Content area
Ph.D. students report that doctoral work is challenging, with tight deadlines and extensive individual demands. In our duoethnography we reflect on and interrogate how collaborating in a structured way supported the development of our research competence during our doctoral work. Our analysis draws on a range of data: emails, Outlook calendars, work notes, manuscripts with reviewing comments, audio recordings of workshops, memories and research diaries. This article presents two concepts: (1) the phasing of doctoral work, showing our Journey from life-vests to catalysts, and (2) a structured model for collaboration, built on shared engagement and mutual commitment. Further it argues that there is an unrealised potential in peer collaboration in doctoral work, suggesting the benefit of establishing systematic approaches to collaboration as an integral part of doctoral training. This article contributes to the theoretical development of the pedagogical field of research education and seeks to inspire other Ph.D. students as well as academics and leaders within higher education that are interested in jointly developing research competence.
Ph.D. students report that doctoral work is challenging, with tight deadlines and extensive individual demands. In our duoethnography we reflect on and interrogate how collaborating in a structured way supported the development of our research competence during our doctoral work. Our analysis draws on a range of data: emails, Outlook calendars, work notes, manuscripts with reviewing comments, audio recordings of workshops, memories and research diaries. This article presents two concepts: (1) the phasing of doctoral work, showing our Journey from life-vests to catalysts, and (2) a structured model for collaboration, built on shared engagement and mutual commitment. Further it argues that there is an unrealised potential in peer collaboration in doctoral work, suggesting the benefit of establishing systematic approaches to collaboration as an integral part of doctoral training. This article contributes to the theoretical development of the pedagogical field of research education and seeks to inspire other Ph.D. students as well as academics and leaders within higher education that are interested in jointly developing research competence.
Keywords: communities of practice; peer learning; peer support; doctoral work; research education; duoethnography
Introduction
Late one spring night, after everyone had left the campus, two neighbouring offices still had the lights on. In each sat a female lecturer, Ingunn and Kristin, attempting to write Ph.D. proposals. Despite working in the same bachelor program previously, since that time they have had only limited contact. This all changed when Kristin on her way back from the printer peeked in at Ingunn's door and realised that they were struggling with the same task - how to write a Ph.D. proposal. The ensuing conversation led to a collaboration, the decision to join forces to decipher the components of a research proposal.
At the beginning of our doctoral work, it all felt overwhelming. We were searching for a way to keep from drowning. We became each other's life-vests, providing just enough buoyancy to keep our heads above water. As we became more experienced and progressed towards becoming researchers, our roles changed. We developed our roles as catalysts', becoming discussants for each other, providing honest opinions and constructive criticism; a discussant who offers support to finish our projects without having a vested role in it, unlike a co-author or a supervisor.
We both have a background in social work, but while Kristin worked in specialised mental health care, Ingunn worked at a municipality level with children and adults with complex needs. Typical of the discipline in Norway, most social work professionals gain practical work experience between attaining higher degrees. It is also common for candidates for Ph.D. degrees to already have families, and women in this situation are often caregivers for young children (Mbonyiryivuze et al., 2023). This was the case for us, and when we returned for further studies in university in our thirties, we had to balance expectations at home with our doctoral work.
Kristin's Ph.D. project focused on her strong interest in the personal experience of recovery. Her research explored in-depth personal stories of how performing arts in a psychiatric hospital could support recovery processes for people with long term mental health problems. Ingunn went in another direction. She chose to study interdisciplinary collaboration in services for young children and families using comparative ethnographic case studies. She explored interaction and collaboration between managers, professionals, children and families across three different sites.
Context
Over the last 15 years, the number of doctoral degrees awarded in Norwegian higher education has doubled. The increase must be seen in the context of major changes in Norwegian doctoral education. The structure of higher education has been reformed, including accrediting doctoral programmes at additional higher educational institutions, almost doubling the number of Ph.D. awarding institutions from 12 to 23 between 2000 and 2022. Prior to the reform, professional education like nursing and social work was provided in University Colleges without requirements for staff to have a PhD. Bringing professional training like nursing and social work into universities required a higher proportion of staff with a Ph.D. The professional education programmes have a high proportion of women staff. This has led to an increase of women with a clinical background undertaking Ph.Ds. The proportion of female doctoral students has increased, from 42% in 2002 to 52% in 2022, with the highest percentage within social science (61%) and medical and health science (65%; Statistics Norway, 2024; Thune et al., 2012).
In the Norwegian context, Ph.D. students most often apply for a fellowship, and the Ph.D. student becomes a university employee with a monthly salary. The employment period can be for three or four years depending on whether the fellowship includes responsibility for a year of teaching. The next step is to apply for access to a Ph.D. program, requiring mandatory coursework which can include courses from the University where they are registered, or from other approved providers nationally. Once approved, and having completed the coursework, the thesis phase of the doctoral study begins.
In Europe, the Bologna Process has driven cultural change, leading universities to adopt new agendas that include market-oriented knowledge production, not purely academic and professional aims, thereby increasing the complexity of requirements for both Ph.D. supervisors (Bogelund, 2015) and Ph.D. students. The heightened pressure to produce more has led to supervisors having to follow up several Ph.D. students at the same time. The PhD students report a high level of insecurity about the labour market and use a lot of time searching for work while finishing their Ph.D.
The doctoral journey is accepted as challenging as it is characterized by a heavy workload, often combined with requirements to teach, continuous writing deadlines and presentations to various audiences (van Rooij et al., 2021). According to Horta and Li (2023), Ph.D. students need to "publish or perish." This emphasis on publications in the competitive academic labour market leads to publishing-centered doctoral journeys, affecting students' identity development, devaluing other academic activities, and fostering rivalry among peers. Often, Ph.D. students question their intelligence and capacity to complete their degree, doubting whether their research results are sufficient and if they possess the necessary abilities (Nori & Vanttaja, 2023).
Some PhD students find that the academic community and their Ph.D. supervisors expect them to set their personal lives on hold while doing their Ph.D. (Carter et al., 2013). Additionally, Beasy et al. (2020) found that institutional pressure to complete within the stipulated period, combined with the demanding university landscape makes timely completing challenging. This often involves significant unpaid work to enhance their chances of securing academic positions, like teaching, marking exams and writing proposals to secure external funding, compelling them to put in extra hours to remain competitive.
A report from the largest University in Norway found that having children imposes multiple serious constraints on Ph.D. studies and may create difficulties in successfully completing Ph.D. studies in the given timeframe:
While it is not uncommon for many Ph.D. candidates to put in additional time beyond the standard weekly limit of 37.5 hours, it is a major issue for Ph.D. candidates with kids as family usually requires the remaining hours of the week. (Busch et al., 2017, р. 1)
Furthermore, research indicates gender differences in completion, Ph.D. delays, and career progression. Van de Schoot et al. (2013) indicate that Ph.D. delays are influenced by different factors for men and women. For women, work and social contacts reduce delays, while changes in marital status and opportunities for international contacts increase delays. For men, conference attendance and clear research questions reduce delays, whereas having young children or changes in supervision or thesis topic increase delays. Appel and Dahlgren (2003) found that while interest in university careers is similar for men and women, fewer women continue due to financial insecurities and difficulties in balancing career and family. The blurred line between work and leisure in research causes stress, particularly for women.
