Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice

Volume 14 | Issue 2 Article 3

2017

Developing Scholarly Identity: Variation in Agentive Responses to Supervisor Feedback Kelsey S. Inouye University of Oxford, [email protected]

Lynn McAlpine [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected]

Recommended Citation Inouye, Kelsey S. and McAlpine, Lynn, Developing Scholarly Identity: Variation in Agentive Responses to Supervisor Feedback, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 14(2), 2017. Available at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3

Developing Scholarly Identity: Variation in Agentive Responses to Supervisor Feedback

Abstract The central task for doctoral students, through the process of writing, feedback and revision, is to create a thesis that establishes their scholarly identity by situating themselves and their contribution within a field. This longitudinal study of two first-year doctoral students investigated the relationship between response to supervisor feedback on the thesis proposal and the development of scholarly identity (self-confidence, independence in research thinking, positioning the self in relation to others), through the lens of individual agency (self-assessing work, seeking and critically engaging with others’ feedback in order to clarify research thinking). Data consisted of semi-structured interviews conducted over 3 months, different drafts of the research proposal, and written supervisor comments on the drafts. Narrative analysis and open coding were used to produce in-depth portraits of the individual experiences and perceptions of each participant. There were differences between the two individuals in their growing scholarly identities as regards their agency. The degree of agency exhibited in engaging critically with feedback in relation to self-assessment, and clarifying research thinking appeared linked to the development of the student’s scholarly identity: her sense of confidence, scholarly independence in thinking, and positioning in relation to others. Such confidence and ownership in turn inspired greater agency. Interestingly, differences in the extent to which participants were agentive in relation to feedback appeared influenced by previous experiences with feedback. These results contribute a richer understanding of the relationship between use of supervisor feedback and growing scholarly independence.

Keywords scholarly identity, supervision, doctoral education, doctoral writing, feedback, agency

This journal article is available in Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3

Introduction

As aspiring scholars, doctoral students endeavour to enter the academic community by developing

their research and writing abilities through completion of a thesis (Aitchison et al. 2010; Kamler &

Thompson 2014). Composing the thesis, a process that involves writing, research, feedback and

revision, allows students to learn to situate themselves as scholars (Wegener et al. 2014) and

establish scholarly identity – a sense of independence as a researcher (Pearson & Brew 2002)

located within a discipline and contributing to the body of literature.

However, given the intensity of doctoral work and the difficulty of transitioning from student to

independent researcher, scholarly writing is often marked by an increase in anxiety in graduate

students, who are just beginning to navigate both the disciplines and the institutions in which they

are embedded (Lee & Boud 2003). Although many doctoral students have conducted research as

master’s students, the doctoral thesis is the first time they are asked to do research at such an in-

depth and substantial level, making the doctoral thesis a novel learning task in many ways.

In writing the thesis, supervisor feedback is considered essential to making adequate and timely

progress, and in encouraging scholarly growth (Kamler & Thomson 2014; Murakami-Ramalho et

al. 2011). Yet, while previous studies have investigated the communication and reception of

supervisor feedback, and what types of feedback students find useful, few studies have addressed

how supervisor feedback is related to the development of scholarly identity, particularly early on

in doctoral work. Thus, this study focuses on transfer of status or upgrade, which is the first step

towards completing the thesis in most UK doctoral programs. Transfer of status is similar to the

proposal defence in North America, except that the supervisor is not involved in the assessment

process. Students typically are expected to apply for transfer of status after the first year of

doctoral work, and must receive a successful evaluation to proceed to doctoral candidature.1

Because supervisor feedback has the formative possibility to help clarify the doctoral student’s

initial research ideas in revisions of the transfer paper, the purpose of this study was to explore the

relationship between variations in engagement to supervisor feedback on transfer-related writing

and the development of scholarly identity. We chose to do this by examining identity development

through the framework of identity-trajectory, with a focus on individuals’ sense of agency

(McAlpine, Amundsen & Turner 2013).

Agency and identity-trajectory

Identity-trajectory approaches identity development through the lens of variation in agency as

regards engagement in academic work (McAlpine, Amundsen & Turner 2013). Agency represents

efforts to work towards personally chosen goals, and deal with challenges. In relation to writing

and supervisor feedback, agentive behaviours include self-assessing work, engaging critically with

feedback to clarify research thinking and seeking feedback from various sources. Affect –emotion

– also plays a role in agency, in that it influences both one’s approach to the world and response to

it, including one’s desire to invest in or avoid certain activities or relationships. In other words,

individuals vary in the extent to which they perceive themselves as agentive in different contexts.

In becoming part of the academy, identity-trajectory understands scholarly identity development

as enacted in three interwoven work strands: intellectual, networking and institutional (McAlpine,

1 Assessment criteria require the student to demonstrate they can “construct an argument, can present material in a scholarly manner, has a viable subject to work on, and can be reasonably expected to complete it in three to four years”

(University of Oxford 2016, p. 2).

1

Inouye and McAlpine: Developing Scholarly Identity

Amundsen & Turner 2013). The intellectual strand refers to how the student seeks to contribute to

the body of work in their field through different forms of communication, including the thesis,

published papers and conference presentations. The networking strand is composed of the peer and

other academic networks the student builds and draws on for support (interpersonal networks), as

well as the inter-textual networks – the literature – that the student engages with and uses to

inform their own research thinking. The institutional strand focuses on the student’s active

engagement with both institutional obligations, in this case, completing the thesis proposal within

expected timelines, and institutional resources like supervisors, libraries and seminars to advance

their goals.

