18 Democratising Doctoral Education: The Within/Between/Extended Cohort Model of Support
Roberto H. Paradaa and Claudio Díazb
aSchool of Education, Western Sydney University, Australia
bDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Concepción, Chile
Abstract
The relationship between doctoral candidates and supervisors remains central to successful research training, yet traditional master‒apprentice models face growing pressures from institutional demands, workload intensification, and increasingly complex research agendas. This chapter explores the shift towards collaboration and extended supervisory models that democratise doctoral education by emphasising interdisciplinarity, inclusivity and socially engaged research. We argue that shared supervision across faculties, institutions and nations offers opportunities to diversify epistemologies, embed decolonial and participatory methodologies, and enhance equity of access. The within/between/extended model is proposed to formalise these practices by integrating intra- and inter-institutional collaboration with cross-border supervision, thereby expanding candidates’ access to expertise, resources and global perspectives. Existing models such as residencies, Dual Awards and online supervision are rarely used in doctoral education; however, they offer the structural underpinnings for the Within/Between/Extended (WBE) model. Ultimately, democratised doctoral education fosters methodological pluralism, shared learning and global partnerships, preparing doctoral graduates for impactful roles within and beyond academia.
Keywords
doctoral education, cohort supervision, democratising education, doctoral supervision
The relationship between doctoral student and supervisor is at the core of the successful doctorate. It is well acknowledged that this relationship can foster timely completion, well-being and set the tone for the doctoral graduate’s overall research experience and future academic career (Dominguez-Whitehead & Maringe, 2020; Fossland, 2023). Traditionally, supervision in education and other disciplines has followed a “master–apprentice” model (Yeatman, 1995), characterised by close one-to-one relationships and personalised mentorship. In recent decades, however, escalating academic workloads, stricter completion timelines and institutional pressures for higher throughput have challenged this model’s sustainability (Robertson, 2017). At the same time, increasingly complex research problems demand broader expertise, prompting the development of alternative supervisory approaches designed to balance efficiency with quality support. A key response from academic institutions around the globe has been the adoption of collaborative supervisory models (McKenna & van Schalkwyk, 2023), which move beyond one-to-one or co-supervision to promote shared learning and collective support. These new models of doctoral supervision emphasise interdisciplinarity, employability, collaborative research, societal impact, and practice-based learning, and aim to prepare candidates for roles in the public, private and non-profit sectors, expanding beyond academia. In this chapter, we argue that taking an expanded practice of shared supervision models can offer significant opportunities to democratise doctoral education as a whole. In particular, it provides an opportunity for democratising doctoral education by encouraging greater diversity, equity, and inclusion not only in relation to access to doctoral education but also in terms of interknowledges, interculturality and interepistemic methodologies.
Democratising Knowledge Production and Embracing Methodological Pluralism
Democratising knowledge production in higher education implies challenging the linguistic and cultural hegemony in academia and promoting multilingual and culturally inclusive research. This embraces the idea of preparing researchers to be agents of change who value research in multiple languages and non-Western epistemologies. In this context, an agent of change is not just a knowledge producer, but someone who works hard to break down elitist barriers in academia and promote socially relevant, transformative knowledge (Law, 2004).
At the same time, democratising research involves non-academic stakeholders, communities, practitioners and society in the co-production of knowledge, in which research is done with people, not on them. It also pushes curriculum development in higher education institutions to embed critical theories and decolonial thinking, and to include community engagement, reflexivity and social justice as core components (Davies, 2002; Wells, 2008).
This view of research also challenges the traditional research-subject hierarchy and advocates for collaborative knowledge production with marginalised communities. It also questions the ethical and cultural rationales, encouraging researchers to adopt participatory, dialogic and socially just methodologies. A more democratic perspective of research sees the social reality as non-fixed but constructed through networks of relationships which are dynamic, stabilised or disrupted (Green et al., 2023).
Babri (2024), for example, explores how researcher positionality could serve as a democratising force in qualitative research. She argues that embracing reflexive positionality allows researchers to challenge traditional hierarchies and binaries in academic knowledge production. Her openness to diverse empirical voices includes those often marginalised in mainstream research and encourages researchers to embrace complexity and ambiguity in research, offering a framework for decolonising and democratising research practices by valuing multiplicity and resisting reductionism.