We have identified several factors that influence doctoral students" completion, achievement, and wellbeing. Sverdlik & Hall (2018) highlighted both external factors, such as supervision, personal/social lives, departmental structures, and financial opportunities, and internal factors, such as motivation, writing skills, regulatory strategies, and academic identity. Dericks et al. (2019) found that Ph.D. supervisor supportiveness 1s the greatest predictor of PhD satisfaction, while Ph.D. supervisors" academic qualities have no significant effect; both academic qualities and departmental supportiveness predict Ph.D. satisfaction. Corsini et al. (2022) revealed that having a female Ph.D. supervisor, being supervised by a mid-career scientist, and having a Ph.D. supervisor with a high academic reputation are associated with higher student productivity.
Castelló et al. (2017) identified key challenges leading Ph.D. students to consider dropping out, particularly difficulties in balancing work, personal life, and doctoral studies, and problems with socialization. Ayoobzadeh (2023) highlighted the positive impact of peermentoring on Ph.D. students"? motivation and retention. Gonzalez-Betancor and DortaGonzález (2020) emphasized the critical impact of mental health on Ph.D. completion rates, while Mills et al. (2024) identified imposter thoughts, perfectionism discrepancy, and loneliness as strong predictors of depression, anxiety, and suicidality, with loneliness being the most consistent predictor. Finally, Kursurkar et al. (2021) identified key factors contributing to burnout among Ph.D. students, emphasizing the importance of addressing basic psychological needs such as autonomy, competence and relatedness.
A limited number of publications touch upon the concepts of peer support and peer learning while undertaking a Ph.D. Lorenzetti et al. (2019) found that graduate students who participated in formal peer-mentoring programs benefited across the four domains of learning: academic, psychological, social, and career. Littlefield and Radosh (2015) highlight that peer support has positive effects on both completing courses and research progress. Further, Shacham and Od-Cohen (2009) state that engagement with peers is important in order to experience emotional support, while Beasy et al. (2020) note that it is important in developing an identity as a researcher while undertaking a Ph.D. In one of the few studies that reflects on the of Ph.D. experience, McPhail-Bell and Redman-MacLaren (2019) illustrate how informal peer support helped them to successfully complete their Ph.Ds. According to Meschitti (2019), the limited literature on doctoral work usually focuses on individual experience, obscuring the dynamic aspects of peer learning, as they unfold in the interplay between structured and emergent forms of interaction. The lack of insight into these dynamics downplays the capacity of doctoral students to be active agents in shaping their own path.
Thus, while the challenges relating to undertaking a Ph.D. are well known, Ph.D. training focuses primarily on developing individual skills and finishing on time, rather than acknowledging that research is a collective practice. The lack of attention to helping Ph.D. students understand the centrality of collaboration and peer review to ensure research quality and relevance has implications for the training such programs provide to enable students to become part of an academic community. We argue that there is insufficient emphasis on the potential that lies in collaboration as a strategy to develop research competence both during doctoral study but also as an integral aspect of academic work.
In this article we conceptualise peer collaboration in doctoral work to enrich the existing literature and promote a systematic approach to collaborative peer learning in doctoral education. We reflect upon the following research questions:
- What are the key components of peer collaboration in doctoral work?
- How does the collaboration evolve?
- What role can peer collaboration play in developing research competence?
Theoretical Concepts
In reflecting on our collaboration during our PhDs we draw on three theoretical concepts-communities of practice, peer learning, and peer support to inform our analysis and understanding of the dynamics of peer collaboration.
Communities of Practice
The concept of communities of practice has been widely applied to explain processes such as leaming, professional development, interdisciplinary collaboration and the development of new technologies (Wenger, 2010). According to Wenger we all take part in multiple communities of practice. Communities of practice are informal networks of people that share an engagement with the same practice; these communities can be related to our work as well as to other aspects of our lives. "Through active and dynamic negotiation of meaning, practice is something that is produced over time by those who engage in it" (Wenger, 2010, p. 180).
An important part of this dynamic process is negotiating a common understanding of what it means to be competent within the area of shared practice. This includes negotiating a common repertoire of routines, words, artefacts, actions and stories (Wenger, 1998). "Engagement is the most immediate relation to a practice-engaging in activities, doing things, working alone or together, talking, using and producing artifacts" (Wenger, 2010, p. 184). Building a community of practice requires members to negotiate a balance between disagreement and agreement; participants must agree enough to commit to the community. At the same time, sufficient disagreement is vital to ensure that shared practices do not stagnate. Peer support is what permits these negotiations not to disrupt the sense of community. The tensions between different perspectives within a community pushes the participants to negotiate, and in the negotiation lies the potential for new discoveries and the development of new practices.
Communities of practice can be understood as social learning systems and over time, a history of learning becomes an informal and dynamic social structure among the participants (Wenger, 2010). These structures might also impact on another important often overlooked aspect-the emotional side of undertaking a Ph.D. "There appears to be a lack of recognition regarding the importance and benefits of peer support when evaluating the Ph.D. experience" (Jolley et al., 2015, р. 36). Thus, we argue that communities of practice in the context of Ph.D. studies are dependent on both peer learning and peer support.
Peer Learning
We draw on the concept of peer learning as developed by Boud and Lee (2005). They argue that peer learning is underrepresented in the pedagogical discourse on research education which is instead dominated by a focus on supervision. They suggest that peer learning, appropriately theorized and situated within a notion of communities of research practice, might be a more productive frame through which to view research education. Sampson et al. (2001) define peer learning as a two-way reciprocal learning activity. Peer learning should be mutually beneficial and involve the sharing of knowledge, ideas and experience between the participants. It can be described as a way of moving beyond independent to interdependent or mutual learning (p. 9). Further they highlight the benefit of communication in this learning setting being shaped by "mutual experience and so they are better able to make equal contributions" (Boud et al., 2005, p. 4).
Peer learning as a pedagogical discourse, involves learning with and from peers, fellow students first and foremost, but also co-workers, co-researchers and collaborators within and outside an academic setting. However, reciprocity or "equivalence" of standing, associated with common studenthood, does not in itself guarantee learning. Instead, it requires both formal, structured and informal practices, events and relationships that makeup a complex pedagogical space. Boud and Lee (2005) "identify reciprocity as a key component of peer learning, alongside a horizontalizing of the pedagogical space and expanding of the conceptual resources mobilized by students as self-organizing agents in their own research learning" (Boud & Lee, 2005, p. 514).
The pedagogical spaces are shaped and driven by the engagement of students, and this element of peer learning is a central part of communities of practice as the energy that upholds activity is generated by the participants. This might lead to a misconception that a manager's role in creating formal structures does not have an impact on whether these types of communities exist. Wenger makes a useful distinction here: "we have found that managers cannot mandate communities of practice. Instead, successful managers bring the right people together, provide an infrastructure in which communities can thrive, and measure the communities' value in nontraditional ways" (Wenger & Snyder, 2000, p. 139). Examples of such infrastructure can be available meeting rooms for groups of Ph.D. students in proximity to their office space or organising activities like conferences for Ph.D. students across disciplines and research methods to share experiences and discuss each other's work.
Peer Support
Access to peer support can be an important aspect of establishing communities of practice. According to Mead and MacNeil (2005) the potential outcomes of peer support are diverse but include supporting the evolution of communities in which everyone has a variety of roles and relationships.
