the Research
School. They also thank the editors for their valuable comments on several stages
of the writing process.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 — No ihan aina!

— Silloin ei minua mikään murhe paina!

— Ei minuakaan. Sinä olet minun tumma ritarini!

— Ja sinä minun satuimpeni!

— Mutta herranen aika, kun niittymiehet odottavat ruokaa, virkkoi

satutyttö ja ponnahti korineen juoksuun. Tumma ritari lähti
koikkimaan perästä, hokien.

— Älä jätä, älä jätä, kultaseni.

Maija pysähtyi ja käveltiin rinnan kapeata metsätietä. Kerä kantoi

piimähinkkiä kepissä olallaan.

— Me olemme nyt niin kuin ukko ja akka menossa metsään, sanoi

hän.

— Hyi sinua! Minusta ei tule akkaa milloinkaan.

— Tulee rouva, virkkoi piimähinkin kantaja.

— Maija käänsi häneen kiitollisen katseensa. Hetkisen perästä

virkkoi
Maija nauraen.

— Mutta minähän en tiedä sinun nimeäsikään, poika parka.

— Todellakin. Hugo Verner Ansgarius, ilmoitti asianomainen.

— Niin monta nimeä ja kaikki niin kauniita Minulla ei ole muuta

nimeä kuin Maija. Äiti kertoi aikovansa panna lisää Kustaavan, vaan
isä oli julmistunut, ja tuli vain paljas Maija.

— Se on kaunis nimi.

— Sinullahan on sievä sukunimikin, virkkoi Maija. Se on oikein

hieno.

— Minä muutin sukunimeni, kertoi asianomainen. Entinen oli niin

kömpelö.

— Mikä se oli?

— Törrönen.

Maija nauroi, niin että hampaat välähtelivät.

Mutta entisen Törrösen saappaan kärki oli tarttunut puun runkoon,

ja hän lensi suulleen kivikkoon ja piimä hinkin sisällys valahti hänen
niskaansa.

— Auta armahainen, siunaili tyttö.

— Nyt tuli perhanat, mutisi synkästi äsken niin reipas hinkin

kantaja,

— Mene sinä viemään niitylle eväät. Minä jään tähän siivoomaan

itseäni.

Maija nauroi ja meni.

Isäntä oli palannut kirkonkylästä ja murahteli tyytymättömänä, kun

kuuli, että on ollut kaksi henkivakuutusherraa yötä talossa.

— Niitä herran koipeliinia kuhiseekin Kuivalan kyläkunta täynnä.

 — Nämä ovat hyvin siistiä herroja, kehui emäntä. Sillä, joka Maijan
kanssa meni niitylle, kuuluu olevan neljän tuhannen vuosipalkka,
kertoi emäntä merkitsevästi. Hän oli jo huomannut Kerän
mieltymyksen tyttäreensä.

Isäntä meni murahdellen pihamaalle ja painui pitkäkseen

päiväpaisteeseen.

Keräkin palaili niityltä Maijan kanssa käsi kädessä. Huomattuaan

isänsä pihamaalla säikähti Maija ja juoksi kamariin, kuiskaten
mennessään mielitietylleen.

— Älä välitä siitä ukosta mitään. Se on semmoinen pökkelö. Ole

vain kärsivällinen, niin hyvä tulee.

Kerä meni puhuttelemaan isäntää.

— Päivää, virkkoi.

Ei äännähdystä, ei liikahdusta isännän puolelta.

— Nyt on mainio heinäilma, jatkoi vävypojan kokelas.

— On, murahti isäntä, mutta ei nostanut päätään.

— Siellä olivatkin niittymiehet ahkerassa puuhassa, koetti Kerä

verrytellä ukkoa.

— Vai olivat

— Teillä on tässä näköjään iso talo,

— Taitaa olla, kuului hetken perästä murahdus.

 Maija oli tullut tuvan portaille ja antoi merkkiä sulhaselleen.

Tämä tuli lähemmäksi.

— En muistanut sanoa, että sille ei saa puhua vakuutuksista,

kuiskasi
Maija. Se suuttuu mielettömäksi.

Kerä meni takaisin ja istui pihamaalle. Hän päätti vähän jutkauttaa

isäntää. Tehden äänensä tavalliseksi virkkoi hän.

— No aikooko se isäntä myydä tukkimetsää?

Mutta ukko luuli, että kysyjä tahtoi jo sekaantua hänen

puukauppoihinsa, koskapa kuului tytärtä katselevan, ja murahti.

