Telling Stories: A Thematic Narrative Analysis of Eight Women’s PhD

Experiences

Lesley Jane Birch

[Link]. (Hons), [Link]

School of Communication and the Arts

Faculty of Arts, Education and Human Development
Victoria University

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

April 2011
 Abstract
This research examined eight women’s stories about their PhD experiences to explore
their lived experience of this journey and if gender was a consideration in their PhD
journey. The aims of this thesis were firstly, to provide a more in-depth understanding
of women’s decisions to participate in doctoral education; and secondly, to provide a
more in-depth understanding of women’s experiences in undertaking doctoral degrees
and the factors that increase their chances of successful completion. Using thematic
narrative analysis, the study found that motivation to do a PhD is multi-faceted. In some
instances the motivations were complementary, such as a personal interest in the topic
and/or the discipline and wanting to begin or build an academic career. In some cases
they were incongruent – being awarded a prestigious scholarship was motivation for
one woman to start her degree, but the departmental pressure and expectations that went
along with it were de-motivating.

The second important finding was in relation to effective supervisory models. Several
key factors were central to effective supervision. These include: due diligence in
choosing a supervisor/s; two supervisors are essential for effective supervision; a team
approach empowers the student; clear communication of expectations and boundaries
by all parties; encouragement and support, especially during rough patches; availability
and timely, consistent feedback from the supervisor are critical to successful
completion; having a female supervisor does not necessarily produce a good
supervisory relationship for female students and good supervision helps students to
build their academic careers and introduces them to scholarly networks.

A third finding was that resilience is a key component in successfully navigating

through PhD candidature. This includes: learned resilience in formative years; strong
self-knowledge and focus and the ability to find peer support and connect can help to
build resilience.

A further issue was that most of these women did not proceed to PhD research after
completing an undergraduate degree and therefore greater flexibility in university
policies and procedures is required to open up opportunities for other groups of
students. Another significant finding was that women in this research were able to
combine research and having babies. Finally, this research suggests that the gendering
of academic careers begins during PhD candidature where some supervisors and
Departments treat women differently to male PhD students.
ii
I, Lesley Jane Birch, declare that the PhD thesis entitled “Telling Stories: A Thematic
Narrative Analysis of Eight Women’s PhD Experiences” is no more than 100,000 words
in length including quotes and exclusive of tables, figures, appendices, bibliography,
references and footnotes. This thesis contains no material that has been submitted
previously, in whole or in part, for the award of any other academic degree or diploma.
Except where otherwise indicated, this thesis is my own work.

Signature: Date:

iii
This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Ann and Ross, for their love, unwavering belief,

constant support and encouragement not only in my academic pursuits, but in

everything I do.

iv
 Acknowledgements

This PhD has been part of my life for an extended period of time and it would have
been much more difficult, if not impossible, for me to have reached the end of this
process without the ongoing support and encouragement of many people – family,
friends and colleagues. Some people have been with me right through the journey, and
others have been pivotal at particular stages, but all have been important in reaching the
finish line. Taking on this project, while working full-time, has often been more than
challenging. At various stages, especially towards the end, I have been absent from
many of my friends’ lives and missed important events. For that, I hope that I will be
forgiven. Words can never be enough to express how I feel.

Dr Kate White first encouraged me to consider doing a PhD, and was initially my co-
supervisor and then my principal supervisor. Her dedication to me and to this project is
an example of one of the best supervisory models. She has balanced the necessary
academic guidance and critical feedback with availability, understanding, mutual
respect and friendship.

Associate Professor Barbara Brook was a wonderful principal supervisor over the first
six years of the thesis and continued to provide invaluable support and guidance over
the last twelve months of the journey.

Dr Delwyn Goodrick provided invaluable guidance and knowledge when she agreed to
be a critical reader for my thesis. Not only am I in awe of her methodological
knowledge and know-how, she is also a wonderfully supportive friend who nurtured me
throughout the process.

Central to this thesis and the journey are the eight women who so willingly shared their
stories with me for this project. They gave me their time and their trust – I hope that I
have used what they so graciously gave me with the respect it deserves.

I have been incredibly lucky to have had three very supportive managers during my
candidature. Dr Kate White initially suggested that I consider undertaking this project
and helped to convince me that I was more than capable of doing it. Professor Elaine
Martin provided much needed support throughout the majority of my candidature,

v
ensuring that where possible I took leave to reconnect with my research. She was also a
pivotal person involved in bringing Professor Cathy Riessman to Victoria University for
several conferences and seminar series which were so important in developing my
methodological understanding in the area of narrative inquiry. Over the last three years,
Professor Helen Borland has encouraged and listened to me, supported my leave
requests and always worked to find ways to help me gain time and space to finish my
thesis. In this last year since my return to work, my immediate supervisor Natalie
Gloster has provided constant support in finding ways for me to take periods of leave,
rearrange my working hours and ensuring I had administrative support which meant my
job did not become overwhelming.

My family have been a source of strength and comfort throughout my life. The last ten
years have not been easy going at times; however, I knew I was never alone. My
parents, sister and nephew are the foundation of my life. They may not understand what
I was doing, or why I was doing it, but they have always believed I could do it.

I am blessed with an amazing circle of friends who have listened, supported, fed,
consoled and encouraged me throughout. They have understood the times when I
needed to be PhD focused and incommunicado for stretches of time, as well as the times
I needed to be dragged from the house to eat, talk and reconnect. They may live five
minutes from me, interstate or overseas, but they were never out of reach. Visits with
Cheryl have been wonderful times to look forward to – much valued rewards for hard
work – and helped me as always to ground myself. Vanessa has fed me more times than
I can count, made me endless cups of coffee, and during my study leave was sometimes
my only human contact during the week. In the last weeks of my thesis I have been
lucky to have welcomed Deb and Nik back to Australia and into my house – they have
looked after me and kept me sane and focused. Deb’s wizardry with formatting and
proofreading has polished the final draft better than I could have hoped. George earned
his PhD years ago and has given me words of encouragement throughout – he was right,
it is easier when you stop trying to talk yourself out of it. Jo has always encouraged and
supported me, particularly in my academic pursuits and is always available to remind
me what I am capable of. Michelle, Maria, Coleen, Ann, Jeanne, Deborah, Michael and
Lauren’s support made a huge positive difference to this experience. Luckily for me, my
friends have understood the importance for me of finishing the thesis over almost

vi
everything else particularly over the last 18 months. Catching up and reconnecting are
things I am really looking forward to. Thanks also to my online friends, in particular
CT, Cryssi, and Luke who encouraged me to keep going towards the end, made me
accountable, and understood the need for me to be offline for most of the last few
months. Special thanks to CT for his constant harping to keep my eye on the goal and
reminding me that sleep was a non-negotiable part of the equation. In most instances, I
heeded that advice.

I am lucky to work in an area of the university with colleagues who I also count as
friends. They have lived through this journey with me, providing practical and
emotional support, insightful comments, challenges to push myself harder, and hugs.
Nicole, Katie, Rita, Bhanuka, Angela, Natalie and Helen within the office, and Tina,
Grace, Liz, Arnie, Jane, Greg, Michele, Michelle and Enza in other areas of the
University, have done more than I could have asked for throughout this time.

The advantage of working where I do is that I am in constant contact with PhD students
who have also embarked on their own “odyssey”. The informal conversations and
support offered by sharing your experience with other PhD students should never be
undervalued.

And lastly, thanks to my two cats – Ember and Agatha – for reminding me that
sometimes you need to stop and play or just take a nap.

vii
 Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xii
Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................ xiii
Chapter One — Introduction ........................................................................................ 1
The “leaking pipeline” .................................................................................................. 1
My story........................................................................................................................ 6
Structure of this thesis ................................................................................................ 15
Chapter Two — Literature Review ............................................................................ 17
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 17
Organisational context ................................................................................................ 18
Gendering of academic careers................................................................................... 20
Women’s PhD experiences ......................................................................................... 25
PhD Completions in Australia .................................................................................... 26
Chapter Three — Methodology .................................................................................. 34
Purposeful sampling ................................................................................................... 41
Conversational interviews .......................................................................................... 42
Data management and analysis .................................................................................. 45
Transcription process .............................................................................................. 45
Thematic narrative analysis .................................................................................... 46
Participants ................................................................................................................. 47
Interview One — Eve ............................................................................................. 47
Interview Two — Elena ......................................................................................... 50
Interview Three — Andrea ..................................................................................... 51
Interview Four — Jane ........................................................................................... 52
Interview Five — Karen ......................................................................................... 53
Interview Six — Laura ........................................................................................... 55
Interview Seven — Ebony...................................................................................... 56
Interview Eight — Tasha........................................................................................ 57
Chapter Four — Motivation........................................................................................ 59
Case Study One: Eve .................................................................................................. 65
Motivation to commence ........................................................................................ 65
Motivation to continue ........................................................................................... 68
Case Study Three: Andrea .......................................................................................... 70
Motivation to commence ........................................................................................ 70
Motivation to continue ........................................................................................... 73
Case Study Four: Jane ................................................................................................ 75
Motivation to commence ........................................................................................ 75
Case Study Five: Karen .............................................................................................. 80
Motivation to commence ........................................................................................ 80
Case Study Six: Laura ................................................................................................ 83
Motivation to commence ........................................................................................ 84
Case Study Seven: Ebony ........................................................................................... 88
Motivation to commence ........................................................................................ 88
Motivation to continue ........................................................................................... 90
Case Study Eight: Tasha ............................................................................................. 91
Motivation to commence ........................................................................................ 91
Motivation to continue ........................................................................................... 93