Democratising research also involves advocating for methodological pluralism as a way to challenge dominant paradigms, including marginalised voices, to support critical approaches that question power structures and then allow researchers and practitioners to engage in reflexive and culturally responsive inquiry (Taylor et al., 2012). This approach not only enhances the richness and validity of research findings but also democratises the research process by legitimising multiple ways of knowing. It also allows researchers to capture the complexity of socio-educational contexts, as no single method can do so, and to value the use of diverse epistemologies.
Methodological pluralism is of importance in higher education research as it is not just about employing multiple research methods but also recognising the researchers’ limits of their own disciplines (Rosales & López, 2021). It is essential for interdisciplinary research and particularly relevant when complex socio-educational phenomena require insights from different disciplines that can collaborate across boundaries.
Democratising doctoral supervision implies challenging traditional, hierarchical models of supervision and promoting collaborative, dialogic relationships between supervisors and advisees. It requires, on the one hand, redefining expertise to include relational competencies and, on the other, supporting supervisory quality recognising candidates’ diversity, backgrounds, languages and epistemologies. Supervisors and advisees are part of a loop of co-learning and co-construction of knowledge. Democratising supervision also means empowering students to take ownership of their research in supervisory frameworks that are context-sensitive, allowing for diverse expressions of mentorship.
From a traditional perspective, Haley et al. (2023) analyse supervisors’ competencies from doctoral students’ perspectives identifying 5 core competencies: (1) domain knowledge defined as expertise in the subject area, (2) research methodology understood as the ability to guide rigorous research, (3) pedagogical component which emphasises teaching and mentoring skills, (4) relationships that aim at the emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills, and (5) functional aspects which target administrative and organisational abilities.
Based on the transformative changes in doctoral education, Guarimata‑Salinas, Carvajal and Jiménez (2024) identify that it is undergoing a process of “resignification” that calls for a shift in the functions of a doctoral supervisor who should be more flexible and context-sensitive to value the richness and complexity of linguistic and cultural diversity, foster inclusivity and promote effective communication within the global academic community.
The Complex Knowledge Generation Landscape of Doctoral Programmes
Doctoral education not only aims to generate original knowledge but also to contribute to the specialisation of professionals who can contribute to innovation and society development (Shin et al., 2018). Doctoral education has undergone multidimensional and significant transformations over the last three decades, emphasising interdisciplinary research, societal engagement, transferable skills and professional development components. There is, however, an urgent need to shift doctoral education from elite academic preparation to broader societal relevance.
Adapting to more complex scenarios implies addressing global challenges that require multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and pluridisciplinary approaches. It also means engaging with the economic and political sectors and civil society and navigating the global trend of standardisation in local contexts that will always exhibit significant diversity and social specificities (Cardoso et al., 2022). This showcases that there is a growing need for preparing doctoral graduates for careers beyond the academic world, who can develop complex problem-solving and innovation capacities (Sarrico, 2022).
A very important part of democratising research is identifying that knowledge generation in low-income countries is often not the same as in high-income countries. There are contextual constraints that affect collaboration, funding, internationalisation, research productivity and career paths (Taylor & Wisker, 2023). In high-income countries, doctoral education is often embedded in universities with strong institutional support, research training, quality assurance mechanisms, internationalisation, interdisciplinary research and collaboration with society. In contrast, in low-income countries, doctoral education is less responsive to diverse career paths, innovation strategies, society demands, international collaboration and research productivity (Cardoso et al., 2022). This is partly due to the lack of adequate funding, infrastructure, and supervisory capacity, often falling into the reliance on northern-southern hemisphere partnerships, which may be unequal in terms of agenda and resource sharing.