Peer support as defined by Mead et al. (2001), is a way of utilizing dialogue to build and evolve alternative perspectives about people's experiences, roles, and relationships. Mead and MacNeil (2005) emphasise that the questions asked in peer support relationships focus on the phenomena itself rather than seeking to define an issue and provide a solution. This changes the direction of the conversation. By creating space to reflect and wonder, the conversation becomes less normative, and solution driven, and invites the sharing of multiple perspectives on the situation. These conversations expose the participants to a potentially larger story that may help them consider other ways of thinking. "Peer support allows post graduate students to teach and learn from each other, share experiences and most importantly develop behaviours that are vital for careers in research collaboration and self-reflection" (Jolley et al., 2015, р. 36).
Ph.D. work can also be framed as emotional labor, where students have to deal with issues like power inequalities (Wang et al., 2023), imposter syndrome (Nori & Vanttaja, 2023) and finding a home-work balance (Vassil & Solvak, 2012). Wang et al. (2023) found that "many students experienced a roller coaster of emotions due to the heavy pressure on research and competition" (p. 1736). There are several potential sources for social support, however, there seems to be something particular about peer support among Ph.D. students that enables them to deal with the varied situations they encounter. The reciprocity in a peer relationship holds the potential to build trust, enabling both people to respectfully challenge each other when they find themselves in conflict (Mead et al., 2001).
Method
Duoethnography
The method we used in this research was duoethnography:
Duoethnography is a collaborative research methodology in which two or more researchers juxtapose their life histories to provide multiple understandings of the world. Rather than uncovering the meanings that people give to their lived experiences, duoethnography embraces the belief that meanings can be, and often are, transformed through the act of research. (Norris et al., 2016, р. 240)
We chose duoethnography as it is based on dialectic reflection, with the opportunity to explore the meaning and reconceptualization of our own stories. This approach allows us to explore our experience through the complex interplay of dialogue, introspection, reflection and consideration (Norris et al., 2016), moving between the existential dimensions of time, space, and relations (van Manen, 2014). While we took this journey together our experiences and how we made sense of them differed. Using the different dimensions allowed us to grasp the differences and similarities of our experiences. A situation that felt impossible to master when we first encountered it, became second nature at the end of our journey. And even if we worked together on preparing for the different steps of undertaking a Ph.D., we experienced different levels of excitement and anxiety.
"Duoethnographies are polyvocal and dialogic. Dialogue within duoethnography functions as a mediating device to promote researchers" development of higher forms of consciousness" (Norris et al., 2016, p. 4). We aim to write our story so readers can "insert their own narrative alongside (or against) those juxtaposed by the duoethnographers. In this way, duoethnography can blur the theory/practice dichotomy" (Schultz, 2017, р. 508). Thus, we have chosen to write this paper following the dialogic spirit of the methodology (Burleigh & Burm, 2022) co-creating the whole text. Each paragraph has been drafted together, alternating between discussing and writing, we have allowed ourselves time to wonder about the nuances in words and memories aiming to find meaning in moments of change and transition.
Duoethnographies seldom follow the linear progression of traditional research, nor did this study (Norris et al., 2016, p. 10). The realisation that our collaboration could be a phenomenon to study came at an academic writing workshop in 2016. One of the professors leading the workshop asked if we had considered documenting our collaboration in a way that meant we could later analyse it. He saw a potential in writing up our experience of the added benefits of collaborating across disciplines and fields of research, so that other researchers and Ph.D. students could draw on our experience to strengthen their own collaborative practices. At first, we found this slightly absurd, but the idea grew on us as we gained more knowledge about autoethnography. We started to systematically record our sessions; a practice that ensures the quality and richness of these data. We also attended a Ph.D. course to learn more about analysing this type of material.
Due to a strict interpretation of GDPR in Norway, and the nature of the data we collected, we had to address secure storage of sensitive data, securing informed consent as well as the opportunity to withdraw from the study. Due to the highly sensitive content of the data, a significant part of the ethical considerations related to what we were comfortable sharing, ensuring that both authors had a veto about what was included in the manuscript. We also included a clause that if one author no longer wanted to participate in the study, all data would be deleted. Following Nord University research policy, we applied for and were granted ethical approval through SIKT, the national agency that provides services to universities and research institutions to ensure data security and knowledge protection (Ref. No. 864000).
Data and Analysis
To create a dataset for the study we undertook a structured approach, methodically searching through both private and work-based communication channels, our digital storage space as well as handwritten notes on printed manuscripts for documented communication. The searches where informed by retrospective dialogue connected to what we found and what we missed. We structured the dataset along a timeline, to ensure that we had rich data for the whole Ph.D. period. Due to finding sections on the timeline where we had less formal contact through workshops and emails, we added other forms of communication like text messages and Teams chats. This process provided a comprehensive dataset including all documented interaction in the period between 1 March 2013 and 31 October 2019 and consists of a range of different modes of communication including email, outlook calendars, chats, text messages, work notes, commented manuscripts, audio recordings of workshops and research diaries. The audio recordings from our collaborative workshops were recorded with the intention of analysing them at a later state.
According to Norris et al. (2016), duoethnography demands a high level of co-reflection and co-activity and both the analysis and the process of writing are collaborative activities. Between May 2022 to May 2023, we recorded retrospective conversations about our experience and collaboration during our doctoral work. In these reflexive dialogues we made use of our two different approaches to exploring phenomena; Kristin, drew on phenomenology searching for meaning and a deeper understanding of lived experience (van Manen, 2014), while Ingunn, focused on the identification of patterns, contradictions and concepts. We utilized our different perspectives, allowing the critical tensions (Norris etal., 2016, p. 4) which is central to duoethnography. We found that this approach acknowledged subjectivity and the researcher's involvement in the construction and interpretation of data and worked well with duoethnography (Charmaz, 2014). Our contrasting positions allowed us to dwell in reflections that accommodated a deeper understanding of our journeys. It provided a space where we could appreciate other qualities in quotes and descriptions than we would be able to notice if we had done the analytical work individually.
Through these conversations we became aware of a temporal dynamic-a change over time. This was often phrased in the audio recordings as "then things changed... our focus shifted... a new level of capacity". This revelation prompted a shift in our conversations from open reflection to searching for patterns and transition points. We revisited previous situations and discussions, focusing on time, modes and topics for communication and work-home balance. We alternated between an aerial perspective on our experience and searching for details in the material. Our retrospective conversations built the broad narrative, recalling situations and emotional transition points which became the building blocks of our stories. This interchanged with going into the written material and audiofiles searching for the details, like change of wording or frequency of communication showing the nuances of our collaboration.
We structured the data in a mind map, creating the outline for the co-creation of the narrative. The last part of the analysis was tightly linked to writing and re-writing the narrative. While working on the narrative, we saw the need to conduct a second layer of analysis, searching for the characteristics to describe our collaboration. Combining the dialogic reflection from duoethongraphy and concept development from constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014) we searched for a metaphor to support the narrative. We used our network of academic friends to try out different metaphors, searching for something that would allow us to show the essence of the different phases of the journey and how the these related to each other. This led to the metaphor of "learning how to swim". This allowed us to show the different phases of our journey highlighting uncertainty, mastering new skills and handling challenges in our lives.