viii
 Summary..................................................................................................................... 94
Chapter Five — Supervision and its negotiation ....................................................... 98
Choosing a supervisor ................................................................................................ 99
Gender and choosing a supervisor ............................................................................ 101
Developing the relationship — gender perspectives ................................................ 103
Frequency of supervision meetings .......................................................................... 103
Single versus group or team supervision .................................................................. 104
Case Study One: Eve ................................................................................................ 107
Beginning of supervisory relationship.................................................................. 107
Regular meetings and balancing co-supervision .................................................. 108
Personal relationships ........................................................................................... 109
Mentoring, support and encouragement ............................................................... 110
Case Study Three: Andrea ........................................................................................ 111
Beginning of supervisory relationship.................................................................. 111
Negotiating supervision ........................................................................................ 112
Gender and supervision ........................................................................................ 115
Finding alternative support/supervision ............................................................... 115
Case Study Four: Jane .............................................................................................. 118
Beginning of supervisory relationship.................................................................. 119
Negotiating supervision ........................................................................................ 119
Supervision and departmental politics.................................................................. 120
Gender and the supervisory relationship .............................................................. 125
Case Study Five: Karen ............................................................................................ 127
Beginning the supervisory relationship ................................................................ 128
Negotiating the supervisory relationship .............................................................. 129
Support and encouragement ................................................................................. 131
Case Study Six: Laura .............................................................................................. 132
Beginning the supervisory relationship ................................................................ 132
Supervisory team .................................................................................................. 133
Guidance and critical feedback............................................................................. 136
Developing an academic career ............................................................................ 137
Case Study Seven: Ebony ......................................................................................... 139
Beginning the supervisory relationship ................................................................ 139
Guidance and feedback ......................................................................................... 140
Support and encouragement ................................................................................. 140
Developing an academic career ............................................................................ 143
Case Study Eight: Tasha ........................................................................................... 143
Support and encouragement ................................................................................. 144
Advocacy .............................................................................................................. 144
Role of the co-supervisor...................................................................................... 146
Summary................................................................................................................... 148
Chapter Six — Resilience .......................................................................................... 152
Case Study One: Eve ................................................................................................ 155
Supervisor support ................................................................................................ 155
Coping mechanisms .............................................................................................. 157
Maintaining wellbeing .......................................................................................... 158
Peer support .......................................................................................................... 158
Isolation ................................................................................................................ 159
Role models .......................................................................................................... 160
Persistence ............................................................................................................ 161
Self confidence ..................................................................................................... 162

ix
 Financial security.................................................................................................. 163
Case Study Three: Andrea ........................................................................................ 165
Starting a family ................................................................................................... 165
Overcoming isolation ........................................................................................... 165
Self confidence ..................................................................................................... 166
Persistence ............................................................................................................ 167
Case Study Four: Jane .............................................................................................. 168
Starting a family ................................................................................................... 168
Balance and perspective ....................................................................................... 169
Choices ................................................................................................................. 170
Case Study Five: Karen ............................................................................................ 171
Grief ...................................................................................................................... 171
Family issues ........................................................................................................ 173
Seeking help ......................................................................................................... 174
Taking control ...................................................................................................... 174
Support from others .............................................................................................. 175
Persistence ............................................................................................................ 176
Isolation ................................................................................................................ 177
Case Study Six: Laura .............................................................................................. 177
Family background ............................................................................................... 178
Problem solving .................................................................................................... 180
Case Study Seven: Ebony ......................................................................................... 183
Starting a family ................................................................................................... 184
The PhD as personal ............................................................................................. 185
Overcoming obstacles........................................................................................... 186
Finding time.......................................................................................................... 187
Persistence ............................................................................................................ 188
Negotiating support .............................................................................................. 189
Case Study Eight: Tasha ........................................................................................... 191
An odyssey ........................................................................................................... 191
Lack of support ..................................................................................................... 192
Dealing with illness .............................................................................................. 193
Persistence ............................................................................................................ 194
Peer support .......................................................................................................... 196
Supportive and collegial environment .................................................................. 197
Working independently ........................................................................................ 198
Survival strategies ................................................................................................ 199
Summary................................................................................................................... 200
Chapter Seven — Elena ............................................................................................. 203
Motivation ................................................................................................................ 203
Motivation to commence ...................................................................................... 204
Motivation to continue ......................................................................................... 207
Supervision ............................................................................................................... 210
Beginning of supervisory relationship.................................................................. 211
Regular meetings .................................................................................................. 212
Support and encouragement ................................................................................. 212
Negotiating supervision ........................................................................................ 214
Monitoring supervisor’s behaviour ...................................................................... 219
Resilience ................................................................................................................. 222
Family background ............................................................................................... 223
Fear and guilt ........................................................................................................ 224

x
 Self confidence ..................................................................................................... 225
Financial support .................................................................................................. 227
Breaking point ...................................................................................................... 228
Asking for help ..................................................................................................... 229
Summary................................................................................................................... 231
Chapter Eight — Discussion...................................................................................... 236
Motivation ................................................................................................................ 236
Summary............................................................................................................... 240
Supervision ............................................................................................................... 240
Supervisory models .............................................................................................. 241
Encouragement and support ................................................................................. 243
Negotiation of supervision ................................................................................... 244
Availability of the supervisor ............................................................................... 245
Same gender student-supervisor relationships ..................................................... 247
Support in building an academic career ............................................................... 249
Supervisor as role model ...................................................................................... 250
Summary............................................................................................................... 251
Resilience ................................................................................................................. 252
Role models, family and peer support .................................................................. 253
“Make or break” times .......................................................................................... 254
Summary............................................................................................................... 255
Following the traditional “male” model of an academic career ............................... 256
Balancing a PhD and family ..................................................................................... 257
A different experience? ............................................................................................ 259
Limitations of this study ........................................................................................... 261
Future studies ............................................................................................................ 262
Reflections on research informing practice at an individual level ........................... 264
Chapter Nine — Conclusion ...................................................................................... 266
References.................................................................................................................... 269
Appendix A — Consent Form ................................................................................... 289
Appendix B — Plain Language Statement ............................................................... 290
Appendix C — Example of Initial Transcription .................................................... 291
Appendix D — Example of Second Version of Transcript ..................................... 292
Appendix E — Example of Extract of Transcript Used in Analysis Chapter ..... 293

xi
 List of Tables

Table One: Research Doctorate Completions by discipline and gender (2007).................. 28

Table Two: Research Doctorate Completions – SET disciplines by gender (2007) ........... 28

Table Three: Undergraduate and Honours graduations by gender and discipline (2007) ... 28

Table Four: Staff levels by gender and level (2008) ........................................................... 29

Table Five: Summary table of participants’ motivation factors .......................................... 64

Table Six: Supervision ...................................................................................................... 106

Table Seven: Resilience..................................................................................................... 154

Table Eight: Effective and less effective motivation......................................................... 239

xii
 Glossary of Terms

This is a glossary of terms used within this thesis for which readers from outside the

Australian higher education system may need further clarification.

Australian Postgraduate Award (APA): prestigious, government-funded scholarship

awarded on the basis of academic merit for students who are undertaking a research
degree.

Candidature: The period of enrolment of a research student at a University until they

submit for examination.

Candidature proposal: The research project proposal submitted by the student

outlining the project they are planning to undertake and the methodology and analysis
they propose to use. Normally these are submitted or presented at either six or twelve
months full-time enrolment or equivalent part-time duration, depending on the
university.

DEEWR: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. This is the

Federal Government Department which oversees tertiary institutions and their funding.

DEST: Department of Education, Science and Training. This is the previous

government department which oversaw tertiary institutions in Australia.

Dual sector institution: refers to one of the newer universities that incorporate both
higher education and vocational education sectors.

Department: The unit within which the student is enrolled. The women interviewed in
this study, depending on their institution, referred to this as “department” or “school”
depending on their home institutions structure.

Group of Eight University: refers to one of the research intensive “sandstone”

universities in Australia.

xiii
HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme): government scheme for university
students to pay course fees for their degrees (both undergraduate and postgraduate).
These HECS fees can either be paid up-front or deferred. Deferred HECS payments are
deducted from a graduate’s income on a sliding scale once they commence employment.
Students who defer payments are not charged interest. However a “cost-of-living”
index is applied to the outstanding amount.

Maximum candidature duration: The maximum period of enrolment for a research

degree. Currently in Australia this is two years full-time equivalent for a Masters
student and four years full-time equivalent for a research doctorate.

Postgraduate Research Coordinator: An academic within the School or Department

who co-ordinates research students within that School/Department.

School: as with “Department” above, this refers to the unit within which the student is
enrolled. The women interviewed in this study, depending on their institution, referred
to this as “department” or “school” depending on their home institution’s structure.