The Within/Between/Extended Cohort Model of Support
Doctoral education has evolved significantly over the past two decades, shifting from a traditional master‒apprentice model to a more multidimensional approach. Doctoral candidates are now more diverse and come from a wider range of backgrounds. Forming doctoral candidates involves a complex interplay of educational transformation, supervisory competence and mentoring relationships. McKenna and van Schalkwyk’s (2023) review of doctoral supervision models described in the literature between 2000 and 2021 highlights a global trend towards group supervision, which moves beyond one-to-one or co-supervision to promote shared learning and collective support. The literature identifies three common formats: peer cohort supervision, where one supervisor oversees a group of students who support each other (Bagaka’s et al., 2015; Browne-Ferrigno & Maughan, 2016; Hutchings, 2017); cohort-based advisory teams, where a supervisory panel collectively guides each student (Bitzer & Albertyn, 2011; Dominguez-Whitehead & Maringe, 2020; Van der Laan et al., 2021); and matrix supervision, in which a cohort of students is paired with supervisors offering complementary expertise (Bagaka’s et al., 2015; Choy et al., 2015; De Lange et al., 2011; Dominguez-Whitehead & Maringe, 2020). While each has limitations, together they reflect a systemic shift towards collaboration as a defining feature of doctoral education.
This shift has reinforced the importance of ongoing supervisor development. Effective supervision requires continuous learning, and even experienced supervisors seek guidance from peers and training programs (Houston, 2024). Programs may address specific needs, such as supporting Indigenous candidates (Guerin, 2024), or focus on broader supervisory practices (Chen & Shen, 2024; Kiley, 2011).
Parallel to these formal measures, Communities of Practice (CoPs) have emerged as important forums for supervisors to exchange experience and develop new practices. CoPs draw from the strengths of their members, encouraging interaction to engage in collaborative learning and have been widely applied to shared supervision models around the world (Shacham & Od-Cohen, 2009). CoPs can support supervisors at all career stages, and can also include professional staff or doctoral candidates (Choy et al., 2015). By fostering collegiality and shared learning, CoPs complement formal training and strengthen supervisory capacity (Wilde et al., 2022). The integration of collaborative supervisory models, structured professional development and CoPs signals a profound reorientation of doctoral supervision towards more collective practices.
These shared supervision models have generally been practised within university faculties, that is, academics linked to a faculty supervising their own faculty candidates. There are occasions in which other faculty supervisors (within the same institution) may be part of the candidate’s supervisory panel (between faculty supervision), however, the general rule is that the supervision is a within faculty practice. This default position has many advantages, however, it has an intrinsic disadvantage of limiting supervision to faculty available expertise, resources and supervisor-centric characteristics, such as cultural background, languages spoken, and preferred ontological and epistemic predispositions. Growing numbers of enrolments in doctorates can also cause significant pressure on faculties and reduce the availability of supervisors. Although there are excellent practices in academic institutions to maximise access for doctoral candidates (Cardoso, 2024), organisational structures can both promote excellence in access and/or inadvertently contribute to fewer opportunities being available (Hallet et al., 2025).
We propose a recognition and formalisation of these supervisory arrangements, including the adoption of shared supervision models within and between faculties in academic institutions and further suggest that the shared model of doctorate supervision provides an inherent opportunity to democratise doctoral education in the manner we described earlier.
The model we wish to formalise is one that recognises the advantages of the within shared supervision model, but adds between faculty participation, and extended participation by the recognition of cross-institutional (for example, different universities), both national and international panel members to the supervision of the doctoral candidates. A WBE model (see Figure 1 below) of shared supervision is inherently democratic by encouraging the sharing of resources and dialogue across faculties and institutions; it creates diversity in supervisory panel members; it provides opportunities for panel members to supervise diverse types of students, it engages academics across disciplines in conversation, and provides candidates access to knowledges that are “locked in” within faculties or institutions.
Extended Models of Doctoral Education
Extended models of doctoral supervision designed to encourage national and international collaboration, open access to academic resources, peer support, professional development and incorporate access to supervisors from multiple institutions exist in some shape or form, but are not the norm in doctoral supervision. Residencies, for example, are set for limited periods of time in which doctoral candidates attend a host university for intensive study, supervision, and training. Dual (or Joint/awards) offers the doctoral candidate an opportunity to enrol in two (national or international) universities simultaneously. Supervisory arrangements are shared between the universities, and a single jointly conferred degree is obtained by the candidate. Open Distance Learning (ODL) involves, in some instances, entirely online doctoral degrees delivered via video conferencing, collaborative writing tools and research management apps.