— Mitäs sinä sillä tiedolla teet.

— Olisin tehnyt hintatarjouksen, jatkoi Kerä levollisesti.

Ukko nosti päätänsä ja katsoi pitkään vieraaseen ja kysyi.

— Mitäs miehiä sitä sitten ollaan?

— Rengas yhtiön kasöörinä minä olen ollut, ilmoitti Kerä.

Ukko nousi istumaan, tervehti vierasta ja naurahti.

— No kun eukko horasi, että molemmat ovat

henkivakuutusmiehiä. Sen verran se akkaväki tietää.

Ja ukko nauraa hörähteli mielissään.

 — Mennään tuonne kamariin istumaan on siellä vähän
viileämpikin, toimitti ukko Kerälle, jonka sydäntä hiveli appensa
muuttuneet tunteet häntä kohtaan. Täytyi vaan kiirehtiä Maijalle
selittämään, joka sai taas vuorostaan valmistaa emännän.

— Hyvinkö niitä metsiä ostetaan? kyseli ukko silmäillen

kunnioittavasti
Kerän persoonaa.

— Onhan niitä vähin. — Päätin minäkin lähteä huvikseni

katselemaan.

— Taidatte sitten ollakin yhtiön päämiehiä? kysyi ukko

kunnioittavasti.

— Niinhän minä olen.

— Ja minä tässä satuin vähän olemaan huonolla tuulella. Saahan

niitä katsella metsiä ja olla talossa niin kuin kotonaan. Maija hoi.
Mihinkä se Maija meni? Tule viemään vierasta istumaan. Minun
täytyy tästä niitylle, puheli ukko mennessään.

Kevättoivokin vetäysi pihamaalle eikä ollut Kerää näkevinäänkään.

Veti savukettaan, niin että pihisi.

— Kuulehan veli, virkkoi Kerä siirtyen lähemmäksi. Minä vähän

jutkautin ukkoa. Hän kuului olevan hirmuinen vakuutusmiehille.
Minuunkin hän jo iski murhaavia silmäyksiä, vaan kun sanoin olevani
tukkiyhtiön mies, tuli ukosta kuin voissa paistettu.

— Mutta minäpä sanonkin, että vedit häntä nenästä, uhkasi

Kevättoivo.
 ‒ Silloin sinut siinä paikassa perii hiisi. Sinä et nähtävästi muista,
että minä olen sinun esimiehesi.

Kevättoivo vaikeni hammasta purren ja mietti, mikä keino häntä

parhaiten auttaisi.
XVI

Ystävämme Böljengögel on Kanteleen ja Keikauksen kanssa Ala-

Kämpissä viettämiensä illallisten jälkeen saanut olla monessa
seikkailussa, joista hän kuitenkin yleensä on selviytynyt hyvin
käyttäen apunaan tunnettua kylmäverisyyttään. Yksi tapaus on vain
hänen persoonaansa jättänyt näkyviä jälkiä, ja niiden takia hän on
saanut makailla Kuivalan sairashuoneella kokonaista kaksi viikkoa.

Hänen virkaveljensä olivat aikoneet häntä varoittaa lähestymästä

Mikkolan isäntää vakuutusmiehenä, mutta se oli heiltä jäänyt
tekemättä, ja niinpä Böljengögel meni kuin menikin muutamana
sunnuntaipäivänä mitään pahaa aavistamatta Mikkolaan, jossa
isäntä oli tapansa mukaan sanaa tutkimassa. Böljengögel selitteli
vakuutuksen erinomaisia etuja ja sai ensimäisen, hillityn varoituksen
isännältä, mutta tästä huolimatta jatkoi hän kuvailuaan niistä
onnettomista, jotka olivat jättäytyneet pois vakuutettujen joukosta.
Isännällä sattui olemaan tällä kertaa lukukirjana teräskantinen
raamattu, ja kiivastuneena ylenmääräisestä kiusaamisesta tempasi
hän kirjan käteensä ja iski sillä Böljengögeliä päähän.

Asianomainen kykeni tuskin omin voimin poistumaan

naapuritaloon, jossa pää pantiin kääreisiin ja mies vietiin
sairashuoneelle.

Mikkolan isäntä oli nyt saanut haasteen tuleviin Kuivalan käräjiin

pahoinpitelystä, ja mies jatkoi, sairashuoneelta päästyään
toimintaansa entistä innostuneemmin.