Findings
The Four Phases
Here we present four phases of our Ph.D. journey to becoming researchers. Revisiting the period of our doctoral work through retrospective dialogue and analysis of the collected material, the following four phases emerged: (a) fighting to keep afloat, (b) attempting to swim, (с) refining technique, and (d) diving in. We have used the metaphor of developing skills in swimming to illuminate the different stages of our development as we, at the beginning of our collective journey, felt as if we were drowning (see Figure 1).
Fighting to Keep Afloat
The first phase, from March 2013 to August 2014 included writing project proposals, applying for Ph.D. fellowships and being accepted on a Ph.D. program, as well as applying for research ethics approval. We found ourselves in unknown waters, finding it challenging to navigate the requirements as well as questioning our own abilities and motivation to undertake doctoral work.
In Spring 2013, we were strongly encouraged to apply for Ph.D. fellowships by managers at the University College where we worked, due to the heightened requirements for the formal competence of staff in Norwegian higher education. The University College was in a small rural town and a university with Ph.D. options was three hours' drive away. Being mothers of young children, we were wary of managing the logistics of family life combined with the expectations of doctoral work. However, we both had temporary positions and needed a Ph.D. for tenure.
We worried about balancing doctoral work and family life. Our children were young and needed their mothers to be present. We had to fit driving back and forth to school and kindergarten into the timeframe of working hours. Combining everyday life with travelling to take courses in research methods or collect data seemed like an impossible endeavour. Thus, we had to talk this through with our partners. We both dreaded this; we knew it would affect their lives too, and we were worried they would not support us taking another degree. Not really understanding what the change of position from university teacher to Ph.D. students implied, we had conversations with our partners about the realities of the new positions, like travel, long hours and deadlines, but also emphasised the flexibility the fellowship would provide. We emphasised the positive aspects such as the likelihood of getting a permanent position and having a more stable income. We could work more from home, we said, something we saw as helpful, especially with young children and short school days. We also talked about the limited timespan of the fellowship: "It will only be for a period of 4 years". They were surprisingly positive. Other family members were not as thrilled:
More education? Don't you have enough? (From memory, Kristin's mother)
Is it necessary to always take on things you do not know how to do? Couldn't you keep doing something you do well for a little while? Wouldnt that be nice? (From memory, Ingunn's mother)
They questioned the endeavour. For us, the critical responses made us more convinced that we wanted to try as we were not willing to miss the opportunity. We moved from worrying about family logistics to insecurity about our own abilities. Writing a project proposal of this scale was new to both of us, and we found it challenging. As a University College of Applied Sciences at the beginning of university reforms, the institution where we worked lacked a strong tradition of research and there were few colleagues with a PhD in our Faculty. Thus, we realised that we needed to figure this out together. At this point in time our relationship was pragmatic, it was nice to collaborate, to have someone that was engaged in the same issues, however, there was no emotional connection, yet.
Working at a University College also meant that we had to apply for a Ph.D. program at a different institution. We both chose the closest University, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), located in Trondheim a three-hour drive from our office. Having Ph.D. supervisors at NTNU meant we did not belong to the same everyday work environment, and we did not see them daily. The lack of physical proximity with our supervisors might have led to more contact between us, as we were in the same place. It was easy to ask each other before reaching out to the supervisors, checking if the issue was significant enough to send an email or make a phone call.
There is little written communication between us from this phase of our journey. At this point we were task oriented, addressing specific issues and questions rather than having deep reflective conversations. Most of our collaboration was done as conversations late at night on the sofa in the hallway outside our office doors. We shared our ideas and doubts and encouraged each other to take the next step and to make decisions related to witing up the PhD proposal. We had no prior experience of developing research questions, designing research studies or building research networks. We printed documents and read through and commented on each other's texts. Most of the comments we made at this point were on disciplinary terms and structure rather than research related issues. We were fighting to keep afloat, holding on to each other, but not yet able to see what waited for us in the dark waters.
Attempting to Swim
The second phase, from August 2014 to November 2015, was when we started our Ph.D. projects, attended Ph.D. courses, prepared and conducted data collection. This period challenged us as we were introduced to new theoretical, philosophical and methodological concepts and tried to relate these to our upcoming data collection. At this point we started to attempt some swimming strokes, despite a lack of knowledge and limited competence.
Our PhD projects differed in both topics and methods. Thus, we attended different courses, read and wrote essays about different methods and theories. While Kristin buried herself in intricate discussions on different approaches to phenomenology, Ingunn was reading about grounded theory trying to figure out if it was compatible with a social constructivist perspective. One could draw the conclusion that there was no obvious reason for us to collaborate, however, despite differences in methods, theory and topics, we found that the core issues we were working on were the same; that the people we were studying needed the same thing, to have meaningful relationships and sense of belonging. Often the differences in our projects allowed us to discuss something more profound than the details in a definition or the steps in an analytical approach. The differences became a source of energy in our collaboration, a driving force. This especially came to show when we worked on categories and themes, challenging each other's perspectives. Where Kristin looked for individual lived experience, Ingunn searched for action and patterns on systemic levels. The two analytical approaches supported our interpretation and allowed for a broadened perspective on our data.
During this phase, we developed a structured approach to support each other. We needed a space to talk about both work related issues and life in general and created work sessions. This became a structured way of collaborating that quickly took shape and had three phases: Preparation, The Session, and Follow up (see Figure 2).
The preparation consisted of setting aside time in our calendars, agreeing on an agenda, sharing relevant documents, reading and commenting on written text.
In one of our first sessions the Agenda looked like this:
e Preconceptions
e Preparation for information meeting (Outlook calendar, 9" February 2015)
We split the time in the session in half and took turns presenting and commenting. Initially, we focused on figuring out how things were supposed to be done, later we realized that there was no single right way albeit several alternative ways forward. As time progressed the doctoral work had more parallel processes and the session agendas reflected this. We dedicated whole days so we could address multiple topics:
1. Recruitment Study (Kristin)
2. Information letter (Kristin)
3. Presentation Research Lunch (Kristin and Ingunn)
4. Presentation Tools (Kristin and Ingunn)
5. Poster (Ingunn)
6. Paper (Ingunn) (Outlook calendar, 28% September 2015)
We refined The Session phase by dividing the time into four separate parts; Tune in, Dedicated Time 1, Dedicated Time 2, and Make a Plan:
Tune In. An introductory space to share goals, worries and achievements, and provide an update that holds two dimensions: (1) academic work, and (2) personal life. This part allows each collaborator to explain and together reflect on the current situation, providing a common starting point for the session.
Dedicated Time. Each collaborator gets a timespan where the shared focus is on the predefined problem. Collaborator one presents the problem and what she sees as challenging moving forward, followed by open questions from collaborator two. Both engage in a dialogue focusing on possible ways forward. Then the roles switch, in part three. Following the same steps, collaborator two presents and the other collaborator becomes the discussant.
Make a Plan. In the last part of the session, the collaborators commit to a time plan for when the actions would be completed taking account of the need to balance work and personal life.
These sessions were hands on. We shared a draft for each topic on the agenda beforehand and came prepared. The amount of written material varied as our working styles differed. Ingunn needed to talk through arguments before writing while Kristin needed to write before being able to discuss. The sessions aimed to enhance quality through specific feedback, like redrafting sentences or suggesting an alternative outline, but respected the receiver's choice of how to proceed. Years later we still use this structure when we collaborate, it allows us to focus and use the time efficiently.