Formal research on the outcomes of these supervisory arrangements is scarce. There are some intrinsic advantages and disadvantages to each. Residencies and Dual Awards can pose a significant financial burden on the doctoral student if not offset by a scholarship, while ODL has the risks of isolating candidates (Netshitangani et al., 2021; Sverdlik et al., 2018). However, some evidence exists of the benefits they may impart. For example, extended cross-institutional supervision may be of particular benefit to minorities, including Indigenous peoples, who may wish to be supervised by external members but are themselves in remote areas, attend developing institutions, or may not have access to an Indigenous or minority supervisor at their institution but nevertheless wish to remain there. Grant and Pearson (2007) describe an Aotearoa, New Zealand initiative aimed to assist Māori and Indigenous doctoral candidates to have access to a wide network of supervisors across several universities in that country. Although based at the University of Auckland, satellite groups are based around the country who collaborate in writing retreats and facilitate Māori and non- Māori academics from various institutions to contribute their expertise in the development of doctorate candidates. Similarly, Netshitangani and colleagues (2021) explored the experiences of doctoral students enrolled in ODL doctorates in South Africa. Although some students did report being less supported, this was not necessarily the norm. Several of the interviewed candidates reported satisfactory support. Highlighting the costs vs benefits for territories such as Africa, including greater access for isolated students, they encouraged the development of CoP (see above) and adoption of technologies as they arose to provide greater support to students in ODL programs.
Residencies, Dual Awards and Online supervision practices indicate that the structural underpinnings to expand extended supervision models already exist in most institutions. Nevertheless, it is also likely that this expansion may be hampered by the same difficulties that plague traditional supervision arrangements. Chief among these from a supervisory perspective is recognition of supervisory time, and from the student perspective is receiving ongoing support (see Askew et al., 2016; Hwang et al., 2015; O’Meara & Jaeger, 2023; Sverdlik et al., 2018). In many ways, these difficulties are tied up to the allocation of workloads for academics who participate in extended supervision practices such as those proposed here. This recognition varies significantly between institutions and may not include adequate workload allocation for the academic who is outside the doctoral student’s home institution (Kenny & Fluck, 2022; Kumar & Wald, 2023). The International Association of Universities (IAU),[1] a member based organisation representing more than 600 higher education institutions from 130 countries, together with UNESCO, have recognised that international cross-collaboration by higher education institutions is key to meeting the Economic Sustainable Development Goals (ESD) for 2030 and beyond.[2] Organisations such as these may assist in the development of structures and policies to facilitate extended supervision models. For example, a first step may be for international cross-institutional memorandums which encourage extended supervision by including the acknowledgment of workload for academics and credit for doctoral students who participate in extended supervision arrangements in the institutions where they are based. They may also offer incentives for conducting research on the enablers, inhibitors, and outcomes for institutions and doctoral students of such programs.
Figure 18.1:
Within / Between / Extended (WBE) Model
Final Thoughts
Shared supervision models are becoming the norm in most academic institutions around the world that offer doctoral education programs. Known as Cohort Supervision or CoP, this shared supervision includes greater flexibility, access to diverse knowledges, and exposure to pluralistic ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. The norm for the practice of shared supervision models, however, is for doctoral candidates to be supervised by academics from within or between faculties in the same institution. Variations to these arrangements are present in scattered form through programs such as dual award programs, residencies and instances of supervision made possible by online services. We refer to these models as extended supervision models. These extended supervisory arrangements are rare, can impose financial burdens which restrict their practices, may isolate students and may inadequately recompense the academics involved, thus hampering their wide adoption. We argue that shared supervision models, but in particular extended supervision models, are aligned with the democratisation of doctoral education. The democratisation of doctoral education has the immediate consequences of increasing the ability to enhance doctoral training quality; distributing the access of doctoral supervision to marginalised, isolated, capable students; encouraging innovation through multiple ontologies and pluralistic methodologies; and strengthening global research and collaboration. The institutional structures are already in place to make this a reality; all that is required is thinking beyond the within and between paradigms of supervision and embracing a global extended approach to doctoral education.
Author Note
Roberto H. Parada 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2225-0145
Claudio Díaz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2394-2378
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Roberto H. Parada. Email: r.parada@westernsydney.edu.au.