Standard candidature duration: Currently in Australia, research students are

expected to plan and undertake projects to be submitted in the standard duration of two
years full-time equivalent for a research Masters degree or three years full-time
equivalent for a research doctorate.

xiv
 Chapter One — Introduction

The number of women in higher education, as both students and academics, has grown

significantly over the last forty years. However, we are still a long way from achieving

gender parity in relation to the senior academy. Comparatively little qualitative research

has been undertaken on what has traditionally been considered to be the necessary

precursor to an academic career – gaining a PhD. Understanding both women’s

motivation for enrolling in a PhD and the factors that impact on successful completion

of the degree can assist in developing better support for new and continuing students.

Looking at these in relation to the academic career path can also help us to understand

the relative lack of women in senior academic positions and identify strategies to ensure

greater representation of women as senior lecturers and associate professors and in turn

to increase the number of women in the professoriate.

The “leaking pipeline”

Women’s participation rates in Australian universities show a significant decline at five

critical points: between undergraduate enrolment and Honours year; between Honours

year and postgraduate research degrees; between completion of doctoral studies and

postdoctoral research; between lecturer and senior lecturer level; and between associate

professor and professor level (White, 2004). Husu (2000, p.221) noted that this “under-

representation of women in academe is increasingly and globally recognised as a serious

problem”, a view echoed by Bagilhole (2007) who argues that women, both as students

and staff in universities, still face a combination of prejudice and structural barriers.

Recent statistics from the UK and Australia estimate that at the current rate it will take

at least another forty years to achieve parity with men in senior academic positions

(Machado-Taylor, Carvalho & White, 2008). Barinaga (1992) refers to the funnelling

process that occurs, where women continue to be over-represented in lower levels of

1
employment, as a “leaking pipeline”. This research argued that women in neuroscience

were leaking from the pipeline due to a complex set of problems centred mainly on two

factors. Firstly, an attitude held by men but often internalised by women that women

don’t have what it takes to be top achievers. This places some of the responsibility for

women not achieving high positions on women’s own confidence. The second factor is

the dual burden of balancing a scientific career with family responsibilities (Barinaga,

1992). Barinaga (1992) concludes that the leaks in the career pipeline may never be

completely sealed, and that women would continue to leave academia for personal

reasons. It is argued that rather than expect women’s career paths to reflect those of

men, the system should be broadened to accommodate different styles and equalise

opportunities for women. More recently, Hatchell and Aveling (2008, pp. 3-4) note that

the leaking pipeline metaphor suggests “a straightforward linear career progression that

is quite restrictive and does not easily accommodate the more complex life-patterns of

females; nor does the metaphor take account of the multiple layers of culture…”. Are

the barriers to women’s academic career progression gendered? How much emphasis

should be placed on women leaving academic careers for personal reasons, such as

focusing on family responsibilities, and how much should be placed on external barriers

to career progression?

Allen and Castleman (2001, p.151) argue against accepting what they call “the pipeline

fallacy”, which they assert is used to “dismiss gender inequality as something over

which we have limited current control”. They are more concerned to examine how

organisational power is gendered, and consider that the main problem with the pipeline

model is “its failure to acknowledge the complexities of male advantage, gender power

and the gendered nature of organisational dynamics and the implications of

organisational change” (Allen & Castleman, 2001, p.156). Other research also focuses

2
on how organisational culture in universities determines the gendered experience of

women academics (Hearn, 2001; Hearn, 2004; Currie & Thiele, 2001; Husu, 2001;

O’Connor 2008; Carvalho & Machado 2010).

In contrast, Sampson (2009) acknowledges the fact that women exit the academic

pipeline more than men, which is therefore a gender issue. However, he argues that this

is not the same as saying that women drop out because of the influence of men.

Sampson (2009) points out that if we look at sociology rather than the sciences, female

doctoral students and female senior lecturers are in the majority in Sweden, and at

professorial level the gender balance is even. Arguments have been made in scientific

disciplines around the lack of role models and a lack of “critical mass” affecting

women’s likelihood of staying on an academic career path (Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, Uzzi

& Neushatz, 2000). When there are role models in place and a “critical mass”, other

factors could be in play. Sampson (2009) argues that rather than male students receiving

more opportunities and encouragement, or female students being marginalised and

pressured, that changes to university life in general are impacting on everyone. But

others assert that the rise of managerialism in universities has a more negative impact

on women than men (White, Carvalho & Riordan 2010; Knights & Richards, 2003).

The “leaking pipeline” metaphor continues to be utilised almost twenty years after

Barinaga’s initial paper in 1992. However, researchers are still debating which factors

are impacting on women’s progress up the academic career ladder. As will be discussed

in Chapter Two, recent statistics still show marked discrepancies in the number of

women at different stages in the academic career pipeline. In the Australian context we

already know that at the end of a PhD women earn less than men, are less likely to take

up post-doctoral positions, and are more likely to be in casual and part-time

3
employment (Dever, Boreham, Haynes, Kubler, Laffan, Behrens & Western, 2008). As

useful as these statistics are in providing an overall picture of the current situation, they

do not elucidate in detail what women are experiencing and how this affects their

decisions to continue to an academic career.

What this thesis examines is the experience of individual women undertaking PhDs and

whether this is shaped by the same gendered organisational culture that research has

shown to impact on women’s academic careers. Are there differences in the experiences

of women in arts based disciplines compared to those in science or business? What do

the eight women PhD students in this study emphasise when asked to relate their

doctoral experiences?

The thesis has chosen to focus on the experience of women rather than men undertaking

PhDs because it is interested in understanding at a micro level what is happening during

their candidature and if, and what, gendered elements are discernable. I have therefore

examined standpoint theory as a lens and a way of making sense of individual women’s

experience as postgraduate researchers. Anderson (2010) emphasises that dominant

knowledge practices can disadvantage women by producing theories of social

phenomena that render gendered power relations invisible. Standpoint theory

endeavours to develop a feminist epistemology, or theory of knowledge, that delineates

methods for building effective knowledge from women’s experience (Harding,

1986).The central tenet of feminist epistemology is that of the “situated knower”, and

thus of situated knowledge that reflects the particular perspectives of the subject

(Anderson, 2010). According to more recent work in feminist philosophy, feminist

standpoint theorists have moved away from the search for a single feminist standpoint

4
towards acknowledging multiple epistemically informative situated standpoints

(Harding, 1991; Harding 1998).

As a researcher, I position myself with the view that developing knowledge that draws

on the insights of marginalised groups, and starts from the assumption that their issues

will be richer and more useful, is a more productive stance than confining one’s

thinking to the insights and issues of privileged groups alone (Anderson, 2010; Harding,

1998). Thinking from the standpoint of marginalised groups is, according to Hartsock

(1997), more productive for pragmatic reasons than confining one’s thinking to

dominant perspectives. Thinking from these perspectives or standpoints enables us to

envision and realise more just social relations (Anderson, 2010; Hartsock, 1993;

Hartsock, 1997). Another reason for taking a feminist standpoint in this research is that

I am interested in the experiences of women undertaking research degrees. Anderson

(2010, p.44) points out that “many standpoint theorists have turned to focusing more

sharply on the epistemic value of the experiences of subordinated people.” Both women

and men experience difficulties during their PhD experiences that may impact on their

decisions to continue to academic careers. This research adopts a feminist standpoint

which proposes to make women’s experiences, instead of men’s, the point of departure.

The focus is on women because they are still under-represented as PhD students and

academics in some disciplines. I also wanted to explore in detail if and how the PhD

experience is gendered.

What can women’s stories of their PhD experiences tell us? How can we use these

stories to help other women undertaking doctoral studies and to provide both

information and strategies for University policy makers? Also, can these stories shed

light on the complex power relations within university departments that can be gendered

5
and therefore mean that women’s experience of doing a PhD will be significantly

different simply because of their gender?

This project uses the very lengthy narratives of eight women at a number of Australian

universities to investigate their experiences of commencing, undertaking and

completing a PhD.

My story

In light of the discussion above on standpoint theory, and in line with feminist

qualitative research methods, I believe it is important for me to be reflexive about my

story, thus making explicit my own position and experience as a women undertaking a

PhD (Reinharz, 1992). I thought about sub-titling this section “If it was easy, everyone

could do it”, which is what one of my friends reminds me if I complain about the

magnitude and complexity of the difficult task I have faced in pursuing my PhD. The

inspiration came from a project that I began working on eighteen months before

commencing the PhD. I was the project officer at Victoria University on a project to

implement strategies to increase women’s participation in research higher degrees. The

research methodology included a questionnaire and focus groups to determine potential

strategies to increase participation. Analysis led to the development of a number of

strategies, some of which were implemented throughout the University. However, the

part I found most interesting was precisely what was not being captured – the anecdotes

and stories people shared when dropping off their survey responses or after a focus

group, sometimes around issues that had not been addressed in the survey. This had

potential as a rich source of information, which I discussed with Dr Kate White who

later became one of my supervisors. We agreed that there was potentially valuable

information in these stories that could be uncovered.