In this phase we moved from writing Ph.D. proposals and research plans on paper to "doing research" in the real world, and the stakes felt even higher. We had designed our research projects, and they meant far more to us than everyday work task assigned by our managers. This was ours, and the success of the research was dependent on our ability to transition from proposal to action. We had some experience from minor research projects, but this was our first time as principal investigators. Our background as professional social workers made us confident going into "the field" and we were really looking forward to this aspect of the research. We did not realize how different it was to enter the field as researchers, rather than as practitioners. Ingunn's first day of fieldwork was a harsh lesson in the reality of research. She had planned to do participant observation together with the manager of the research site, a children's health centre. However, formal approval did not ensure real access.
She sat in the waiting room outside the examining rooms for hours, never permitted access to the interactions between professional staff and families (the subject of her research). As the day progressed, initiating contact with the professionals became harder. The fieldnotes include intense descriptions of feeling incompetent and when she left hours later, abandoning participant observation as a research method seemed the only way forward. She phoned Kristin to say there was no point in returning to the site. The response was defining for the collaboration moving forward. There was no "poor you" or "yes, you should probably do interviewing instead." The response was: "I understand that it was a difficult day, sounds horrible. But I believe in your ability to turn this around. Is there something you can do to make tomorrow better? An insider you can contact today?" (From memory, Kristin, phone call 08.04.2015).
At this point we had invested so much in our collaboration that we knew each other well. We had created a safe space for vulnerability, but not pity. We had experienced several overwhelming situations and sought support from each other. When these situations occurred, we immediately contacted the other by phone or email. The initial response was a validation of the distress, but the focus of the rest of the communication was always on finding a way forward. "What is the next step?" "How can I support you so that you will be able to find a way through?" This was one of the experiences that brought us closer together, Ingunn showing vulnerability and being met with both validating the feelings this situation triggered as well as the belief in her ability to find a way forward.
Because our Ph.D. supervisors took very different approaches to engaging in our research and how much they invested in being prepared, this made us uncertain of what to expect. The travel to supervision was time and energy consuming, and the meetings needed to be fruitful. Kristin repeatedly returned from supervision frustrated by the lack of progress, a stark contrast to Ingunn's experience. We discussed the situation on many occasions. Unwilling to go into conflict, Kristin did not want to request a change of Ph.D. supervisors, but as time went by it became clear that there was no alternative. In one of our conversations in May 2016, Ingunn said firmly: "If you do not call the Head of Department and report this, I will. This cannot go on" (from memory). Kristin called and was met with respect and understanding. It changed the course of her Ph.D. journey, moving her from frustration to engagement and creativity.
Our collaboration evolved from trying to stay afloat to attempting to swim our first strokes. We negotiated our roles as researchers through being critical discussion partners for each other, working through all the different facets of Ph.D. life.
Refining Technique
Phase three lasted from November 2015 to January 2017 when we worked on writing up our first out of three articles required for our thesis. This is where we moved from being excited about being able to move in the water to focus on swimming technique, realising that refining our skills was necessary to reach our goal.
We realised that there were a range of aspects of dissemination that we knew nothing about: scientific journals, target groups, genres, academic language and international relevance. This was also when we returned from fieldwork, having travelled a lot in the previous phase. We spent more time at home, but our families reacted tous being distracted. This manifested in critiques of a lack of focus and presence. The complexity of analysis and writing-up findings took alot of our mental capacity, and we found ourselves thinking about work most of the time.
We had tried to decipher the components of a research article through reading articles and analysing them, looking for how they were structured and how methods and findings were presented. This took us part of the way, but the turning point came after attending an academic writing workshop led by three experienced professors. The workshop contained both clear advice for writing scientific articles and hands on peer reviewing of manuscripts. Bringing our work into a setting where the details, structures and language in the manuscripts were scrutinized, inspired us to refine the way we worked in our own structured sessions. The experience provided us with momentum to "up our game". We came back with pages of notes that informed the feedback in our sessions, including a list of questions one of the professors used often during the workshops:
e "What is your research question?"
e "Why would anyone read this?"
e "What is distinctive about your findings?"
e "Which theoretical concepts will you apply?"
e "What does your article add to the literature?"
e "What is the international relevance of this?" (Notes from workshop 4-5 November 2015)
These questions challenged us on a new level, making it evident that we needed a clear argument running through our texts. Our feedback became more direct and sometimes felt brutal. However, the common experience from the writing workshops provided us with a shared understanding of why we needed to go deeper into the details. We constructed outlines for our manuscripts using whiteboards and mind maps, ensuring a clear connection between research questions, literature review, themes and categories and the discussion. To get as much out of the sessions as possible, the preparation and the follow up became more significant. The sessions were planned and created deadlines that pushed the writing forward. There was an expectation of a new version of the manuscript at each successive meeting.
The drive we had in this phase of our Ph.D. journey had a cost. Having young children, we had to leave work at a certain time to pick them up from school and kindergarten. This often meant leaving when we were in the middle of writing a paragraph. Turning off the computer had little effect. Our thoughts were still full of the details of the texts and how to rewrite them. It made it challenging to be truly present in our home life. One example of this that we both experienced was picking up the children and not being able to listen properly to their stories about their day. As our minds were still stuck in some theoretical problem from the manuscript, we had left unfinished.
This phase had stark contrasts. There was a sense of achievement gaining momentum in our doctoral work but tinged with a sense of failure in meeting expectations at home. While we were refining our technique at work, our home game did not have the same upward momentum.
Diving In
The last phase of our doctoral work started in January 2017 and lasted until October 2019, when we both crossed the finish line and graduated with Ph.D. degrees. In this phase, we broadened our horizon, increasing our interaction with the world outside the safe environment of colleagues, Ph.D. supervisors and research collaborators. We had dived in, moving from the shallow safe area by the shore to new unknown waters. We wrote articles, book chapters, editorials, research proposals, made project logos, posters and web pages, presented at international conferences, networked, had research stays abroad and wrote the final version of our theses.
We lifted our gaze from our desks, worrying less about details in specific articles and instead aiming to grasp the contribution and potential impact of our research. While we had been working on our Ph.D. projects, there had been changes in Norwegian Higher Education, emphasising international relevance as a prerequisite for research funding. We realised that building an international network after your Ph.D. was not necessarily that easy and most of our colleagues relied mainly on Norwegian collaborators. We made a choice to take an active role in shaping our future careers. To do this we had to navigate academic codes and cultures, invest time and energy in building international networks and design our next research projects.
In this phase we had less time in the office and instead both travelled and worked more from home. Still, we kept in contact:
This is my third day at Yale University. They have welcomed me, and I am really enjoying it! Many people to get to know, and lots to navigate. But I think I will get a lot from this visit! When I have an overview of the weeks, I will be here, we can plan our sessions. (Email from Kristin, 19.04.2017)
We kept the structure of our sessions, but we became more flexible on where they were held. If we were travelling together, we worked in airports and cars, when apart, we had digital meetings. We learned to distinguish between topics where we needed to sit together in a room with computers and whiteboards, and when we mainly needed to reflect. When the conversation was the most important thing, we found that walking was helpful and established a version of our sessions we named the "Academic Uphill", using the same structure as the ordinary sessions, while hiking up the mountains near the campus. This was most often initiated by a text message, making sure the other one had brought clothes for hiking:
Ingunn: How about an academic uphill tomorrow? I am available all day.