Tällä kertaa oli hän sattunut Möttösen taloon, jossa asukkaat olivat
hieman takapajulla Kuivalan edistysmielisestä väestöstä… Niinpä
isäntäkään ei vielä tietänyt, mitä on henkivakuutus. Böljengögel
koetti sitä hänelle hiki päässä selittää toivoen tämmöisessä
alkuperäisessä asukkaassa saavansa heräämään tavallista
suuremman harrastuksen vakuutusaatteeseen.

— No miten siinä kävisi, jos nuo vakuutetut sattuisivat kuolemaan

kaikki yht'aikaa? tiedusteli ukko tutkaillen asiaa siltäkin puolelta.

— Ne eivät voi mitenkään kuolla kaikki yht’aikaa, selitti

Böljengögel.
Toisia kuolee vakuutetuista mutta toisia tulee sijaan.

— Mutta jos sattuisi kuolemaan, tikasi ukko. Silloin siinä tulisi hätä
käteen herroille.

Böljengögel pyyhki hikeä otsaltaan ja selitti.

Ukko mietti hetken ja kysyi taas katsellen kenkäinsä kärkiä.

— Mutta jospa ne yhtiöt yhden kerran tekevät konkurssin.

Mitenkäs silloin?

— Ne eivät uskalla,
 — Kyllä ne herrat semmoista uskaltavat, väitti ukko. Kun saavat
kokoon mieleisensä summan, niin silloin kintaat pöytään.

Ja isäntä näytti havainnollisesti kädellään, miten se tapahtuu.

— No jo on ihme, kun mies ei usko, vaikka kuinka selittäisi,

vaikeroi
Böljengögel harmistuen.

— En usko enkä vakuuta, vaikk'olis rahaa kuin roskaa, päätti ukko

ja sylkäsi asialle pisteeksi vahvan tupakkisyljen, joka sattui vieraan
saappaan kärjelle.

Emäntäkin oli istunut penkille kuuntelemaan keskustelua ja tiesi

kertoa, että Tiehaaran talossa olivat palvelijat vakuuttaneet itsensä ja
nyt kuuluvat jättävän koko puuhan sikseen.

— Niin kävi, että rahat jäi sinne. Eivät kuulu saavan takaisin
itkemälläkään. Semmoisia ne on ne vakuutukset, päätteli emäntä ja
kysyi hetken perästä.

— Mikä se tämä herra on sukujaan.

Asianomainen mainitsi niinensä.

— Vai kökel, no sekö Pöljänkökel, joka kuuluu täällä Kuivalan

puolella liikkuneen?

— En minä mikään pöljä ole enkä kökel, teki vastalauseen

emännälle harmistunut vieras. Te moukat, ette osaa lausua edes
ihmisten nimeä. Tämä Moukkalan kyläkunta onkin niitä maan
mainittavia, jossa ihmiset on kuin alkuasukkaita.
 — Mitäs tänne tulette, moukkien sekaan kökelit ja pökelit, kiivastui
emäntä. Ei me teitä täällä tarvita. Täällä ei jaetakaan rahoja herrojen
taskuihin. Ja eikä tänne tarvitse tulla vakuuttamaan, ja eikä täällä
passata semmoisia herroja niinkuin Kuivalan kylällä, ja eikä…

Rajuilma oli nähtävästi nousemassa ja Böljengögel katsoi

parhaaksi korjata olemuksensa rauhallisemmille seuduille.
Kysyttyään tietä isännältä Tiehaaran taloon sanoi vieras hyvästit ja
kiitteli kohteliasta talonväkeä. Isäntäkin tunsi tarvetta tehdä
tunnetuksi mielialansa vieraalle ja huusi pihamaalla vieraan jälkeen.

— Niin… ei täällä semmoisia herroja tarvita. Menkää vain hiiteen.