6
The Postgraduate Research Unit, where Dr White was Acting Head, had a vacancy for

an Acting Scholarships Officer. I was asked to fill the Acting role while they advertised

the position and also encouraged to apply for the permanent job. I succeeded in gaining

the position. A year later, after presenting some of the outcomes and strategies from the

initial research project at two conferences, I discussed the possibility of doing a PhD.

We both thought that there was scope in this area but as she was my manager at the

time, she could not be my principal supervisor. We had discussions with Associate

Professor Barbara Brook in the Faculty of Arts who was interested in the project and

happy to become principal supervisor.

Thus I enrolled part-time in a PhD at the end of 2001, not fully comprehending the

journey that awaited me. Of course I knew from the earlier project that research degrees

could be difficult, and I interacted every day with research students while administering

postgraduate scholarships. My role involves administering the annual scholarship round,

day-to-day administration of scholarships including payroll, a strategic role in advising

University committees on scholarship matters and conducting training, often in

conjunction with other presenters, on scholarships and other processes and procedures. I

enjoy helping students, sometimes just being a friendly ear outside of their School or

Faculty; at other times providing advice on issues in relation to leave, scholarships and,

occasionally, supervisory issues. Anecdotes and stories continued to be exchanged, and

I often found a useful way of assisting students was through sharing the experiences of

other students. I could not anticipate the challenges that awaited me in both my work

and personal life that would impact on my research candidature. One of the women in

this project referred to her journey as a rollercoaster and that aptly describes my

personal experience. I have had many wonderful times, especially meeting the eight

women who shared their stories with me. We talked, laughed and commiserated. Each

7
story is individual in its own right, contextualised by the time and space in which it is

told, and the audience to whom it is related. But there are commonalities in issues

raised, difficulties faced and obstacles overcome. Persistence and resilience shone

through in many instances and their stories inspired me to continue and also to reflect

on my own journey.

There are specific characteristics of my story: I work full-time and was enrolled part-

time; I was not on a scholarship; and I do not have children. One major difference from

most of the eight women I interviewed is that I worked full-time while doing my

candidature, fitting my research into the gaps created by study leave days and into

weeknights and weekends. Often study days vanished in a flurry of urgent work

commitments. In addition, almost every year I have taken three months leave of absence

from my degree to concentrate on the scholarship allocation round. Leave of absence, as

I tell students when they are starting, is a very useful tool to use when life gets

complicated and busy. What I didn’t realise in the early years was that it can also lead to

a sense of disconnection from your research and it can take a while to refocus and

become re-motivated after each break. Tasha, the final participant, also noted this

challenge of regaining momentum.

I have also taken leave for a number of personal reasons. In the space of nine months I

presented a paper at a European conference on Gender Equality in Higher Education in

Oxford, went through the breakdown of my de facto relationship, refinanced my house

to take over the mortgage on my own, ran the annual scholarship application round,

found out from the Head of School that my principal supervisor was on extended sick

leave and then found out my current boss was seriously ill. Extra responsibilities at

work, due to my manager’s occasional absences, meant that I took Leave of Absence for

8
the last three months of 2005 and then the first three months of 2006. During that

period, study days became non-existent and I lost focus on my PhD. I started to pick up

the pieces of the research with my co-supervisor at the same time that my boss firmly

insisted that I take two months annual leave in mid-2007 to have some solid time on the

thesis. She also stepped in to hold proxy supervision meetings while I was on this leave

as my co-supervisor was overseas. My principal supervisor left the university and my

co-supervisor moved into the principal supervisor role.

There has been a constant tug-of-war between my job and my PhD As I am in a highly

specialised senior research administration role, for which, as it was bluntly pointed out

to me by an academic, “You don’t need a PhD”, the fact that I was doing the PhD

primarily for my own intrinsic motivation and interests meant that it almost always

played second fiddle to my job.

In order to quarantine a block of time to draft the thesis, my supervisor recommended

that I apply for paid study leave from the university and I spent considerable time and

effort on the application. Study leave is primarily available for academic staff.

However, administrative staff at a senior level can apply. It was necessary for me to

apply for an exemption to the policy in order to be considered. This was submitted at

the same time that my manager left the university at the end of her contract. The first

conversation with my new manager, prior to her commencement, was to inform her that

I was applying for this extended leave, which would mean that we would need a

replacement scholarships coordinator. I had support from my supervisor, my ex-

manager, my new manager, the postgraduate coordinator of the School in which I am

enrolled, and an internationally respected academic in narrative methods who took an

interest in my research. Frustratingly, my application was initially rejected and I grew

9
increasingly worried about ever getting a decent period of time for writing up my thesis.

After months of negotiation – and my offer to take half the time as long service leave –

the application was approved. It is important to note that the difficulties were not with

my immediate manager who was incredibly supportive and helped me to also

investigate alternative ways to manage the leave.

In the six months prior to taking the leave, I worked on finalising the transcribing of the

last two interviews and outlining a schedule for the six month’s leave. Work impacted

strongly on my ability to do more than this as we not only moved office, but also had to

find my replacement – creating a procedure manual as well as training her – in addition

to my usual responsibilities. In the chaos of my last week at work, my father had a

minor heart attack and was hospitalised prior to surgery. This event, difficult as it was to

deal with, helped me reassess the importance of the work about which I was so stressed.

I did everything I could manage in the time available. On my last day, as usual, I

struggled to leave on time and was twenty minutes late for supervision.

The block of paid leave to have solid time on analysis and writing was wonderful – and

fear inducing at the same time. As one of the participants, Ebony, pointed out in her

story, a solid block of time is necessary for thinking and writing. One of the most

constructive supports that I believe a university can offer all staff who are also research

students is to provide this opportunity for the student to engage with their research on a

full-time basis.

This period of leave meant that I had a limited time and had to finish my thesis. Work

was no longer a reason for not making progress. I had devised a schedule with my

supervisor and managed to meet most of the deadlines – aided by weekly supervision

10
sessions. While the end was in sight, still I struggled with the emotional and intellectual

rollercoaster. Days spent on your own with only the cats to talk to could feel endless

and distractions were many. I occasionally felt isolated but was able to keep in email,

internet and phone contact with work colleagues, fellow PhD students and family and

friends. I knew many of my friends and family didn’t completely understand what a

PhD entailed or why it had taken over nine long part-time years, but I knew I could rely

on them for moral support, time out, food, company and a shoulder to cry on should it

be needed. I also knew that they often showed their support by leaving me alone to get

on with it, patiently waiting to hear from me when I was available. Isolation has long

been an issue mentioned by PhD students, and I believe that not talking to other

students only helps to magnify problems. What I have learnt through this research, and

also through my job and my friendships with other PhD students, is that many issues are

common ones. By sharing knowledge and experiences, we feel less isolated and perhaps

learn a few different approaches and strategies to the issues that we face. It is a

gruelling, demanding and often frustrating process. Sharing the positive as well as

negative parts of the PhD journey, even with students from different disciplines, helps!

Different perspectives on common problems can help us reach solutions that we may

not find on our own.

In the final months of writing up my thesis, many old issues resurfaced. I had

questioned why I was doing it, giving too much weight to the little voices that whisper

negative thoughts and becoming increasingly anxious about submitting and failing.

What kept me going in the last few months were the stories I have read and re-read from

the interview participants, as well as anecdotes and support from other PhD students in

books and online. Many students face numerous and varied problems throughout their

candidature, as will be evident in the cases discussed here. The decision to undertake a

11
PhD is one that is not simply made once before enrolment, but continually throughout

the degree. We commit and then re-commit to it over and over. This persistence comes,

I believe, from an inner resilience to keep going. One of the characteristics I share with

some of the participants in this research is that I usually finish things that I start – a

common thread in a number of cases in Chapter Six. This need to reassess and

recommit is not often mentioned to new PhD students – we need to remind them that it

is a rewarding but arduous journey, and their motivations will be challenged and change

throughout. Supervisor relationships will have to be negotiated and re-negotiated as

circumstances change; in some cases, they have to be re-built with a new supervisor.

The supervisory relationship is key – knowing that my supervisor has always believed

in me; has been available, supportive and understanding of the other issues in my life,

which often took priority, has made this journey bearable. It is through this support, and

sometimes the “tough love” needed to set high standards and meet tight deadlines,

which has enabled me to work to a higher standard than I believed I was capable of

reaching. This has been the case with both of my supervisors who have alternated roles

throughout this journey. A strong supervisory relationship works to help build resilience

and push past limitations, while teaching you that in the end only you can write your

own PhD. In many of the narratives, this idea of persistence and resilience often comes

back to also “knowing yourself and what works for you”. Understanding how you best

work and manage your time, the level of supervisory interaction, support and feedback

you need, enable you to have a strong foundation on which to build, which can help you

negotiate the more difficult experiences and “rough patches” that you will face.