Acknowledgments
In the context of the Diálogos Sur Sur: Southern Knowledges Symposium ‒ Education, Sustainability and Social Change, held from 9 to 11 September 2024, Dr Juan Pablo Valenzuela, Dr Vicente Sisto, Dr Roberto Parada and Dr Claudio Díaz participated in the panel entitled Higher Degree by Research Programs: WSU and Collaborating Institutions. This chapter acknowledges the collective contributions and ideas shared during the panel, which aim to advance the democratisation of knowledge production in higher education.
Dr Claudio Díaz acknowledges support from “Doctorado en Educación” at Universidad de Concepción, Chile and the research grant 1251013 “Intervención en las concepciones y prácticas de evaluación formativa y estudio de su relación con la autoeficacia, el autoconcepto, la autoestima y la identidad profesional de futuros profesores de inglés”.
Dr Roberto H. Parada acknowledges the research support and assistance provided by Dr Carroll Graham. He would also like to thank and pay his respect to the Darug people; Elders past, present, and emerging, on whose ancestral lands this work was carried out.
SDG Alignment
Goal 4: Quality education
Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth
Goal 10: Reduced inequalities
Goal 17: Partnerships for the goals
Cite This Chapter
Attribution
Research Integrity Statement
Ethics approval was not required for this publication as it does not report primary research involving human participants, identifiable human data, or animals.
The authors declare no known competing financial or non-financial interests that could have influenced the content of this publication.
References
Askew, C., Dixon, R., McCormick, R., Callaghan, K., Wang, G. Y., & Shulruf, B. (2016). Facilitators and barriers to doctoral supervision: A case study in health sciences. Issues in Educational Research, 26(1), 1-9.
Babri, M. (2024). Method as democratizing; through researcher positionality and empirical inclusivity. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 19(2), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-06-2023-2544
Bagaka’s, J. G., Bransteter, I., Rispinto, S., & Badillo, N. (2015). Exploring student success in a doctoral program: The power of mentorship and research engagement. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 323-342. https://doi.org/10.28945/2291
Cardoso, S. (2024). The transformation of doctoral education: responding to the needs and expectations of society and candidates. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(8), 2205–2215. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13562517.2024.2306255
Cardoso, S., Santos, S., Diogo, S. et al.(2022).The transformation of doctoral education: a systematic literature review. Higher Education 84, 885–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00805-5
Chen, S., & Shen, W. (2024). China. In V. Kumar & N. Wald (Eds.), Global perspectives on enhancing doctoral co-supervision(pp. 21–32). Springer Nature.
Choy, S., Delahaye, B. L., & Saggers, B. (2015). Developing learning cohorts for postgraduate research degrees. The Australian Educational Researcher, 42, 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-014-0147-y
Davies, L. (2002). Possibilities and limits for democratisation in education. Comparative Education, 38(3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006022000014124
De Lange, N., Pillay, G., & Chikoko, V. (2011). Doctoral learning: A case for a cohort model of supervision and support. South African Journal of Education, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.15700/ saje.v31n1a413
Dominguez-Whitehead, Y., & Maringe, F. (2020). A cross-national analysis of PhD models. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 22(3), 233-245. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJCED-01-2020-0003
Fossland, T. (2023). Becoming a professional supervisor: Doctoral supervisors’ development in a mandatory, large-scale development programme. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 5(2), 27-52. https://doi.org/10.47989/kpdc429
Grant, B., & Pearson, M. (2007). Approaches to doctoral supervision in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. In C. Denholm & T. Evans (Eds.), Supervising doctorates downunder: Keys to effective supervision in Australia and New Zealand (pp. 11-18). ACER Press.
Green, M., Little, A., Dobson, E., Glover, O., & Patterson, J. (2023). Humanising research relationships: Democratising education-based enquiry with student researchers. Research in Education, 121(2),217-231.https://doi.org/10.1177/00345237231213575
Griffin K. A. (2020). Rethinking mentoring: Integrating equity-minded practice in promoting access to and outcomes of developmental relationships. In A.Kezar, & J. Posselt (Eds.), Higher education administration for social justice and equity: Critical perspectives for leadership (pp. 93–110). Routledge.