*****

Djefvulsundyhtiö oli alkanut horjua, ja huhu kertoi jo Kuivalankin

kylässä, että yhtiö tekee tuossa tuokiossa vararikon. Herrat Pörjönen
ja Haukkunen olivat jo sattuneet asian aiheuttamaan myrskyyn ja
henkisesti ja osaksi ruumiillisesti runneltuina väistyneet
rauhaisemmille laitumille. Puheenaolevat henkilöt, olivat sattuneet
menemään Möttösen taloon, jossa he vuosi takaperin olivat
vakuuttaneet talon miehet ja palvelijat. Nyt parhaiksi oli täällä saatu
tieto Djefvulsund'in häviön oireista, kun asianomaiset herrat tulivat
taloon. Herroille tehtiin heti tuima välikysymys ja, kun siihen ei saatu
kylliksi pian tyydyttävää vastausta, tarttuivat miehet herrojen
housunkauluksiin ja päättivät antaa hieman ilmaista hierontaa
Djefvulsund'in kenraaleille. Ja kun talossa ei sattunut olemaan
vierasta väkeä tapahtuman todistajana, saivat nämä pitää
kestityksen hyvänään ja hivellen kipeiltä tuntuvia paikkoja lähteä
hammasta purren toisille paikkakunnille.

*****
 Tiehaaran talossa oltiin päivällisellä kun Böljengögel meni tupaan.
Tervehdykseen vastattiin ystävällisesti, ja isäntä tuli syöntinsä
lopetettuaan puhuttelemaan vierasta. Tuli siinä vähitellen tiedoksi
isännälle ja talonväelle, että vieras oli vakuutusmiehiä. Isäntä lopetti
heti keskustelun ja kiipesi uunin päälle vetelemään ruokaunia, siellä
kun eivät hänen lepoaan kärpäset häirinneet. Tiehaaran pojat Jussi
ja Aatami kyyräilivät kulmiensa alta vierasta pahaenteisesti.
Böljengögel aavisti pahaa poikien synkistä katseista. — Jokohan nuo
riiviöt ovat samallaista väkeä kuin Möttösessäkin, ajatteli hän.

Oli tuhoa ennustava hiljaisuus. Pojat kaivelivat vain hampaitaan ja

kopistelivat piippujaan kuin uhitellen.

— No se Djefvulsund kuuluu menevän nurin ja sinne ne nyt

menee meidänkin vakuutuksista maksetut rahat.

— Niin menee. Saivat minultakin jo viisikymmentä markkaa,

virkkaa renki-Jooseppi pahasti mulkoillen vieraaseen.

— Saisitte nyt pulittaa meille ne rahat, jotka saitte sinne

keinotelleeksi, sanoo Aatami, hyvin villin näköinen mies,
Böljengögelille.

— Kyllä ne olisi takaisin maksettava, säestää Jussi.

— Mitä hemmettiä ne minuun kuuluu. Ottakaa rahanne sieltä

mihin olette antaneet. Olenko minä teitä vakuuttanut
Djefvulsund'issa? kivahti Böljengögel.

— Vai semmoinen se nyt onkin ääni kellossa, alkoivat pojat

meluta.

— Pulittakaa vain joka ainoa penni takaisin uhkaili Jooseppi.

 — Niinpä sitä silloin sanottiin, kun vakuutusta tehtiin, että rahat
saa takaisin silloin, kun vaan tahtoo. Nyt ne tuntuukin olevan jo
lujassa.

— Mutta enhän minä ole teille vakuutuksia tehnyt, ettekö ymmärrä

senkin aasit Minä olen Honkayhtiön mies ja teiltä on vakuutukset
tehnyt tietysti Pörjönen tahi Naukkunen Djefvulsundyhtiössä.
Ymmärrättekö, sen vietävät.

— Se haukkuu jo.

— Minkä Honkayhtiön. Ei sitä semmoista yhtiötä olekkaan. Se

valehtelee, tenäsi Aatami. Annetaan sille pampusta, että tietää
Tiehaarassa käyneensä.

Böljengögel nousi lähteäkseen, koska huomasi tilansa erittäin

vaaralliseksi, mutta pojatkin nousivat uhkaavan näköisinä.

Annetaanko sille selän pehmitystä, virkkoi Jooseppi.

— Kyllä sille pitäisi antaa, murahti Jussi.

Böljengögel koetti lähennellä ovea, vaan hänen ahdistajansa

lähenivät myöskin häntä ja jankutus jatkui, kunnes Böljengögel
vihdoin potkaistiin ovesta ulos kolmella hyvin tähdätyllä anturan
iskulla asianomaisen takapuoleen.

Böljengögel lasketteli pihalle päästyään kaiken

voimasanavarastansa ilmoille mielialansa ilmaisuksi ja tunnusteli
takapuolaan jatkaessaan matkaansa. Samalla hän päätti jättää
ikuiset hyvästit Moukkalan kylälle.
 Lähellä Kana-ahon majataloa tuli Böljengögeliä vastaan Tuhkanen
taluttaen pyöräänsä.