What I thought were the final two months proved harder than anticipated. I was aware

that returning to work would be difficult, not only for the time constraints on the thesis

completion, but also because my job takes a lot of energy and focus. My replacement

12
did a superb job in handling the Scholarships Coordinator role in my absence. My return

to work and focus on completion was disturbed to a degree by a number of issues with

several friendships. For the last year I had been in contact sporadically, often only by

text message or email, with the majority of my friends. Luckily most have understood

why I have not been in contact. Nevertheless I was racked with guilt over missing key

events in my friends’ lives. It was difficult to tell a close friend that I couldn’t fly

interstate for a weekend to celebrate her 40th birthday at the end of February. Another

two friends had separated and were heading towards a none-too-amicable divorce. The

drama this caused was beginning to affect my ability to focus until I was reminded by

my supervisor, and another friend who was also caught in the middle, that my priority

had to be completion. On the weekend I was writing this paragraph, my best friend had

serious problems with her mother. All I could do was be supportive through phone calls,

instead of getting in my car and driving over to help. Again, she understood this and

didn’t expect me to stop writing.

In the last three months, I approached two critical readers and also gave a copy of the

full draft to my co-supervisor for feedback. The first critical reader provided feedback

on my methodology chapter (her area of expertise) and I made numerous small changes.

The second critical reader eventually came back with devastating feedback. This was

shattering. My principal supervisor was about to leave the university to work overseas

for several months. The reader at first only provided vague email and verbal feedback.

This was someone whose opinion I greatly valued and with whom I had worked closely

in the past. I had thought that she knew my work and also respected me. My confidence

was therefore severely shaken and until I knew her specific concerns they could not be

addressed. Initially her comments were very negative but through discussion it became

clear she had not clearly understood the methodology or aims of the thesis. Reading the

13
methodology chapter helped her to better understand the project and the subsequent

feedback was useful. I discussed her comments with my principal supervisor and

awaited feedback from my co-supervisor on the full draft. It was agreed by both

supervisors that I needed to do further analysis to strengthen the thesis.

Going back to the analysis was difficult. My self-confidence wavered and I was

overwhelmed with work. I had gone from believing I was one month away from

submission to needing to do another six months work. I was tired, worried, and the long

hours at work left me little time for the thesis. Two months passed with little progress

and I developed a chronic ear infection. Realising I had to take back control, I

negotiated with my supervisor at work and started using my annual leave to get weeks

off where possible. I had support from my co-supervisor and the first critical reader,

who helped me regain some confidence. When my supervisor returned from overseas,

we reassessed my timeline and I finished re-analysing the first of the analysis chapters.

The others followed in rapid succession. During this time I also talked to a couple of

friends who were finishing, or had recently completed their PhDs. We shared the pain

of these last few months and I realised I was not alone in what had happened to me.

This peer support was crucial to rebuilding my confidence and moving forward. Also

important was the social support network, particularly online, I had developed. One

useful strategy was to make myself accountable to an online friend and report progress

at the end of each day. I kept in regular email contact with another friend who was also

in the final stages and had recently received critical feedback from her supervisor. Both

on tight timelines, we kept pushing each other forward. The last few months were an

emotional rollercoaster. I kept focused on one small step at a time. Resuming weekly

supervision meetings helped keep up momentum in the final stages.

14
I find my job as Scholarships Coordinator rewarding primarily because of my contact

with students and being able to help them in their journeys. As mentioned above, I don’t

need a PhD to do my current job, but I think that I, along with others, can use what has

been learnt in this PhD to better inform the advice and support that I provide to

students. Moreover, the findings may provide information and strategies to academics

and universities on ways to support women throughout their PhD candidature to ensure

successful outcomes. Providing advice informed by this research is one way of

increasing the pool of women academics that can move up the ladder to senior academic

positions, thus bring us closer to gender parity in higher education.

The aims of this thesis are firstly, to provide a more in-depth understanding of women’s

decisions to participate in doctoral education; secondly, to provide a more in-depth

understanding of women’s experiences in undertaking doctoral degrees and the factors

that increase their chances of successful completion; and thirdly to inform the

development of more effective university policy and strategies in relation to effective

outcomes for women PhD candidates and to identify effective strategies for ensuring

timely completion.

Structure of this thesis

The thesis is structured as follows: Chapter Two is a literature review of current

knowledge of the PhD experience and its impact on future careers, situated in the

literature on gender disparity in higher education and using the “leaking pipeline”

analogy; Chapter Three is the methodology and methods chapter; the following four

chapters offer analysis, three focus on each of the three major themes for which each

narrative was analysed (motivation, supervision and resilience), and the fourth on the

15
analysis of the one participant who withdrew from her PhD; Chapter Eight discusses the

analyses and is followed by the conclusion.

16
 Chapter Two — Literature Review

Introduction

In Australian universities women comprise the majority of total undergraduate

enrolments. However, they are still under-represented in postgraduate research degrees

(Department of Education, Science & Training, 2005; Department of Education,

Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009). As outlined in the previous chapter, there

is a “leaking pipeline” effect – which differs between disciplines – as women progress

from undergraduate degrees to postgraduate research and then to academic careers. This

phenomenon is particularly noticeable with women doctoral students who start but do

not complete their degrees; women who complete but do not continue in academia; and

those who drop out at various stages of their academic careers (Barinaga, 1992; Hatchell

& Aveling, 2008; Sampson, 2009). The “leaking pipeline”, as discussed in Chapter One,

has been described as a fallacy and masks very entrenched organizational cultures in

universities that ensure women have a different experience of academia from the time

that they plan to embark on an academic career. Nevertheless, the decreasing

participation of women as they progress along academic career paths represents a huge

wastage of human capital. As Bell (2009, p. 58) observes: “when we document

‘attrition’ we are mapping accumulated disappointment, frustration and unrealised

expectations, impacting significantly on individuals. In response I contend it is our

responsibility is to change the professional world our young scientists are entering”.

This literature review draws primarily on Australian, UK and Western European

research in the field. Given that the Australian higher education system was developed

on the British model, some clear parallels can be drawn. Although the overall number of

women in higher education has increased over the last forty years, these increases have

17
largely been as consumers and in lower staffing levels in universities (Husu & Morley,

2000; Gale & Lindemann, 1989; Leathwood & Read, 2009; Machado-Taylor et al.,

2008; White, 2001). This is evident in the increased numbers of women in

undergraduate degrees and lower percentages of women doing PhDs. This trend has

also been identified among academics, with the highest proportion of female staff being

found at lower levels within universities (Dever, Morrison, Dalton & Tayton, 2006;

Bagilhole, Riordan & White, 2009; White & Birch, 1999).

The under-representation of women begins at the senior lecturer level and becomes

more pronounced at professorial level. Women represent only 19 per cent of full

professors in Australia and 16 per cent in the UK (Bagilhole et al., 2009). In Australia,

women make up over half the academic staff, but only a third of senior academic staff

(White, 2001). Female professors in Australia, as elsewhere, are a ‘rare species’ (Ward,

2000).

Organisational context

A woman’s PhD candidature could be considered an induction into the gendered

organisational culture of the university. Hearn (2001a, pp. 71-72) asserts that

universities are “complex mixtures of gendered power relationships and practices, and

gendered moral relationships.” He goes on to observe that they “remain incredibly

hierarchical gendered institutions…both between and within universities” (Hearn, 2001,

pp. 72; see also, O’Connor, 2008). Consequently there is a “preoccupation with the

masculine self and its insecurities” in keeping the hierarchies in place (Knights &

Richards, 2003, pp.227).

18
The impact of this gendering is experienced by women in universities in various ways.

Women are concentrated in the lower levels of academia and experience difficulty in

becoming full professors (Bagilhole & White, 2008; van den Brink, 2009). Moreover, in

newer universities women’s sense of professional identity has been challenged by the

move to more entrepreneurial environments (Blackmore & Sachs, 2001), whereas in

older universities women continue to be outsiders and are still largely excluded from

management (Bagilhole & White, 2008). Blackmore and Sachs (2007) noted that this

move towards increased managerialism in universities, with their focus on strategic

plans, client service and line management structures, is reshaping the field of education.

However, patterns of inequalities still remain (Blackmore & Sachs, 2007).

As suggested in Chapter One, gendering of academic careers is often discipline specific.

Each discipline has a different history, traditions, and social organisation (Hearn, 2001).

Ironically, Hearn (2001, p. 75) asserts “the greater the domination of men, the more the

academic discipline or department is likely to be presented as gender-neutral; the more

homosocial, the more it may appear to those there as a gender neutral environment.”

Those disciplines that are most in denial about gendered gatekeeping are those that are

the most prestigious (Currie & Thiele, 2001). This gatekeeping has the dual function of

exclusion and control, at the same time it facilitates the obstruction of resources,

information and opportunities (Husu, 2004). Van den Brink (2009, pp.127) argues that

homophilous relationships in scientific disciplines mean that “the likelihood is greater

that a male candidate will be selected when predominantly male gatekeepers search for

candidates in their networks” (see also, Bagilhole & Goode, 2001). The impact is that

women are largely excluded from the professoriate in these same disciplines and from

“access to resources, influence, career opportunities and academic authority” (Morley,

1999, p. 4). They are also excluded from networks that would enable them to build

19
international research profiles, and consequently they are also often excluded from

access to senior academia (Morley, 1999). This exclusion, Morley (1999) argued, is a

form of micropolitics in academia that contributes as significantly to the continuing

subordination of women in the hierarchy as the structures themselves. Micropolitics

focuses on the way power is relayed in everyday practices. It is about influence,

networks and alliances; and how power plays out in the minutiae of social relations

(Morley, 1999).

