Ethnography, Liminality and the PhD in Australia

1. Ethnography, Liminality and the PhD in Australia Mary-Helen Ward CoCo, November 2008

2. Briefly… • I am investigating the experience of doing a PhD at a research intensive university in Australia • My thesis will be a reflexive ethnography

3. What’s been done? • Quality in Postgraduate Research conferences • Alison Lee (identity; writing process) • Angela Brew; Margot Pearson (supervision) • Barbara Kamler; Pat Thomson (writing process; supervision) • Ruth Neumann – report to government in 2003 on student experience • ARC linkage project between Deakin, ANU and three postgraduate student associations (student experience) 2005

4. My data sources • Government documents and reports • Theoretical perspectives on the doctorate • University documents • University staff (interviews) • PhD candidates (blogs) • My own experience

5. Blogging project • Aim • Blog (technical details) • How the blogs worked • My position in the project

6. Issues relating to ethnographic theory • My status as a ‘full-member participant’ • The mediation of the method I used to collect personal data (blogs) • The politically charged nature of my material (i.e. the ‘sub-versions’ my participants could potentially construct)

7. Nature of ethnography… • Norman Denzin points out that “Ethnography, like art, is always political.”

8. My Thesis • Overarching metaphor of liminality (Turner) • Communitas • Candidates’ stories from their blogs, and my story as it happened will create a counterpoint to both official and theoretical accounts (sub-versions) • My reflections from a current perspective may also create, intrude into, trouble, obstruct or confirm these accounts

9. References • Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for supervision. New York: Routledge. • Lee, A., & Williams, C. (1999). “'Forged in Fire': Narratives of trauma in PhD supervision pedagogy”. Southern Review, 32(1), 6-26.

10. Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265-278. • Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). "Peer learning" as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501-516. • Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2009). Changing practices of doctoral education. Oxford: Routledge. • Cerwonka, A., & Malkki, L. (2007). Improvising Theory: Process and Temporality in Ethnographic Fieldwork. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. • Cumming, J., & Ryland, P. (2004). Working Doctoral Students: Challenges and Opportunities. Paper presented at the AARE National Conference. • Denzin, N. K. (1999). Interpretive ethnography for the next century. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(5), 510-519. • Hine, C. (Ed.). (2005). Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet. Oxford: Berg. • Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage. • Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for supervision. New York: Routledge. • Lee, A., & Williams, C. (1999). 'Forged in Fire': Narratives of trauma in PhD supervision pedagogy. Southern Review, 32(1), 6-26. • Markham, A. (1998). Life Online: Researching real experience in virtual space. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. • Markham, A., & Baym, N. (2009). Internet Inquiry: Conversations about method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 135-150. • Turner, V. W. (1974). Dramas, fields, and metaphors: symbolic action in human society. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.