Decentered doctoral pedagogy: a co-autoethnography of collaboration and critical, agentive induction

This paper problematizes the traditional relationship between a doctoral candidate and “supervisor” in terms of its power differential, often characterised as an asymmetric, hierarchical expert/novice dyad. Such a relationship can trap supervisory/advisory relationships in a “transmission” or “training” mode, with candidates receiving “instruction” from “experts”. Though a collaborative co-autoethnography, we offer vignettes of our experiences and reflections on the development of our supervisory relationship, and the impact this has on the production of doctoral work. We demonstrate how we can rethink, disrupt and disorient dominant conceptions of doctoral pedagogy, to build a more collaborative, collegial “decentred” approach to “supervisory/advisory” work.

Drawing on interdisciplinary theoretical and conceptual resources, from cultural sociology, anthropology, organizational studies and education, we argue that the liminal spaces doctoral candidates pass through offer opportunities for relational, productive and decentred pedagogies. Such action possibilities allow supervisors/advisors to construct new ways of valuing candidates’ expertise, and so facilitate their critical inclusion into the academic community.

The paper’s significance lies in the theorization of decentred doctoral pedagogy and its presentation of recommendations for doctoral pedagogic practices, that include a range of pedagogical principles and actions that the doctoral pedagogue might wish to consider.