Virkaveljet laskivat heponsa puhelinpylvästä vasten ja istuivat tien

viereen lepäämään.

— Mistä sinä tulet? kysyi Tuhkanen alakuloisesti.

— Sanoisinpa melkein, että helvetistä, murahti Böljengögel.

Asia alkoi valjeta Tuhkaselle lähemmittä selvityksittä hänen

tarkatessaan Böljengögelin vääristynyttä naamaa.

— Arvaan, hyvä veli, että sinulle on käynyt samoin kuin minullekin,

sanoi Tuhkanen.

Sinun persoonasi on varmaankin ollut samanlaisessa muokissa

kuin minunkin. Menin tänä aamuna Mutkan taloon, ja heti kävivät
kimppuuni Djefvulsundin vakuutuksista, joita heillä poloisilla kuului
olevan. Koetin heidän visaisiin kalloihinsa iskeä, etten ole tuon
kuuluisuuden miehiä enkä siis syyllinen heidän onnettomuuteensa.
Vaan tästäkös ne välittivät. Ne raakalaiset tarttuivat minuun kiinni, ja
nyt on selänpää hyvin kipeä. Koetin ajaa pyörälläkin, mutta eihän se
luonnistanut.

— Kuuluu kyllä, että silläkin kulmakunnalla ovat asukkaat

ihmissyöjien sukua, virkkoi Böljengögel. Ja kun minäkin aijoin mennä
Mutkan taloon.

— Älä hyvä ihminen mene, jos et aio lisätä ruumiillisia kipujasi.

Olipa hyvä, että ehdin varoittamaan sinua. Miten käynee muille
vakuutusmiehille, jos tuohon kirottuun pesään sattuvat.
XVII

Olipa taaskin helteinen heinäkuun päivä, ja Kerä oli matkalla

Seppälään, armaansa luokse. Hän oli päättänyt pariksi päiväksi
jättää hartiavoimaisan hankintatyön, — johon oli käynyt käsiksi uusin
voimin, saatuaan omakseen Seppälän pyöreäposkisen tyttären — ja
viettää muutamia unohtumattomia hetkiä morsiamensa kanssa
Seppälän pihan pääkamarissa ja pellonpientareilla.

Sankka pöly nousi maantiestä hänen ajaessaan, niin että hampaat

karskuivat hiekasta, ja vaatteilla oli vahva pölykerros, vaan siitä ei
ystävämme välittänyt. Ajatteli vain, että pöly haihtuu ruumiista
Seppälän lahden laineisiin ja suusta sen taas huuhtelee alas Maijan
makeat ruuat.

Kerä seisotti ratsunsa Seppälän pihassa ja hypähti alas. Maija

sattui olemaan pihamaalla, menossa maitohuoneeseen kantaen
viilipyttyä. Huomatessaan tulijan punehtui Maija, ja viilipytty putosi
hänen käsistään pihamaalle.

— Mistä ihmeestä sinä…?

— Sieltä vain maailman kyliltä. Oliko tuo viili minulle aiottu?

 — Oli, mutta mitäpä siitä… Kun en osannut odottaakaan… Tule
nyt levähtämään. Sinä olet varmaankin väsynyt? lipatteli Maija,
ohjatessaan vierastaan kamariin.

Kerä oli pelkkänä päivänpaisteena.

— Onko isäsi kotona? kysyi hän kumminkin varovaisuuden vuoksi.

— Ei ole. Tulee ehken vasta huomenna kotiin, ilmoitti Maija.

— No voi herran pieksut. Silloinhan meidän sopii, iloitsi Kerä, hän

kun pelkäsi joten kuten tulevan ilmi kepposestaan. — Mutta minä
olen niin likainen, etten kehtaa sinuunkaan kajota. Minä menen nyt
heti paikalla järveen.

Maija säikähti pahanpäiväisesti. Hän luuli sulhasensa suuressa

onnessaan kadottaneen järkensä.

— Mitä sinä oikein puhut?

— Niin, niin, uimaan… Antaisit vain pyyhkeen.

— Kun minä luulin, että sinä… minä haen heti paikalla.

Kerä oli saanut maallisen olemuksensa mielestään tyydyttävään

kuntoon ja palasi pihaan, jossa Maija odotti jo häntä.