Gendering of academic careers

The gendering of academic careers begins when women are doing PhDs and when they

are casual academics and lecturers. From the outset of academic careers, starting at PhD

level, women have a different career experience (Asmar, 1999; Dever et al., 2008). In

recent years, the expansion of research on gender and organisations has focused on the

gendering of universities, as scholars turned their attention to thinking about their

“own” organisations (Hearn, 2004, Husu & Morley, 2000; Husu, 2001; Morley &

Walsh, 1995). Universities are hierarchical gendered organisations and in most

countries, the higher the status of the university, the higher the proportion of male

academics (Hearn, 2004). Hearn (2004) notes that the gender shifts are sharply

delineated as women progress from postgraduates and contract researchers, through

lecturer levels to the professoriate. It should also be noted that these hierarchical

differences often obscure gendered segregation and variations in different areas and

discipline areas within universities (Carvalho & Machado, 2010; Hearn, 2004).

This segregation within universities is both vertical and horizontal. Women are not only

less represented in the professoriate and in senior university management positions, but

there are also marked differences in discipline (Carvalho & Machado, 2010). They are

20
still dominant in the humanities and social sciences, particularly in lower levels of

academia rather than the professoriate, while men represent the majority in science,

engineering and technology (SET) (Carvalho & Machado, 2010; Hearn, 2004; White et

al., 2009). This male dominance in SET has a negative impact on women’s careers from

the outset (White et al., 2009), and leads to women scientists in particular exiting

universities “and thus a loss of potential significant contributions to the scientific field”

(Hatchell & Aveling, 2008, p.14). Moreover, large numbers of Australian women and

men SET postgraduates travelled overseas for their first post-PhD employment due to

lack of job security and poor generic “employability” skills (Giles et. al., 2009). This

dominance of science, engineering and technology also has a direct impact on the

organisational structure and culture of universities. Bagilhole and White (2008) found

that the majority of Vice-Chancellors in both the UK and Australia came from SET

backgrounds. Promotion to senior management positions is almost exclusively

grounded in an initial professorial appointment, thus the gate keeping that works to

exclude women from professorial positions in SET helps to preserve the dominant male

leadership of universities (White et al., 2009; van den Brink, 2009).

Choice of discipline has also been noted as a key factor in research output and is clearly

gendered. Female academics are concentrated in the humanities and social sciences,

areas that are less likely to attract external funding (Dever et al, 2006). Promotion is

often based on research performance, including publications and gaining external

funding, rather than teaching and administration (Dever et al., 2006; Dever et al., 2008;

White, Riordan, Ozkanli, Neale & Husu, 2008). But even in SET disciplines that have

high research output women find it difficult to succeed. Bell (2009, p. 10) argues that

“persistent vertical segregation in science and technology disciplines, in addition to

continuing horizontal segregation, impact on women’s capacity to participate,

21
contribute and succeed in “non-traditional disciplines”. It is these disciplines, after all,

that are the research and research training engines of our universities and critical to the

nation’s productivity and economic well-being”.

Studies have shown that a range of factors impact on women’s lower research

performance. Probert (2005) argues that research is the only aspect of work that can be

put off in a schedule filled with teaching, research, administration, children and other

family responsibilities. Bagilhole and White (2003) and Neale and White (2004) both

argue that gendered differentiation of academic roles leads to women concentrating on

teaching, administration and pastoral care rather than research and publishing. Dever et

al. (2008) concur, reporting that recent female graduates worked to a greater extent in

academic teaching, mentoring or advising roles, while male graduates worked to a

greater extent in research, supervision and management roles. Leonard (2001) also

reported that a heavy burden of pastoral care falls to female staff in university

departments. It is success in achieving external funding, research and publication output

that are emphasised for promotion within universities (Bagilhole & White, 2003; Dever

et al., 2006). Park (1996) argues that rather than encouraging women to act like men to

increase their research productivity (that is, to do less teaching and pastoral care), it

would be more useful to problematise this gendered division of labour and its influence

on promotion and employment criteria.

Barinaga’s leaking pipeline analogy highlights that women exit at a number of critical

stages on the academic ladder (Barinaga, 1992; Hatchell & Aveling, 2008; Sampson,

2009). The two most critical leakage points occur between undergraduate and

postgraduate levels, and between lecturer and professorial levels. Researchers have

highlighted a number of reasons for the lack of women in senior academic ranks. In

22
terms of this research project, the most important point is that a postgraduate research

degree, in particular a doctorate, is the traditional career path into academia in Australia

as well as many other Western countries (Dever et al., 2008; White & Birch, 1999;

White, 2001). At most universities, a doctoral degree is now an essential qualification

for tenured academic positions (Asmar, 1999). Women who don’t have doctorates

generally have greater difficulty than women who have doctorates in gaining promotion

(White, 2001).

The need for a critical mass of women has been highlighted as one way of overcoming

this gender imbalance (Chesterman, 2003). This claim asserts that an increase in the

representation of women will lead to an increase in their access to social networks and

important resources. Fewer women in a department may lead to dissatisfaction and

higher attrition rates for women scientists (Ferreira, 2003). Lang (1999) reported that

the administration at MIT admitted there had been gender discrimination against its

tenured female professors. A study by a committee of tenured female faculty members

and male colleagues documented gender bias. Professor Nancy Hopkins noted that one

of the main problems was that women represented only a handful of the staff in a very

large institution. As knowledge about the project’s findings was disseminated,

committee members and the Deans at MIT received mail confirming that similar

problems were common in academia worldwide (Lang, 1999). However, Etzkowitz et

al. (2000) highlight the paradox inherent in this “critical mass” theory: the organisation

and culture of academic science must change in order to encourage more women to

enter the profession, but more women in the field – critical mass – would help to change

both the culture and organisation.

23
This lack of senior academic women, and the difficulties they face in their careers,

impacts on the number of women coming through from undergraduate courses (Allen,

1990; Kaplan, 1985). Allen (1990) argued that one of the reasons for lower numbers of

female postgraduate students was the lack of female faculty staff. This resulted in

students observing that the knowledge makers were predominantly male. Kaplan (1985,

p.20) commented:

Young women, having poked their noses into tertiary institutions, are likely to
acquire the knowledge of some of the less palatable social conventions and may
thus decide not to continue to further degrees and/or not to consider a tertiary
institution as a possible place for career advancement. Very capable and bright
young women may be lost to higher tertiary education and employment.

It is thus important to listen to the stories of women’s experiences and observations

within, and outside of, the higher education sector. Jeffries and Palermo (2003) also

noted that there is an interrelationship between women’s experiences at different levels

in organisations; that is, the experiences of women at one level impact on women at

other levels.

Morley (1999) however, argues that the question of women achieving critical mass may

be misplaced. The number of women who enter the professoriate is not as important as

the impact they have on the dominant male culture (Bagilhole, 2007; Morley, 1999;

Morley 2003; White, 2001). Kaplan (1985) also noted that while the presence of a

successful female academic may sometimes provide a role model for younger women,

experience has shown that such role models do little to facilitate greater participation by

women at the postgraduate level. In other words, a few role models do not replace

universities developing robust strategies to ensure more women complete PhDs

(Kaplan, 1985).

24
While interpretations may differ, there seems little question that the lack of women in

the upper ranks of the academy both affects, and is affected by, the lack of women

continuing to postgraduate research degrees. An increased number of women with

doctorates would increase the eligible pool of women to be appointed to senior lecturer

positions and in later years, for promotion to the professoriate. However, we must be

wary of the “give it time” argument. There are entrenched organizational cultures that

will prevent women from achieving a critical mass. As van den Brink (2009) has

demonstrated, systematic gate keeping in some disciplines effectively keeps many

women out of the professoriate.

Women’s PhD experiences

Several researchers have suggested that there is a clear link between women not

progressing to postgraduate research degrees and the lack of women in the senior ranks

of academia in Australia (White, 2004; Bagilhole & White, 2008). White and Birch

(1999) argued that it is critical to encourage women to undertake postgraduate research

degrees. The flow-on effect will in time increase the number of women eligible to

progress through academia to senior positions in Australian universities (Chesterman,

2003; Jeffries & Palermo, 2003). In turn, the under-representation of women in

university senior management has been clearly linked to their under-representation at

professorial level (Ozkanli & White, 2008; Machado-Taylor, Carvalho & White, 2008).

A recent Australian study on gender difference in post-PhD employment reported that

women are less likely than men to report positive outcomes of their PhD experience and

post-PhD employment (Dever et al., 2008). The study found that male rather than

female PhD candidates were more likely to receive assistance from principal

supervisors in gaining employment. Moreover, a significantly higher proportion of

25
female PhD graduates were in less secure employment and more likely to work part-

time; and fewer were in supervisory or managerial positions compared to male

graduates. This gender difference was more pronounced for graduates with children.

Moreover, Giles et al.’s (2009) survey of 1206 Australian men and women who had

completed SET PhDs and Masters by research found that women tended to earn less

than men. It found that gender differences for both PhD candidates and early career

researchers might help to explain the lower number of women progressing up the

academic ladder. This quantitative study confirms that the gendering of academic

careers has its origins in women’s experience as PhD candidates.