Kristin: Great plan! At the end of the day works best for me (smiling Emoji). (Text message, 01.02.2017, 15:39)
For the most part working together gave us a lot of joy and energy. However, to receive critical comments was sometimes difficult. One time we both remember well was at Kristin's kitchen table, holding the session at her house as one of her children was ill and home from school. In the audio file, Kristin is commenting on a book chapter that Ingunn is working on. We have hours of such discussions in the data. Most of the time Ingunn is eager to engage, providing reflections on Kristin's comments. This day it is different. She is not interested in Kristin's perspective, she feels done with it, expecting only minor comments, and instead what is presented is a need for major revisions. Ingunn is almost quiet, answering with one syllable words and sounds. The tension is evident. Kristin is stuttering searching for words to bring the conversation to a more constructive place. At the end it works. Ingunn slowly starts talking about a part of the text that is not yet written, and subsequently addressing the points made by Kristin. The detour provided her with the space to catch her breath and start dealing with the fact that her text needed more work. At the end of the session, Ingunn sounds like herself again, eager and motivated to get on with the task of writing.
The heightened motivation and energy that the new prospects and achievements provided, was contrasted by the stress of trying to manage other parts of our lives. We often discussed issues of family life as well as how to take care of our own health:
Kristin: It's the 17th of October. Just after a week of school holiday, and we are feeling a bit down (short laughter).
Ingunn: Yes, as simple as that. We are tired, in our bodies and...
Kristin: in life.
Ingunn: Yes. Work is actually not the worst part. It's the fact that the workload is so massive that we should be working more than 100%, but it's just not possible. Not possible from a health perspective, and not when it comes to logistics. It makes us really stressed.
Kristin: Yes. It does not help the physical health.
Ingunn: No, we are not in a perfect place right now.
Kristin: The worst thing is that I can't say anything at home. It will not land well. So, what I have to do is to act calm and balanced, while there is chaos inside. (Workshop, audio file, 17.10.2017)
While Kristin was trying to hide her stress and sense of chaos, Ingunn was more outspoken on the things that she found challenging. The Ph.D. journey had resulted in a change, not just when it came to knowledge and skills, but also in how she thought about her future in general. Her marriage was struggling, and simultaneously with improving her critical thinking skills in academic work, grew a critical view of her own situation. At the start of 2018 it became clear that she was facing divorce. In retrospect, it was the result of many factors, where the Ph.D. was not the cause, but rather the context of the end of a marriage.
Divorce is often a difficult experience logistically and always a painful one emotionally; this was no exception. Work became a place where it was legitimate to focus on other things than the chaotic situation at home, however, to work evenings and weekends to meet deadlines became impossible. In this process Kristin became a confidant and someone who knew more than anyone else about the dilemmas that occurred. The established routine of tuning in at the start of every session, meant that the stress of the divorce and all the challenges related to that was acknowledged but never took over. The structure of the sessions became vital to keep momentum on the project.
However aware we were of the significance of continuity in our collaboration, it became more challenging to find time for workshops while writing up our theses. At this point Kristin's physical health was declining, and she was dealing with a situation at home where everyone was fed up with her working long hours. Trying to keep things together she was working from home, enabling her to do house chores in between the academic work and to be present when the children were leaving for school and coming back. At the same time Ingunn had entered a new managerial role in the university that required more working hours. This meant that it was challenging to find time during the daytime for sessions, and the home situation for both made evening sessions impossible. Early spring 2019 became the part of our Ph.D. journey where we had the lowest level of collaboration. On the 1" of April we had a long talk about the consequences of no longer having regular contact points. We realized what we lost when we did not prioritize time to collaborate and returned to regularly scheduling sessions:
Ingunn: Kristin, you have handed in your thesis. Can you tell me a bit about how you experienced the last part of writing it?
Kristin: I was really frustrated and a bit disappointed, especially with the supervisors. I expected them to follow the last part of the work more closely, they answered questions, but I need more support on the analytical level. I probably should have communicated more clearly about the expectations of supervision in this phase of the work. And you and I have had little contact too, from January to March. I have really noticed that. I did not have you as a discussant partner either. It was very noticeable. At the same time, it was very intense at home. My husband had had enough of the Ph.D. work a year ago, and had no patience left when he realized I was not able to hand in the thesis at the start of February as was my plan. These things made me decide to hand it in, even if 1 was not satisfied with the discussion. Because 1 was about to hit the brick wall. I was not able to do more. I needed space to get back on my feet. I hope I will have the energy to work on it again when I get it back with comments in May.
Ingunn: How has this had an impact on your physical health?
Kristin: Physically? Really bad. My shoulder probably has an inflammation, and I have trouble walking, pain almost all the time, and have gained weight. It has been hard. This was an uplifting conversation (laughter).
Kristin got her thesis approved, and in the preparation for the viva we were back on track prioritizing sessions and each other's work. While planning the trial lecture for the Kristin felt a bit lost and sent the following email:
"Subject: Heeeeeeeeeeeelp! It's just not working... Today's session- has to be on how I can structure the trial lecture" (Email, 07:18, 13th June 2019).
We were back to reaching out when we needed support and had planned sessions in our calendars again. Diving into the ocean of possibilities for academic life post Ph.D. was exciting. We could make out the contours of a future academic career and felt we had some agency in shaping them. The journey of undertaking a Ph.D. had marked us and changed how we enacted our roles as academics, partners and mothers. It had a clear cost; however, the Journey enriched our lives, looking back we are both grateful for the growth and new insights our journeys have gave us. At the end of our Ph.D. journey, we realised that our collaboration would not end with the end at this point but in the new tasks and challenges of building and academic career we would continue to need and benefit from each other's support.
Discussion: A Structured Approach to Survival
Here we discuss the two models, The Structured Model for Collaboration and the Phases of Doctoral Work situated in communities of practice and reinforced by peer learning and peer support.
The Structured Model of Collaboration consists of different components. The community of practice frames the collaboration making it durable over time. While peer support is a vital part of Tune in and Make a Plan, peer learning has a stronger presence in Preparation and Part 1 and Part 2.
Ph.D. projects differ in topic and methods, nevertheless most Ph.D. students encounter common challenges and struggle with similar questions that need reflection and discussion. Despite our different research designs, we were equally committed to gaining a deeper understanding of the phenomena we were studying. Here lies a significant difference between collaboration with a peer and with a mentor. A mentor has more experience and a higher level of competence (Kram, 1983), and access to mentors or Ph.D. supervisors is an important clement of developing academic competence. However, mentors and Ph.D. supervisors do not necessarily have the time or interest to go into the level of detail that novice researchers typically need to gain new understanding. Peer's questions and comments often identify research limitations and can be more direct (Flores-Scott & Nerad, 2012). The common desire to strive to understand more and enhance our research competence constituted our community of practice (Wenger, 1998) and provided the drive to retain the structure of our collaboration over time.