— Tule nyt syömään hyvä… rakas… minä en oikein tiedä miten

minä sanoisin. Sinulla on varmaan kauhea nälkä.

— Sinäpä sen sanoit. Olen melkein vuorokauden ollut syömättä.

Olin Heinäjärven kylällä ja siellä sain maata erään talon aitassa
melkein vuorokauden.
 — Voi sinua poloista… Miten se niin kävi?

— Isäntä oli ottanut avaimen ovelta muistamatta, että siellä nukkui

vieras, ja pistänyt avaimen taskuunsa kylälle lähtiessään ja lukkoa oli
mahdoton sisältä päin avata. Emäntä hätäili ulkopuolella ja minä
potkin ovea sisäpuolelta, mutta se pysyi itsepintaisesti kiinni, kunnes
isäntä palasi kotiin. Mutta mitäpä siitä. Tässä on poikasi taas yhtä
reippaana ja iloisena kuin ennenkin. Yksi seikka minua vain
peloittaa.

— Ja mikä se on? kysyi Maija.

— Tietysti se, että isäsi voi minä hetkenä tahansa tulla tietämään,
että minä olen kuin olenkin vakuutusmies. Ja silloin voi nousta
ukonilma.

— No mitä siitä. Täytyyhän sen tervaskannon vihdoinkin suostua,

sanoi
Maija ja lähetteli sulholleen lämpimiä silmäyksiä.

*****

Seppälän isäntä ei viipynytkään huomiseen, vaan palasi jo

iltapäivällä kotiin mukanaan Naukkunen, joka kirkonkylässä oli
pyrkinyt hänen rattailleen. Naukkunen oli vanha tuttava isännälle
niiltä ajoilta, jolloin hän oli ollut Metsäyhtiön miehiä, ja mielihyvällä
toikin Seppälän isäntä hänet rattaillaan kotiinsa pyydellen jäämään
yöksi taloon. Tähän isännän hyväntahtoiseen tarjoukseen suostuikin
Naukkunen ilolla ja asteli reippaasti tupaan, jossa Kerä loikoi penkillä
ja katseli Maijan ketterätä liikuntaa talouspuuhissa.
 — Täällähän sinäkin makailet, ilostui Naukkunen. Olipa se nyt
mukava sattuma.

Kerä murti suuta ja väänsi päätä nähdessään Naukkusen rehevän

persoonan rauhaansa häiritsemässä. Hänestä ei toisen ylistämä
sattuma ollut lainkaan toivottava siihen nähden, että isäntä saattaisi
Naukkusen kautta tulla tietämään hänen oikean toimensa ennen
aikojaan.

Isäntäkin tuli tupaan ja ilostui nähdessään Rengasyhtiön kasöörin

talossa.

— Päivää. Mistä päin nyt on matka? Onpas ne puulaakin herrat

nyt ahkeraan liikkeellä, puheli hän nähtävästi reipastuen. Hänkin oli
tullut samaan mielipiteeseen kuin emäntä, että Maija oli tehnyt
valintansa erittäin onnistuneesti.

Kerä koetti hymyillä isännälle, samalla tuntien kovin tukalaksi

olonsa.
Hän viittasi Naukkusta seuraamaan mukanaan ulos ja pihamaalle
päästyään
selitti tälle vaikean asemansa, pyytäen veljellistä vaiteliaisuutta
Naukkuselta.

— Ukko on sitten nähtävästi minunkin suhteeni erehtynyt. Tein

hänen kanssaan kerran metsäkauppoja, ja hän luulee minun vielä
liikkuvan samoilla asioilla. Olkoon menneeksi. Ollaan sitten
tukkiherroja. Paremman kestityksen laittaa ukko meille.

Herrat menivät tupaan ja jatkoivat isännän kanssa keskeytynyttä

keskustelua.
 Kerä oli luullut saavansa ainakin vähän aikaa rauhassa nauttia
Seppälän vierasvaraisuutta, mutta siinä hän auttamattomasti erehtyi.
Kuivalan kylälle oli Kerä leiponut kokonaista kolme kappaletta
Näreen asiamiehiä, aavistamatta, että nämä kerran tulisivat
aiheuttamaan hänelle hyvin vakavia selkkauksia. Yksi asiamies oli
räätäli Kinnunen, toinen suutari Horttanainen ja kolmas Rämekorvan
nuori isäntä Huttunen. Kuultuaan, että Kerä oli saapunut Seppälään,
päättivät nämä asiamiehet lähteä miehissä tervehtimään
päällikköään. Heissä oli herännyt tyytymättömyys Näreyhtiöön
monistakin syistä ja varsinkin siitä, että heille luvattiin suuria
palkkioita, vaan niiden suorittaminen viipyi ihmeteltävästi.