While the research highlights specific barriers to women undertaking postgraduate

research, there has been little investigation of the complex interconnection of personal

and professional issues within women’s lives. Complex life decisions may be better

understood through more qualitative research methodologies that can capture the

nuances of lived experiences. “Research on the multiplicities and complexities of

genders provides data that is close to the realities of lived experience” (Lorber, 2000,

p.3). In this thesis narrative inquiry will be used to investigate women’s stories of their

PhD experiences to elucidate these complex, nuanced interconnections.

PhD Completions in Australia

Research has consistently supported the argument that women are not proceeding to

postgraduate research degrees in proportion to their numbers in undergraduate courses

(Asmar, 1999; Harman, 1999; Jones & Castle, 1989; White, Birch & Nix, 2000). In

Australia over the past decade this gap has started to close, although significant

discrepancies still exist. Between 1995 and 1999 approximately 37 percent of all

enrolments at doctoral level, and 44 percent of Masters level enrolments, were women.

26
Overall, women comprised about 40 percent of all postgraduate research enrolments

(Harman, 1999). The most recent Australian statistics (DEEWR, 2009) show that 55.1

percent of all enrolled students are women. The figure for doctoral graduates for the

1999 – 2001 period showed that 42 per cent were women (Dever et al., 2008). These

figures are averaged across all disciplines and all Australian universities.

A breakdown of the 2007 completions can be seen in Tables One to Three below where

it should be noted that the trend of significant gender differences across disciplines

remains. The Australian government data for 2007, published in 2009, is the most

recent data available due to a time lag in reporting of completions. Women continue to

be concentrated in Health, Education and Humanities fields in research doctoral

completions, and are still underrepresented in SET fields. Women therefore continue to

gravitate to the fields of Nursing, Health Sciences and Education even at postgraduate

research level. These disciplines are generally regarded as female ghettos, characterised

by low levels of the type of research, particularly in Nursing, that will attract external

funding. It should be noted in these Tables, that while women now comprise over half

of all doctoral completions in Health, Education, Society and Culture, and Creative

Arts, their representation at doctoral level is significantly lower that their undergraduate

representation. Further analysis of SET disciplines shows the lowest rates of completion

for women at doctoral level are in Engineering and Information Technology. A

significant difference between the number of female undergraduates in Business areas

and the doctoral graduations in the same field is also evident.

27
Table One: Research Doctorate Completions by discipline and gender (2007)

SET* Health Education Management Society Creative

& Commerce & Arts
Culture
Females 1041 450 252 178 733 123
Males 1703 283 134 248 497 79
Total 2744 733 386 426 1230 202
% female 37.94 61.39 65.29 41.78 59.59 60.89
*SET – sciences (natural and physical); engineering, technology, architecture and building, agriculture
and environment. Source: DEEWR (2009) 2007 Full year summary – Student Statistics.
[Link]
Accessed on 15 July 2009.

Table Two: Research Doctorate Completions — SET disciplines by gender (2007)

Natural & IT Engineering & Architecture Agriculture,

Physical related & Building Environment &
Sciences technologies Related Studies
Females 651 70 157 27 136

Males 718 158 615 36 176

Total 1369 228 772 63 312

% female 47.55 30.7 20.34 42.86 43.59

Source: DEEWR (2009) 2007 Full year summary – Student Statistics.

[Link]
Accessed on 15 July 2009.

Table Three: Undergraduate and Honours graduations by gender and discipline

(2007)

SET Health Education Management Society & Creative

& Commerce Culture Arts

Females 13,241 14,918 8,719 22,177 19,063 7,917

Males 21,901 4,367 2,439 19,011 9,372 4,367

Total 35,142 19,285 11,158 41,188 28,435 12,284

% female 37.68 77.36 78.14 53.84 67.04 64.45

Source: DEEWR (2009) 2007 Full year summary – Student Statistics.

[Link]
Accessed on 15 July 2009.

28
Table Four: Staff levels by gender and level (2008)

Professoriate Lecturer C Lecturer B Lecturer A Non-

and senior Academic
management
Female 2,579 3,970 7,248 4,627 35,425

Male 7,959 6,192 7,193 3,793 19,392

Total 10,538 10,162 14,441 8,420 54,817

% Female 24.47 39.07 50.19 54.95 64.62

Source: DEEWR (2009) 2007 Full year summary – Student Statistics.

[Link]
Accessed on 15 July 2009.

The staffing figures for 2008 show a continued trend for women to be overrepresented

at Lecturer A and comprise half of all academics at Lecturer B, but the numbers drop

sharply as they go up the academic ladder. The concentration of women at Lecturer A

and B means that they continue to be the workhorses in academia who have

disproportionately high teaching and administrative loads and little time to build the

national and international research profile that will enable them to be promoted to senior

lecturer level (Bagilhole & White, 2008; Neale & White, 2004).

A 2001 Senate Committee report, as well as other research, noted that these figures vary

considerably between universities, across academic disciplines and also between

Masters and PhD courses (Dever et al., 2008; Senate Committee, September 2001;

White et al., 2000). A project carried out at a newer Australian university in 2000

demonstrated these trends, showing that enrolments by faculty varied significantly, with

only the Arts and Human Development Faculties approaching equal male and female

participation (White et al., 2000). Participation of women was highest at the Masters

level and decreased in all Faculties, except Arts, at doctoral level. In most Faculties

female participation in doctoral degrees was around one-third compared with male

29
participation, with the Faculty of Engineering and Science as low as twelve percent

(White et al., 2000). However the participation rates of women in postgraduate research,

at this and other Australian universities, has improved considerably a decade later.

Earlier research that examined why women do not undertake postgraduate research

degrees, or why they fail to complete these degrees, often focused on a particular issue

or aspect of the postgraduate research experience. McKay (1996) investigated

supervision and departmental issues, while Conrad and Phillips (1995) examined the

issues of isolation for women postgraduates. More recent research by Probert (2005),

Dever et al. (2006) and Dever et al. (2008) has expanded on this issue by exploring the

overall experiences of women in both undertaking research degrees and building

academic careers. One of the issues with such research, as with that of Asmar (1999), is

that it is focused primarily on PhD graduates who become academics. Thus it often does

not examine the experiences of women who left academia following their degrees or

those who failed to complete. A number of other Australian studies have identified

barriers that women experience, leading to their under-representation at postgraduate

levels (Hood & Sharples, 1995; Monash University, 2003; Moses, 1989; White, 1996;

White, 1997; White et al., 2000). An important theme running through these studies is

that most of the barriers identified were external to the student. Consequently the issues

cannot be addressed on a purely individual basis, but need to be tackled on a systemic

level as discussed above (White et al., 2000).

Dever et al.’s (2008) report highlighted some key concerns relating to gender

differences in both PhD experience and post PhD employment. This survey examined

the 1999-2001 PhD graduate cohort from the Group of Eight (Go8) universities within

Australia. The Go8 universities are the prestigious, research-intensive universities. The

30
report notes that female graduates were significantly more likely to report that they

pursued their PhD for intrinsic motivations such as intellectual and academic

development, personal satisfaction or because of interest in their thesis topic. Female

graduate were more likely to report completing their PhD as a solo project and were

significantly less likely to be part of a research group (Dever et al., 2008). Research

shows that team projects are much more common in SET disciplines, with a small group

of students working on different aspects of a major project. Research in the humanities

and social sciences generally entails solo projects. The representation of women is high

in the humanities and social sciences, particularly at the postgraduate degree level.

Being involved in a research group during PhD candidature can impact on a student’s

development of important collaboration and networking skills, which subsequently are

likely to impact on future career paths (Dever et al., 2008).

The use of narrative inquiry in this field as explored in detail in Chapter Three breaks

new ground in terms both of application and analysis. Feminist research theory

emphasises the importance of new methods to write women and their diverse

experiences into academic disciplines in order to change traditional practices and

pedagogies (DeVault, 1990). Using narrative inquiry fills a gap that has been missing in

previous studies of women in higher education. It allows a much more complex set of

relations to be investigated, overcoming the inadequacies of single issue/single solution

models, and leading to richer data being collected.

The primary methods used for gathering information in the above studies were focus

groups and surveys. A review of these studies corroborates the need for a more in-depth

method of data gathering and analysis. A survey that poses “why” questions is

acknowledged to elicit normative and perhaps self-justifying responses – what some

researchers would refer to as “thin stories” (Leonard, Becker & Coate, 2005). More in-
31
depth probing allows people to present their stories in nuanced, complex detail. It

became apparent that combinations of factors affecting one individual are not

necessarily applicable to another. People’s resilience and the way they cope with their

experiences vary considerably (Bonanno, 2004). An experience which one person

perceives and subsequently responds to as stressful may have little if any impact on

another. Research students do not live in isolation during their candidature – they often

work, have financial concerns and family commitments, as well as experience illness

and other forms of trauma and loss. The way in which individuals cope in these

situations and manage to successfully complete their research degree will be

investigated here. By using in-depth interviews to gather women’s stories of their

research degree candidature, we can gain a clearer understanding of their experiences.

