In this thesis, I apply Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s ontology of becoming to my own learning, thinking and writing. The adopted method - nomadic inquiry, is derived from the philosophising of Deleuze, whose concepts function as pedagogic values that I mobilise throughout my writing and perform – not merely explain, to problematise common perceptions of the thesis, supervision and doctoral experience. Deleuze resists models that inhibit context-specific creativity, yet I can readily identify the defining features of my own supervision: resolutely student-centred, facilitative of free experimentation, supportive of my becoming as an academic subject and the writing through which this was achieved. Non-teleological nomadic writing does not preclude strategic intent. Hence, the thesis records the process of my learning but equally functions as a crucial resource for additional and post-doctoral writing. It was conceived as a ‘body without organs’ – a surface of inscription for affective learning processes arising in a supervisory assemblage where rigid distinctions between self and other proved unsustainable. Contra characterisation of doctoral research as solitary scholarly activity, the heterogeneity and relationality of learning emerges through my writing and in the areas to which I am drawn in my theoretical engagement. I consider former academic experiences and characterise my current supervisory assemblage as rhizomatic - a complex relational space where connections are continually made, but not fixed, in the knowledge-seeking process. Such connections are not wholly undetermined but reveal processes of stratification and destratification. I seek to show that the creative potential of the rhizomatic supervisory assemblage lies in the tensions thereby generated. I also lay bare sedimented resistances that arise as I mobilise the concept of theoretical assemblage and connect with writers like Butler and Cixous. This thesis defies the ascetic ideal pervading normative accounts of doctoral experience, academic textual production and theoretical engagement. It embodies my desire to embrace an ontology of becoming and its pedagogic corollaries.

The privatised interactions between doctoral student and supervisor as they jointly work on the text are the subject of my thesis. To investigate this important yet neglected aspect of supervision, I use data obtained from interviews with seven doctoral supervisory pairs in the social sciences, arts, and humanities in an Australian university. My methodology comprises a series of close-ups to explore feedback relations within supervision and the ways in which meanings are played out for both supervisors and students. The interpretive approach draws upon Foucaultian theory, critical discourse analysis, and (post)critical theory traditions. Accordingly, the power asymmetries between supervisor and student are seen as productive – in the sense of creatively fertile - and not merely synonymous with prohibition or disempowerment. Within five interpretive chapters, I engage with the productive and problematic aspects of supervisory relations, making visible how supervisory feedback assists in the formation of students’ scholarly identities. My analysis examines how the pressures to ensure the production of timely and disciplined thesis texts are impacting on feedback relations. It also examines various ambiguities and tensions such as those embedded in the supervisor’s position as ‘pastor’ and ‘critic’, between asymmetrical and relational power, between the promotion of authorship/autonomy on the one hand, and the preservation of the canon on the other. My discussion highlights the ways supervisors, notwithstanding their authority, attempt to mediate the power disparity through mechanisms such as standing back, withholding and filtering feedback, or using the invitational strategies of ‘under offering’ which downplay the disciplinary nature of their work. I also reflect on what makes acceptance or resistance more or less likely and what promotes/hinders the transition to and reliance on students’ own expertise. Overall, the interpretations I offer suggest that the exercise of power is never straightforward, is opaque and ambiguous and susceptible to misunderstanding and unpredictability. My research thus reveals a picture of social relations that is less orderly and transparent than assumed in the institutional literature and associated guidelines. In particular, the research qualifies the current institutional faith that PhD research/writing is a transparent process, within which supervisors can be trained in the ‘skills’ for providing effective feedback so students can work at an efficient pace and produce predictable results.

Thesis (Ph.D.), Faculty of Humanities, School of Education, University of the Witwatersrand, 2009 / People who hold doctoral degrees are considered valuable national resources able to produce knowledge to address pressing problems, and important sources of labour for the higher education sector. However, in 2006, only 1100 people graduated with doctoral degrees in South Africa. This limits the potential for research and improvements in higher education. In addition, 618 of those graduates were white, making it difficult to address equity concerns. Within the higher education sector there are debates about how to increase enrolments in doctoral education and the best way to run PhD programmes for effective learning, high quality research results and for efficiency. But there is little South African-based empirical research into what makes people undertake PhDs, how the programmes work and what learning and knowledge result. This study explores how different stakeholders – national and institutional policymakers, academic staff and doctoral people – understand the PhD; how these understandings influence the practice of doctoral education; and how different practices affect the PhD experience and the learning and knowledge produced. The primary research question I address is: “How do existing models and pedagogies of doctoral programmes shape the learning of doctoral people and the outcomes of doctoral programmes in South Africa?” The origins of the Doctor of Philosophy degree are often traced back to the nineteenth century reforms of German universities when the idea emerged that all scholars should be actively involved in research. But this is a simplistic view. By examining the evolution of the PhD in greater depth, it becomes clear that it has undergone continuous change and has always served both the high-minded pursuit of knowledge and the more prosaic pursuit of skills for employment. The literature reflects ongoing tension between the scholarly view of the PhD as knowledge generation by an emerging scholar, and the labour market view of the PhD as developing high-level research skills. In the South African context both of these views can be observed, but I also identified a view of the PhD as ongoing personal development through an engagement with knowledge. The three views of the PhD are underpinned by different discourses which inform the practice of doctoral education. In South Africa, the traditional model of individual supervision dominates, and it varies by discipline, department and supervisor. But patterns of practice can be discerned and I identify four of these and discuss how supervisors construct their individual supervision practice. Doctoral education is also a function of the people who do PhDs. Much of the research undertaken in the overdeveloped world focuses on younger people who are starting out on academic careers. However, in South Africa, many people doing PhDs are older and midway through careers which are often not academic. This leads me to propose a model of intersecting contexts, as an alternative to McAlpine and Norton‟s nested context model of doctoral education, which more accurately reflects the local situation. I discuss the PhD experience and make use of the intersecting contexts model to develop the notion of congruence between the PhD, the contexts and the PhD person with more positive experiences being related to higher degrees of congruence. Finally, I consider how the outcomes of doctoral education, the learning and knowledge which result, relate to the expectations of the different stakeholders. The research took the form of a qualitative study with a multiple case-study design employing theoretical replication. I examined doctoral education in four academic units at three South African universities with the units selected to represent different disciplines. All four units were in previously advantaged universities from the English-speaking tradition and all were successfully producing PhD graduates. These rich pictures of how doctoral education takes place contribute empirical evidence to current debates about the PhD in South Africa. At a conceptual level I identify the competing discourses about what a PhD is. I provide a more nuanced understanding of the practice of doctoral education within the overarching model of individual supervision. The intersecting contexts model provides a way to understand the expectations and circumstances of doctoral people and the notion of congruence illuminates their varied experiences. Finally, the study confirms that the outcomes of doctoral education, in terms of learning and knowledge generated, meet at least some of the expectations of policy-makers, supervisors and people who do PhDs.