The structured model of collaboration, with regular meetings, provides predictability and reassurance of an upcoming session where questions and intellectual struggles can be dissected and explored. Interactions in such meetings are characterized by a two-way reciprocal learning activity, peer learning (Boud & Lee, 2005). Undertaking a Ph.D. is studying, not just one's own research questions, but also, gaining new knowledge and competencies and undertaking an academic career apprenticeship. The constant pressure to produce essays, articles and a thesis can interrupt and limit the necessary pedagogical space for learning (McPhail-Bell & Redman-MacLaren, 2019). This space is vital and permits meta discussions about our own learning and supporting the learning of the other, as well as the contextual nature of learning (Meschitti, 2019).
Our collaboration can be understood as what Sampson et al. (2001, p. 40) define as a learning partnership, "characterized by openness and active discussions of ideas and processes and provide relevant experience for continuing professional development." The structured model of collaboration provides predictability and carves out space (Beasy et al., 2020) for peer learning. The structure alone, however, is not enough as it is the joint engagement and commitment that drives peer learning.
The start of every session, Tune in, was a safe space to share the realities of life. Listening and asking questions, aiming to understand the phenomena itself and creating a sense of peer support (Mead et al., 2001). It was a space typified by reciprocity, a point of balance where we both engaged with the topics, taking shared responsibility to create a safe space where we could challenge each other to find ways forward. We were peers, both holding a repertoire of roles, finding support in each other, and balancing personal life and academic work. Building the trust needed for reciprocity took time, at the start of this collaboration we did not know each other at a personal level but this grew gradually through the different phases of doctoral work. The activity of tuning in was an important part of the session, it brought the personal life dimension into our academic work, acknowledging its significance but not allowing it to take over. Doctoral work relies on both personal and academic dimensions (Figure 4).
Our structured model for collaboration allowed for the two dimensions of Academic work and Personal life to co-exist throughout all four phases of our Ph.D. journeys. The challenge of dealing with the realities of life outside of academia while progressing through Ph.Ds. is acknowledged by McPhail-Bell and Redman-MacLaren (2019). Their relationship helped them move beyond individual coping narratives. Taking time for dialogue and reflection on "doing academia" they cultivated resilience in their intellectual life as they traversed their pathway to, and into, academia (McPhail-Bell & Redman-MacLaren, 2019). Beasy etal. (2020) also found that everyday life was interwoven through being a Ph.D. candidate, creating challenges to finding enough space to work on the thesis.
Our collaboration was triggered by a feeling of being thrown into deep water but not knowing how to swim and we became each other's life-vests to keep afloat. But the sense of confusion quite quickly was replaced with one of fascination. We had a genuine common interest in deciphering the rules of the academic world we had dived into. We had what Wenger (2010) refers to as a shared engagement in the same practice, we became a mini community of practice constantly negotiating meaning and shaping a common understanding of what it meant to be a competent researcher. This is consistent with the findings of Littlefield and Radosh (2015), in which three doctoral students created a community that provided them with space to develop academically, professionally and personally. While we acknowledged the sessions' central role in boosting motivation and productivity, there were challenges at points in carving out sufficient time to conduct them. A Ph.D. journey is set in a context of many other factors. Family members have expectations of how one should spend their time. Ph.D. supervisors have their ideas of what is the best strategy to finish within time limits. There can be work tasks awaiting after a fellowship which lead to colleagues expecting a candidate to change their focus. A Ph.D. journey takes years and can be all consuming. In some ways it needs to be. However, it can be difficult for outsiders to understand how it can consume so much of a person's focus. Thus, participants in collaborations can find themselves in a crossfire, caught between conflicting interests that could impact their well-being (Levecque et al., 2017). Knowing that prioritizing the collaborative sessions is vital, but carries the risk of being critiqued, both at work and at home, for choosing to do so.
The contrast between collaborating and working alone was what made us choose to prioritise the sessions. We came much further together than we were able to travel on our own. We became catalysts for each other's learning and development. A catalyst increases the rate of a reaction without itself being consumed (Gregen, 2022). We had two separate projects and the final decision of what to take out of any given session was always our own. But on the way, there were many vibrant discussions. The tensions between our different perspectives pushed us to negotiate. We created a space where the balance between common engagement and disagreement made it interesting to invest time and energy in the collaboration. We attended Ph.D. courses, supervisions and writing workshops, read articles and research methods textbooks, and brought new ideas, concepts and questions to the sessions connecting our little community to the world around us. Our community of practice created scaffolding that enabled us to reach further. It moved us into what Vygotsky (1978) defined as the zone of proximal development; a space that allows members to develop competence beyond the level that you would be able to reach on your own.
Here, we see a parallel to research as a practice, it is rarely an individual endeavour. As researchers we collaborate on writing research proposals, in project teams and in co-authoring texts and are dependent on colleagues devoting their time to undertake peer review. FloresScott and Nerad (2012) emphasise the potential in peer learning to do research and scholarship. However, in qualifying to becoming a researcher, Ph.D. programs place little emphasis on the collective aspect of an academic career. Ph.D. training typically focuses on the individual's progress and performance (Beasy et al., 2020; Flores-Scott & Nerad, 2012). We argue that this represents a paradox and creates a tension between the individual focus of doctoral training and the collective practice of research and academic work. When what is communicated as most important, publishing and finishing on time, are presented as individual responsibilities, it can be challenging for Ph.D. students to prioritize taking part in collective activities.
This article is the result of a long writing process, which represents the study's main strengths and its limitations. The strength lies in the comprehensive dataset in combination with an extended analytical process where retrospective conversations and co-writing allowed for reflexivity and wondering. Going back and forth from the dataset and the theoretical concepts enabled us to build models that were based on our unique experiences while gaining a level of distance. While the timeline provided us with perspective, working retrospectively represented some challenges, like remembering timelines, details and situations that could illustrate the turning points. To mitigate this, we used written documentation and audio recordings as triggers for the retrospective conversations. This technique revealed new layers of our story and the nuances that made the phases distinctively different, like how the last phase was about leaving the known safe waters and exploring possible futures, where the phase prior was more focused communicating our findings and writing up our articles.
Concluding Remarks
We argue that research is a collective practice, thus structures that support collaboration must be an integral aspect of doctoral training. There is unrealised potential in promoting communities of peers to enable doctoral students to engage in peer learning and develop competence and an identity as a researcher. In this it is important to acknowledge the dual dimensions of doctoral work and that students live their lives in a context that is wider than the University.
In this article we have reflected on our journey to becoming academic researchers in dialogue with relevant literature in the field. Our collaboration started because of confusion but developed through engagement and common interest, open communication and commitment. Our journey is ours. We do not claim that this is the only path. It might not be for everyone. Still, we believe that the models and concepts we present here can be useful for other Ph.D. students, academics that are interested in jointly developing research competence, managers in Higher Education and policy makers. Drawing on this work we have the following advice to support a broad effort to move from gaining research competence as an individual endeavour to an emphasis on collective activities in research education:
- To the Ph.D. student (and other Academics): invest time in collective activities, like attending writing workshops where you share manuscripts in progress and comment on each other's work. You will learn more and produce better quality research.
- To the managers and leaders in universities: create structures for collaborative activities, like writing workshops or grant application seminars, rather than emphasising speedy publications and the individual Ph.D. student completion. It will create a sense of community, promote wellbeing and might even increase productivity.