Identity-trajectory also places special emphasis on prior experience, specifically on how the past

influences present and future intentions. Thus, identity-trajectory views are not static, but

constantly evolving in response to the individual’s changing goals and experiences. To understand

how individuals vary in the degrees to which they are agentive in furthering their sense of

scholarly identity, one must recognise the personal histories and specific contexts in which the

individual is embedded. In short, students can be more or less agentive in the networking,

intellectual and institutional strands of their developing scholarly identity. Figure 1 illustrates the

interconnectedness of the three strands of identity-trajectory across time.

From the perspective of identity-trajectory, how the student chooses to engage with supervisor

feedback (an institutional resource) in developing the research project is a key site of inquiry, as

the development of the doctoral proposal and thesis, which create the intellectual contribution that

demonstrates a growing scholarly identity, are arguably the most central institutional responsibility

of doctoral work. . Likewise, whether the student seeks alternate sources of feedback and what the

2

Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 14 [2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3

http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3

student chooses to read contribute to both the thesis and the student’s understanding of their place

within the academy. Thus, the ways students seek out and critically engage with suggestions, for

instance, demonstrate how students can actively build their identities in the scholarly community

as they develop confidence and independence in their research thinking, and position the self in

relation to others. This study then explores in more depth how the research on writing can be

framed within students’ agentive engagement with the three strands of identity-trajectory:

intellectual, networking and institutional.

Writing, research thinking, and identity work

Over the past two decades, ample research has recognised the development of scholarly identity as

a process of becoming located within a discipline and institution based on one’s research

contribution; this encompasses the activities associated with being a teacher, researcher, writer,

administrator, etc. (Clarke, Hyde & Drennan 2013; Lieff et al. 2012; Murakami-Ramalho,

Militello & Piert 2013). Evidence of scholarly growth includes greater confidence in one’s work

and a greater critical perspective (Murakami-Ramalho et al. 2011), the development of one’s

technical vocabulary and interaction with networks within the chosen field to achieve a sense of

belonging (Lieff et al. 2012) and position oneself in relation to others, thus adding to the larger

conversation through one’s research (Cameron, Nairn & Higgins, 2009; Pare 2011). In other

words, prior work suggests that one forum for scholarly growth lies in writing (Kamler &

Thomson 2014), such as the doctoral thesis.

In other words, through writing, individuals clarify their ideas about the project as a whole.

Further, since one of the major goals of doctoral study is to produce independent scholars (Pearson

& Brew 2002), writing can be understood as a process of becoming independent in the ability to

critique, argue and position oneself in relation to others. Writing initially involves clarifying

research thinking and generating ideas, and later “integrat[ing] different parts of their work” when

completing the final draft of the thesis (Phillips 1982, p. 172). Thus, academic writing involves the

synthesis of a sense of identity and confidence as a writer (Ivanic 1998, 2004; Kamler & Thomson

2014; Lea & Stierer 2011), with a focus on putting a particular stamp on the text (Thomson &

Kamler 2016), thereby positioning the self as a legitimate voice with a contribution to make

(Cameron et al. 2009). In other words, writing is the tangible representation of an individual’s

research thinking and identity as a scholar.

Thus, from the perspective of identity-trajectory, the thesis and related research represent the

student’s potential intellectual contribution, since they are regarded as principally the work of the

student. The student must be agentive in developing and owning the research thinking and how it

is represented in the text, and work on the thesis constitutes development of the intellectual strand

of identity-trajectory.

The role of feedback: Encouraging self-assessment and research thinking

Agency is evident in the networking strand of identity-trajectory in the extent to which doctoral

students intentionally develop and use a network of support to help further their research ideas,

which are then represented in the text. One such source of support is supervisor feedback, a key

institutional resource and important means of achieving the student’s institutional responsibility

for timely completion.

3

Inouye and McAlpine: Developing Scholarly Identity

Feedback is understood as “information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, book, parent, self,

experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding” (Hattie & Timperley 2007,

p.81). Feedback creates or highlights what the assessor considers a “gap” between the quality of

student work and the target level defined by the assessor – which students may mitigate by seeking

out and addressing comments, and by learning to detect issues in their work through self-

assessment (Hattie & Timperley 2007). Much evidence of this link exists at the undergraduate

level.

Previous research suggests that self-regulation and self-assessment are important components of

writing development and performance (Cho, Cho & Hacker 2010), and that teachers may

encourage self-assessment by asking students to evaluate their work (Nichol 2010). For doctoral

students, there is evidence that peer writing groups may be useful in encouraging self-assessment

as students learn to position themselves by collectively building identities as writers and peer

reviewers, and sharing experiences in pursuit of the common goal of producing quality writing

(Aitchison & Lee 2006; Lee & Boud 2003). This notion of self-assessment is also central in

understanding the role of agency in research development. The way students evaluate their work,

interpret and assess supervisor feedback and make appropriate revisions is representative of the

agentive nature of scholarly growth.

At the doctoral level, much of the research on feedback has focused on that between the supervisor

and supervisee, because it is under the supervisor’s purview that the student shapes a thesis.

Specifically, doctoral students’ supervisory needs most frequently include writing, research plans

and process, institutional issues and disciplinary and academic practices (McAlpine & McKinnon

2012). Prior work on supervisor feedback has focused primarily on classifying types of feedback

(Kumar & Stracke 2007; Basturkmen et al. 2014). Such studies have examined the linguistic

functions of comments (Kumar & Stracke 2007) as well as trends in the substantive content of

feedback (Basturkmen et al. 2014) and how graduate students view different types of feedback –

what is perceived as most useful, and what is not (Kumar & Stracke 2007; Basturkmen et al.

2014). Supervisor feedback may support changes in research thinking and scholarly development

in doctoral students by introducing the student to new literature, methodologies or possible

theoretic

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.