Kun herrat juttelivat tuvassa isännän kanssa astuivat Kinnunen,

Horttanainen ja Huttunen tupaan. Kerän hiukset nousivat pystyyn ja
hän istui kuin ukkosen lyömänä. Hänen onneton hetkensä oli nyt
varmasti ja peruuttamattomasti tullut. Vaikka tilanne näyttikin
toivottomalta, koetti hän siitä suoriutua mahdollisimman vähällä
aikoen mennä ulos ja suoriutumalla tielle välttää ainakin kohtauksen
tulevan appensa kanssa. Räätäli Kinnunen huomasi ensiksi tämän
päällikkönsä pakosuunnitelman.

— Meillä olisi vähän tarkastajalle asiaa. Istukaahan paikoillanne,

virkkoi hän. Kun te saitte minut ja nämä toisetkin miehet
asiamieheksi Näreeseen, niin lupasitte yhdeksät hyvät, kahdeksat
kauniit. Mutta nyt olemme hetken työtä tehneet, emmekä mitään
saaneet. Ja sen lisäksi tulee meille pääkonttorista alituiseen
muistutuksia huonosta hankinnasta ja kehoituksia reippaampaan
työhön. Mutta minä annan perhanat koko Näreyhtiölle, enkä pane
tikkua ristiin tästä päivästä lähtien sen yhtiön edesauttamiseksi.
 Suutari Horttanaisen piikkiparta oli liikahdellut vihaisesti räätäli
Kinnusen puheen tahdissa ja nyt avasi hänkin suunsa ja sanoi.

— Niin en myös minäkään juokse Näreen pikanttina tästä lähtien.

Nyt sanotaan jo vasten naamaa, jos menee tarjoamaan Näreen
vakuutusta, että kuka kurja siinä semmoisessa yhtiössä vakuuttaa,
joka varmasti tekee kuperkeikan. Nyt näkyy jo Jehvelsunt oikovan
koipiaan ja saman se tekee vielä Närekin.

Tuli Huttusen vuoro.

— Tässä olisi herralle nämä paperit itselleen, virkkoi hän tarjoten

asioimistopaperinsa Kerälle. Ja ehkenpä herra maksaa nyt meidän
vaivamme lupauksensa mukaan.

Kerä toivoi tällä kertaa, että maa olisi auennut ja niellyt Näreen
asiamiehet. Mutta nämä istuivat penkillä nauliten hänet katseillaan,
joista ei voinut sanoa erikoisesti lempeyden loistavan. Suutari
Horttanaisen piikkiparta liikkui hiljaa. Räätäli Kinnunen siirtyi
lähemmäksi Kerää, saadakseen hänet paremmin naulita katseillaan.

Isäntä katseli vuoroin herroja ja vuoroin asiamiehiä. Vähitellen

näytti asia hänellekin selviävän huomatessaan Kerän vääristyneen
naaman.

— No henkivakuutusherrako se tämä sitten onkin? kuului

uhkaavasti, ja hänen muotonsa musteni.

— Pitäisikö tämän vielä muutakin olla virkkoi Horttanainen.

— No Rengasyhtiön miehenä tämä on tässä meillä oleksinut.

 Ja isäntä naulasi nyt vuorostaan katseellaan Kerän, joka ei
näyttänyt kykenevän hänelle selitystä antamaan.

— Vai on tämä puulaakin mieskin, naurahti Kinnunen. Taitaa olla

miestä joka lähtöön.

Naukkunen katsoi parhaaksi jo ennakolta lähteä kävelemään, ja

ovessa mennessään hän virkkoi ilkamoiden Kerälle.

— Tulehan sitten kun selviät.

Kerä oli hieman tointunut ja naurahteli hermostuneesti, koettaen

selitellä asemaansa, mutta isäntä oli noussut jo seisomaan ja hänen
partaisesta naamastaan kuului karjahdus.

— Korjaa nyt heti luusi siitä, jos aiot ne viedä ehjinä tästä talosta.

Kerä nousi, mutisten mennessään.

— Vielä minä kerran tulen, ja silloin meistä tuleen oikein hyvät

ystävät.