- To the policy makers: include collective activities, like attending Ph.D. peer communities, in the criteria used to assess the quality of doctoral programs. This will support a shiftfrom solely focusing on individual productivity measures reinforcing a lone-scholar model and legitimating academic selfishness to reinforcing and building more sustainable and rewarding academic practice.
We did not know each other before we started this journey, but being lost together was better than being lost alone. We were lucky to fall into the water close enough to each other to be able to reach out and become each other's life vest. The collaboration enabled us to reach further than we could ever have managed alone and has shaped our practice as academics today. The differences in our projects could have easily become an excuse not to collaborate but instead it became a source of energy. We grew into the role of the catalyst enabling the other to develop without being consumed by the reaction.
References
Appel, М. L., & Dahlgren, L. С. (2003). Swedish doctoral students" experiences on their journey towards a PhD: Obstacles and opportunities inside and outside the academic building. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 89-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830308608
Ayoobzadeh, М. (2023). Peer-mentoring and doctoral student retention: A longitudinal investigation. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(3), 513-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2106948
Beasy, K., Emery, S., Dyer, L., Coleman, B., Bywaters, D., Garrad, T., Crawford, J., Swarts, K., & Jahangiri, S. (2020). Writing together to foster wellbeing: Doctoral writing groups as spaces of wellbeing. Higher Education Research and Development, 39(6), 1091-1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1713732
Betancor, S. M., & Dorta-González, P. (2020). Risk of interruption of doctoral studies and mental health in PhD students. Mathematics, 8(10),1695-12, Article 1695 https://doi.org/10.3390/math8101695
Bogelund, P. (2015). How supervisors perceive PhD supervision - And how they practice it. International journal of doctoral studies, 10, 39-55. https://doi.org/10.28945/2096
Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). 'Peer learning" as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501-516. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249138
Burleigh, D., & Burm, $. (2022). Doing duoethnography: Addressing essential methodological questions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 16094069221140876. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221140876
Busch, A., Arbo, М. H., & Sripada, К. (2017). PhD working conditions at NTNU with a special focus on PhD candidates with kids (No. DION board 2016/2017). DION The Interest Organization for Doctoral Candidates at NTNU. https://dion.org.ntnu.no/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/DION-Report PhD-WorkCond_PhD with kids.pdf
Carter, S., Blumenstein, M., & Cook, C. (2013). Different for women? The challenges of doctoral studies. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(4), 339-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719159
Castelló, M., Pardo, M., Sala-Bubaré, A, & Suñe-Soler, N. (2017). Why do students consider dropping out of doctoral degrees? Institutional and personal factors. Higher Education, 74(6), 1053-1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0106-9
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2"· ed). Sage.
Dericks, G., Thompson, E., Roberts, M., € Phua, F. (2019). Determinants of PhD student satisfaction: The roles of supervisor, department, and peer qualities. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(7), 1053-1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1570484
Flores-Scott, E. M., & Nerad, М. (2012). Peers in doctoral education: Unrecognized learning partners. New Directions for Higher Education, 2012(157), 73-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20007
Gregen, Е. (2022). Catalyst. In Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/catalyst
Horta, H., & Li, H. (2023). Nothing but publishing: The overriding goal of PhD students in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. Studies in Higher Education, 48(2), 263- 282. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2131764
Jolley, D., Griffiths, A. W., Friel, N., Ali, J. B., & Rix, К. (2015). The importance of peer support during the final stages of a PhD. PsyPag Quarterly, 1(97-5), 36-40. https://do1.org/10.53841/bpspag.2015.1.97-5.36
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. The Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608-625. https://doi.org/10.2307/255910
Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868- 879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008
Littlefield, C. M., & Radosh, M. E. (2015). Organic collaborative teams: The role of collaboration and peer to peer support for part-time doctoral completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 129-142. https://doi.org/10.28945/2113
Lorenzetti, D. L., Jacobsen, M., Clancy, T., & Paolucci, E. O. (2019). A systematic review of graduate student peer mentorship in academia. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 27(5), 549-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2019.1686694
Mbonyiryivuze, Agnes & Dorimana, Aline & Pascasie, Nyirahabimana & Nsabayezu, Mr. Ezechiel. (2023). Challenges affecting women PhD candidates for completion of doctoral educations: A synthesis of the literature. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences,19. 123-134. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajesms.v19i1.9.
McPhail-Bell, K., & Redman-MacLaren, M. (2019). A co/autoethnography of peer support and PhDs: Being, doing, and sharing in academia. The Qualitative Report, 24(5), 1087- 1105. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3155
Mead, S., Hilton, D., & Curtis, L. (2001). Peer support: A theoretical perspective. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 25(2), 134-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0095032
Mead, S., & MacNeil, C. (2005). Peer support: A systemic approach. Intentional Peer Support (IPS). http://www.intentionalpeersupport.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Peer- Support_A-Systemic-Approach.pdf
Meschitti, V. (2019). Can peer learning support doctoral education? Evidence from an ethnography of a research team. Studies in Higher Education, 44(7), 1209-1221. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1427711
Nori, H., & Vanttaja, M. (2023). Too stupid for PhD? Doctoral impostor syndrome among Finnish PhD students. Higher Education, 86(3), 675-691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00921-w
Norris, J., Sawyer, R. D., & Lund, D. E. (Eds.). (2016). Duoethnography: Dialogic methods for social, health, and educational research. Routledge.
Sampson, J., Cohen, R., & Boud, D. (2001). Strategies for peer learning: Some examples. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & J. Sampson (Eds.), Peer learning in higher education (pp. 43- 57). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315042565-9
Schultz, C. S. (2017). 'Working the ruins' of collaborative feminist research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(6), 505-518. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1250175
Shacham, M., & Od-Cohen, Y. (2009). Rethinking PhD learning incorporating communities of practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 279-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903069019
Statistics Norway. (2024). Befokningens utdanningsnivå [The populations level of education]. www.ssb.no/statbank/table/11293
Sverdlik, A., & Hall, N. C. (2020). Not just a phase: Exploring the role of program stage on well-being and motivation in doctoral students. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 26(1), 97-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971419842887
The Research Council of Norway. (2023). Indikatorrapporten [The indicator report]. https://www.forskningsradet.no/indikatorrapporten/indikatorrapportendokument/ menneskelige-ressurser/rekruttering-til-forskning/
Thune, T., Kyvik, S., Sôrling, S., Olsen, T. B., Vabø, A., & Tømte, C. (2012). PhD education in a knowledge society. An evaluation of PhD education in Norway. NIFU Report, 2012(25), 1-135. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/280895 van de Schoot, R., Yerkes, M. A., Mouw, J., Sonneveld, H., & Jolien, M. (2013). What took them so long? Explaining PhD delays among doctoral candidates. PloS One, 8(7), 68839-68839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068839
van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315422657
van Rooij, E., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., & Jansen, E. (2021). Factors that influence PhD candidates' success: The importance of PhD project characteristics. Studies in Continuing Education, 43(1), 48-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1652158
Vassil, K., & Solvak, M. (2012). When failing is the only option: Explaining failure to finish PhDs in Estonia. Higher Education, 64(4), 503-516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734- 012-9507-6
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice: The career of a concept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
1 A catalyst increases the rate of a reaction without itself being consumed (Gregen, 2022).
© 2025. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.