This study is situated within a context of the changing role and value of the university, particularly in terms of a renewed focus on the importance of 'practical' research. It seeks to explore candidates' experiences of the culture of three doctoral research degrees in the School of education, RMIT University. The degrees in question are the Doctor of Philosophy by thesis, the Doctor of Philosophy by project and the Doctor of Education. The research sought to problematise and contest current understandings of doctoral candidates' experiences by highlighting complexities in the process and identifying differences and similarities between each of the three degrees. The main research question is 'How do candidates perceive the respective cultures of traditional, practice-based and professional doctoral education?' A nested, multiple-case study of the three doctoral modes was used to address three sub-questions, which focused on the norms and practices of candidates ; the extent to which their needs and expectations were met; and differences in their notions of research and practice. Differences and similarities between the degrees are analysed, leading to answers to the fourth sub-question which sought to identify what can be learned in terms of supervisor pedagogy and learning support. The research design was underpinned by a Bourdieuian epistemology and a critical theoretical perspective. Bourdieu's theory of practice with its conceptual tools of habitus, field, capital, agent and practice allowed analysis of candidates' experiences and the doctoral structures within which their practice resides through one critical lens. The data revealed many issues common to all doctoral programs. These include the importance of understanding the various habitus' and relative amounts of cultural capital of candidates, and the impact of a perceived lack of learning community. Other findings related to ambivalence regarding the types of cultural and social capital appropriate for do ctoral candidates not aiming to work in an academic environment where these are in conflict with the workplace. Three meta-themes were developed: tensions between and within the field; challenges to autonomous principles; and the importance of habitus and cultural capital in doctoral study. The study added to the literature aimed at increasing understanding of candidates' trajectories toward success in the doctoral field, thereby informing supervisor and learning support pedagogy. Five recommendations were proposed, aimed at producing a vibrant doctoral learning community with a deeper understanding of candidates' issues.

The field of graphic design is an essential part of the contemporary media and communication  landscape, not least as a result of  digitalization where visual content plays a more important role than ever before. Although influential, little research has been conducted in regards to graphic design. The thesis concerns the field of graphic design in Stockholm and poses two research questions. First, which social dynamics and unwritten rules are possible to discern from the graphic design field of Stockholm? Second, what does the interplay between an agent's position in the field and his/hers individual opinion concerning good graphic design look like?  The theoretical framework is centered around Pierre Bourdieu's field theory and its core concepts such as fields, capital, habitus and doxa. These are fundamental cornerstones for the thesis as a whole and used as an analytical framework. Furthermore, six qualitative semi-structured interviews with different actors from within the field were conducted and later analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The results concluded that there are social dynamics and unwritten rules within the graphic design field of Stockholm concerning; talent, education, social climate, norms and values, visual guidelines and the purpose of graphic design. Moreover, all actors agree on one basic premise – if something is to be considered good graphic design it has to fulfill the basic purpose of graphic design. However, when it comes to how that premise is fulfilled, there is a clear interplay between an agent's position in the field and their opinion.