This research considers the experiences and difficulties that professional doctoral students face and the supervision relationship. Winnicott’s psychoanalytical ideas are used to understand and make sense of the less visible dynamics that shape the professional doctoral students’ narratives. Semi-structured interviews are used to sensitively explore in-depth the nature of difficult experiences. The method of analysis was both compatible with the psychoanalytical theoretical perspective and with the qualitative interview method. The analysis provided an opportunity to listen to and make sense of the professional doctoral students’ narratives in four different ways. The thesis begins with a review of the wider doctoral education research context. Changes, taking place in that context, are considered, looking particularly at the impact of the knowledge economy on doctoral educational research in general and, more specifically, on professional doctoral educational research. Literature within doctoral education highlights supervision models and psychoanalytical supervision models designed for doctoral supervision practice and doctoral student support. Key findings relate to the professional doctoral students’ expectations and the perceptions that shape their difficult experiences. Firstly, professional doctoral students have little knowledge of doctoral supervision before beginning their first doctoral supervision relationship. The professional doctoral students’ expectations and perceptions influence their supervision relationships. When the professional doctoral students negotiate their expectations, they experience a productive working supervision relationship. However, when professional doctoral students exclude difficult experiences from their supervision relationships they do not get an opportunity to make sense of their experiences. Informal pastoral support, such as cohorts, peer groups and families, provide additional space for the professional doctoral students to talk about their difficult experiences. However, this thesis shows that informal support does not provide an academic framework for the professional doctoral student to understand their difficult experience within a doctoral research context. In contrast, this research suggests that the supervision relationship between the professional doctoral student and the supervisor can offer a supervision space informed by Winnicott’s psychoanalytical ideas. In this space supervisors and supervisees can explore difficult professional doctoral student experiences in a creative, playful and academic environment. The thesis concludes by considering the implications for doctoral supervisors and for professional doctoral students. In doing so, I offer recommendations that include points to consider for Higher Education policy, professional doctoral education and supervision training.

The study examined doctoral students‟ perceptions of the doctoral support and services offered by Mississippi State University (MSU). The research design used was descriptive, non-experimental design. Validity of the online survey instrument was established by a panel of experts. Internal consistency and reliability was determined using factor analysis, Cronbach‟s alpha, and test/retest reliability which revealed that the instrument was consistent and reliable. Participants included 172 doctoral students in the seven colleges which offer doctoral programs and 172 doctoral alumni who had graduated within the last 5 years. Data was collected in fall 2009. Responding participants equaled 142 (41% return rate). The results of this study revealed that both current and alumni doctoral students had a moderately positive perception of the doctoral support and services offered by Mississippi State University. The doctoral program of study was considered to be effective and suitable; support and services were considered sufficient and appropriate; doctoral supervision was considered to be sufficient and appropriate by participants. The study showed that doctoral student‟s utilization of external sources of support and services was low, but was perceived as beneficial. The financial support provided was adequate to complete their degrees. Doctoral students funded their degrees primarily through employment. Participants considered that the perceived benefits of obtaining a doctoral degree outweighed the financial cost of its completion. Multiple regression analyses revealed that predictor variables of academic status, race, and college had significant effects on doctoral student‟s perceptions. Alumni had a significantly higher perception of the doctoral support and services than current doctoral students. Speculation as to possible causes of the difference included the psychological phenomenon of memory bias. In addition, Black/African American doctoral students provided a significantly less positive endorsement of doctoral supervision than their white counterparts. Furthermore, doctoral students from the College of Education provided a significantly less positive endorsement of doctoral support and services. This sentiment was supported by the narrative responses. Avenues of future research and recommendation for the university are discussed and presented.The study showed that doctoral student‟s utilization of external sources of support and services was low, but was perceived as beneficial. The financial support provided was adequate to complete their degrees. Doctoral students funded their degrees primarily through employment. Participants considered that the perceived benefits of obtaining a doctoral degree outweighed the financial cost of its completion. Multiple regression analyses revealed that predictor variables of academic status, race, and college had significant effects on doctoral student‟s perceptions. Alumni had a significantly higher perception of the doctoral support and services than current doctoral students. Speculation as to possible causes of the difference included the psychological phenomenon of memory bias. In addition, Black/African American doctoral students provided a significantly less positive endorsement of doctoral supervision than their white counterparts. Furthermore, doctoral students from the College of Education provided a significantly less positive endorsement of doctoral support and services. This sentiment was supported by the narrative responses. Avenues of future research and recommendation for the university are discussed and presented.