“Life is based on reciprocity, so be generous”: ethical work in doctoral acknowledgements

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
B. Grant, Machi Sato, Jules Skelling
{"title":"“Life is based on reciprocity, so be generous”: ethical work in doctoral acknowledgements","authors":"B. Grant, Machi Sato, Jules Skelling","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-12-2021-0082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to explore doctoral candidates’ ethical work in writing the acknowledgements section of their theses. With interest in the formation of academic identities/subjectivities, the authors explore acknowledgements writing as always potentially a form of parrhesia or risky truth-telling, through which the candidate places themselves in their relations to others rather than in their claims to knowledge (Luxon, 2008).\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nDoctoral candidates from all faculties in one Japanese and one Aotearoa New Zealand university participated in focus groups where they discussed the genre of thesis acknowledgements, drafted their own version and wrote a reflective commentary/backstory.\n\n\nFindings\nViewing the backstories through the lens of parrhesia (with its entangled matters of frankness, truth, risk, criticism and duty) showed candidates engaged in complex ethical decision-making processes with, at best, “ambiguous ethical resources” (Luxon, 2008, p. 381) arising from their academic and personal lives. Candidates used these resources to try and position themselves as both properly academic and more than academic – as knowing selves and relational selves.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study bares the ethical riskiness of writing doctoral acknowledgements, as doctoral candidates navigate the tensions between situating themselves “truthfully” in their relations with others while striking the necessary pose of intellectual independence (originality). In a context where there is evidence that examiners not only read acknowledgements to ascertain independence, student and/or supervisor quality and the “human being behind the thesis” (Kumar and Sanderson, 2020, p. 285) but also show bias in those readings, this study advises reader caution about drawing inferences from acknowledgements texts. They are not simply transparent. As examiners and other readers make sense, judgments even, of these tiny, often fascinating, glimpses into a candidate’s doctoral experience, they need to understand that a host of unpredictable tensions with myriad ambiguous effects are present on the page.\n","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-12-2021-0082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore doctoral candidates’ ethical work in writing the acknowledgements section of their theses. With interest in the formation of academic identities/subjectivities, the authors explore acknowledgements writing as always potentially a form of parrhesia or risky truth-telling, through which the candidate places themselves in their relations to others rather than in their claims to knowledge (Luxon, 2008). Design/methodology/approach Doctoral candidates from all faculties in one Japanese and one Aotearoa New Zealand university participated in focus groups where they discussed the genre of thesis acknowledgements, drafted their own version and wrote a reflective commentary/backstory. Findings Viewing the backstories through the lens of parrhesia (with its entangled matters of frankness, truth, risk, criticism and duty) showed candidates engaged in complex ethical decision-making processes with, at best, “ambiguous ethical resources” (Luxon, 2008, p. 381) arising from their academic and personal lives. Candidates used these resources to try and position themselves as both properly academic and more than academic – as knowing selves and relational selves. Originality/value This study bares the ethical riskiness of writing doctoral acknowledgements, as doctoral candidates navigate the tensions between situating themselves “truthfully” in their relations with others while striking the necessary pose of intellectual independence (originality). In a context where there is evidence that examiners not only read acknowledgements to ascertain independence, student and/or supervisor quality and the “human being behind the thesis” (Kumar and Sanderson, 2020, p. 285) but also show bias in those readings, this study advises reader caution about drawing inferences from acknowledgements texts. They are not simply transparent. As examiners and other readers make sense, judgments even, of these tiny, often fascinating, glimpses into a candidate’s doctoral experience, they need to understand that a host of unpredictable tensions with myriad ambiguous effects are present on the page.
“生活是建立在互惠基础上的,所以要慷慨”:博士致谢中的伦理工作
目的探讨博士生在论文致谢部分的伦理工作。出于对学术身份/主观主义形成的兴趣,作者探索了致谢写作,认为它始终是一种潜在的模仿或冒险的真相讲述形式,通过这种方式,候选人将自己置于与他人的关系中,而不是他们对知识的要求中(Luxon,2008)。来自一所日语大学和一所新西兰Aotearoa大学所有学院的设计/方法论/方法学博士候选人参加了焦点小组,在那里他们讨论了论文致谢的类型,他们起草了自己的版本,并写了一篇反思性的评论/背景故事。通过鹦鹉学舌(坦率、真实、风险、批评和责任等纠缠在一起的问题)的视角来看待背景故事表明,候选人参与了复杂的道德决策过程,他们的学术和个人生活充其量只能产生“模糊的道德资源”(卢森,2008,381)。候选人利用这些资源,试图将自己定位为适当的学术性和超越学术性的自我——认识自我和关系自我。独创性/价值这项研究揭示了撰写博士论文的道德风险,因为博士候选人在“真实”地看待自己与他人的关系,同时展现出必要的智力独立(独创性)姿态之间的紧张关系。在有证据表明,考官不仅阅读鸣谢以确定独立性、学生和/或导师的素质以及“论文背后的人”(Kumar和Sanderson,2020,第285页),而且在这些阅读中也表现出偏见的情况下,本研究建议读者谨慎从鸣谢文本中进行推断。它们不仅仅是透明的。当考官和其他读者对这些微小的、往往引人入胜的、对候选人博士经历的一瞥做出有意义的判断时,他们需要明白,页面上存在着一系列不可预测的紧张关系,并产生了无数模糊的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信