Guarimata-Salinas, G., Carvajal, J.J. & Jiménez López, M.D. (2024). Redefining the role of doctoral supervisors: A multicultural examination of labels and functions in contemporary doctoral education. Higher Education, 88, 1305–1330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01171-0
Guerin, C. (2024). Australia. In V. Kumar & N. Wald (Eds.), Global perspectives on enhancing doctoral co-supervision (pp. 7–19). Springer Nature.
Haley, A., Holmqvist, M., & Johansson, K. (2024). Supervisors’ competences from doctoral students’ perspectives – a systematic review. Educational Review, 77(6), 1971–1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2024.2306938
Hallett, F., Collinson, C., Ferguson, A., & Woolhouse, C. (2025). Equity in doctoral education: Policy or action? In F. Hallett (Ed.). Debates in doctoral education: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 27-40). Routledge.
Houston, G. (2024). How supervisory practice is shaped and developed. In K. Clegg, G. Houston & O. Gower (Eds.), Doctoral supervision and research culture (pp. 61-73). Routledge.
Hwang, E., Smith, R. N., Byers, V. T., Dickerson, S., McAlister-Shields, L., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Benge, C. (2015). Doctoral students’ perceived barriers that slow the progress toward completing a doctoral dissertation: A mixed analysis. Journal of Educational Issues, 1(1), 165-190.
Kenny, J., & Fluck, A. E. (2022). Emerging principles for the allocation of academic work in universities. Higher Education, 83(6), 1371-1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00747-y
Kumar, V., & Wald, N. (2023). Ambiguity and peripherality in doctoral co-supervision workload allocation. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(4), 860-873. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2115984
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. Routledge.
McKenna, S., & van Schalkwyk, S. (2023). A scoping review of the changing landscape of doctoral education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 54(6), 984-1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2023.2168121
Netshitangani, T., & Machaisa, P. R. (2021). Supervision experiences of postgraduate students at an ODL institution in South Africa. Cogent Social Sciences, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311886.2021.1970442
O’Meara, K., & Jaeger, A. J. (2023). Preparing future faculty for community engagement: Barriers, facilitators, models, and recommendations. In L.R. Sandmann & D.O. Jones (Eds.), Building the field of higher education engagement : Foundational ideas and future engagements (pp. 111-131). Routledge.
Pásztor, A., & Wakeling, P. (2018). All PhDs are equal but … Institutional and social stratification in access to the doctorate. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(7), 982–997. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01425692.2018.1434407
Robertson, M. J. (2017). Team modes and power: Supervision of doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 358-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1208157
Rosales, J. & López, R (2021) Introduction: Exploring methodological pluralism in intellectual and conceptual history. Global Intellectual History, 6(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/23801883.2019.1657635
Sarrico, C.S. (2022).The expansion of doctoral education and the changing nature and purpose of the doctorate. Higher Education, 84, 1299–1315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00946-1
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
Shin, J. C., Kehm, B. M., & Jones, G. A. (2018). Doctoral education for the knowledge society: convergence or divergence in national approaches? Springer.
Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 361-388. https://doi.org/10.28945/4113
Taylor, P. C., Taylor, E., & Luitel, B. C. (2012). Multi-paradigmatic transformative research as/for teacher education: An integral perspective. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education(pp. 373–387).
Springer.Taylor, S. & Wisker, G. (2023) The changing landscape of doctoral education in the UK. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 60(5), 759-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2237943
Vekkaila, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2016). Doctoral student learning patterns: Learning about active knowledge creation or passive production. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(2),222-235.https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n2p222
Wells, R. (2008). The effect of education on democratisation: a review of past literature and suggestions for a globalised context. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14767720802058849
Wilde, J. D., Cavalli, G., & Fuller, S. (2022). Online communities of practice for academic practice and a sense of belonging. In J. Sheldon & V. Sheppard (Eds.), Online communities for doctoral researchers and their supervisors: Building engagement with social media (pp. 83-94). Routledge.
Yeatman, A. (1995). Making supervision relationships accountable: Graduate student logs. Australian Universities’ Review, 38(2), 9-11. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ523102.pdf