This investigation of their motivation to undertake a research degree, how they

negotiated the central relationship with their supervisor/s, and their resilience in coping

with both the PhD experience and their lives while undertaking the degree, will provide

a better understanding of their experiences. This knowledge may help future students,

supervisors and universities to more clearly understand the complex set of factors that

impact on the experience of women as PhD candidates.

A search of earlier literature found little substantial investigation of women in higher

education using narrative inquiry. There were a few subject specific articles, such as

research by Stage and Maple (1996) on graduate women in the mathematics pipeline.

Their research examined narratives of women in the mathematics/science pipeline who

left to pursue a doctorate in education. The narratives portrayed the differences between

the women’s views of themselves and the nature of their chosen discipline (Stage &

Maple, 1996). Britton and Baxter (1999) interviewed 21 women and men on their

experiences of becoming a mature student. Their research involved construction of four

narratives from the 21 biographical interviews to explore some of the processes of

32
personal and social transformation involved in becoming a mature student. Four

conceptions of self were identified. Britton and Baxter (1999) draw attention to the

connections between these gendered concepts of self and the meanings of education,

which they suggest are more complex than the simple gender dichotomies expressed in

the literature.

More recently however, we have seen narrative methodologies becoming more

prevalent in research on the undergraduate and postgraduate experience as well as the

experiences of supervisors and academic staff across disciplines. (Hatchell & Aveling,

2008; McCormack, 2009; Povey, Angier & Clarke, 2006; Priola, 2007). Hatchell and

Aveling (2008) used ‘storying’ to show how women in the sciences, as a result of their

experiences, considered they had little choice but to leave their chosen field. They

referred to these as “gendered disappearing acts” (Hatchell & Aveling, 2008). Priola’s

(2007) study suggested that, although women were numerically dominant in the

particular business school studied, this dominance could lead to tensions between the

women’s identities as individuals and as managers.

This literature review has established that women in Australian universities do not enrol

in postgraduate research degrees in proportion to their representation in undergraduate

degrees and the impact that this in turn has on the number of women in the senior

academic ranks. Previous studies have been mainly quantitative in nature and the

following chapter outlines the qualitative narrative inquiry methodology used to gather

and investigate eight women’s stories of their PhD experiences in detail.

33
 Chapter Three — Methodology

Ours is a field characterized by extreme diversity and complexity. There is no single

way to do narrative research, just as there is no single definition of narrative.

(Riessman, 2008b, p.155).

Narrative inquiry has developed as a research methodology over the last thirty years. It

provides a way of gathering, investigating and analysing stories of experiences and

events. Webster and Mertova (2007) assert that storytelling is the most common form of

human communication and that it is used to communicate the elements of experience

that have affected an individual or a larger group. Andrews, Squire and Tamboukou

(2008) also argue that the narrative form is the universal way in which people make

sense of their experiences. People communicate and reinterpret their life experiences

through stories (Riessman, 2002a; Riessman, 2002b). Hatchell and Aveling (2008)

agree that stories can be used to reveal the ways in which people make sense of their

experience through narrative while at the same time elucidating common threads of

understanding. They offer “a way to gain insights into this complex relation between

individuals’ particular experiences, meanings and action strategies and their social and

societal contexts” (Stroobants, 2005, p.49 as cited in Hatchell & Aveling, 2008).

Narrative inquiry takes as its object of investigation the story itself and can be used in

many ways to understand people’s first-hand accounts of their experiences (Riessman,

2002a). Stories have the ability to resonate with us in a way that other forms of

information cannot. We relate to people’s stories, we look for similarities and

difference, and resonances with our own stories. Finding the ways our stories connect

with others may enable us to navigate a way forward when stuck, or even just

understand that on a highly individual and often isolated journey such as undertaking a

34
PhD, others have walked this path (Salmon, 1992). Using narrative inquiry to gather

and examine stories of women’s PhD experiences is not only important from a feminist

research methodology perspective as outlined in the previous chapter, but is also a

useful method for understanding the women’s lived experiences and exploring the

potential for providing a “road-map” for those who follow us on their own PhD

journeys. It is anticipated that this research – in being able to use these stories to

highlight the range of issues faced by women and how they have been overcome – will

provide a range of insights and strategies to enable other women to successfully

complete their PhDs.

The field of narrative research is extremely diverse both methodologically and

theoretically (Riessman, 2008b). There are a wide range of definitions of what is meant

by “narrative” itself, as well as of methods and theoretical underpinnings (Webster et

al., 2007). Riessman (2008b) argues however that this diversity is a major strength in

narrative studies. She describes “narrative analysis as a ‘family’ of analytic approaches

to texts … As in all families, there is conflict and disagreement among those holding

different perspectives.” (p. 151)

Studies using narrative inquiry as a methodology are found in a wide range of

disciplines. These include education (Clandinin & Connelly, 1990 & 2000), medicine

and illness (Frank, 1995), sociology (Riessman, 1990 & 1994), social action (Bell,

1988) and development (Daiute & Lightfoot, 2004). Central in narrative inquiry is the

work done by Clandinin and Connelly (1990, 2000) in the field of education research.

They claim that much of what is known in education comes from people relating their

stories of educational experiences.

35
Narrative inquiry is therefore concerned with critical analyses of the stories we hear,

read and tell on a personal level, as well as the larger societal narratives embedded in

our social interactions (Webster et al., 2007). Narrative approaches have often been

used in educational settings to help students and teachers to understand their own

teaching and/or learning processes and experiences (Clandinin & Connelly, 1990;

Lyons & Kubler LaBoskey, 2002).

The main justification offered for the use of narrative inquiry in educational research is

that humans are storytelling organisms who, individually and socially, lead storied lives

(Clandinin & Connelly, 1990; Stivers, 1993). Riessman (2002a) argues that the purpose

of narrative analysis is to see how participants impose order on the flow of experience

as a way of making sense of actions and events in their lives. Narrative inquiry as a

methodology can therefore be considered as integral to the production of “unalienated

knowledge” and allowing the depth of women’s lived experiences to be better

understood, and is consistent with the aims and values of standpoint as discussed in

Chapter One. Giving voice to the women means that as a researcher I value the

experiences related by my participants – their beliefs, views, perspectives, and opinions

– and am taking them seriously (Hatchell & Aveling, 2008).

This research is being undertaken from a feminist research perspective. Feminism

demands that those who have been objectified in the past are now able to define

themselves and to tell their own stories (Stivers, 1993). One way of challenging

concepts that advantage men is to “adopt forms of communication which express

women’s voices (through) storytelling” (Marshall, 1995 as cited in Eveline, 2000, p.1).

The narrative approach therefore, with its deprivileging of the “expert” researcher, is

consistent with these feminist research goals (Conti, Hewson & Ibsen, 2001). It allows

36
the individual to construct the content, focus and scope of their experience, as the

researcher does not impose a structure on their story.

The types of data collected in narrative research are also diverse in nature, although

most commonly these are first person oral accounts of experience (Andrews, et al,

2008). Data investigated includes, but is not limited to, archival documents including

letters and diaries; life stories collected in community settings; brief, bounded segments

of interview; a brief story in response to a single question; legal testimony before

governmental and legal commissions; and in-depth conversational interviews

(Riessman, 2008b).

Mishler (1996) supports narrative inquiry as a way of doing case centred research.

Cases may involve individuals, groups or communities. A frequent criticism of narrative

inquiry is that it unduly stresses the importance of the individual over the social context

(Clandinin & Connelly, 1990, 2000). Liz Stanley asserts however that social structures

are as recoverable from single social beings as they are from groups (Stivers, 1993).

The methods of analysis used by narrative researchers also vary markedly. Riessman

(2008a) proposes a typology of the four main types of analysis: thematic, structural,

dialogic and visual. However she notes that the boundaries between these four groups

can sometimes be blurred. Thematic narrative analyses differ, for example, in the extent

to which they attend to the structural features and language of the narratives as well as

to the content (Riessman, 2008a). Thematic narrative analysis, according to Riessman

(2008a), is the most widely used analytic strategy. Its focus is on the content, “what” is

said. Alternatively, structural analysis attends to “how” a story is told – the sequencing,

specific words and metaphors. Riessman (2008a) argues that the thematic and structural

37
approaches are the two foundations of narrative analysis, and that the dialogic and

visual methodologies build on these. Dialogic analysis is a broader interpretive

approach to oral narrative that investigates how talk between speakers is produced and

performed interactively as narrative (Riessman, 2008a). Visual analysis focuses on how

people communicate using images, either through telling a story with images or telling a

story about images that themselves tell a story (Riessman, 2008a).

This thesis utilised thematic narrative analysis to interrogate the stories of the women’s

experiences of their doctoral research degrees. The focus was on what content the

narratives communicated. As Riessman (2008a) is careful to point out, thematic

narrative analysis only appears straightforward and intuitive. The analysis of the

narratives is methodical, focused and detailed, while still retaining a sense of the

“whole” story. There is in this project, however, some focus on the “telling” of the story

– an attendance to sequencing, specific language, pauses and emotion (particularly

laughter) – which strengthens the analysis of each case. A thematic narrative analysis

approach is suited to this kind of data; “it can generate case studies of individuals and

groups, and typologies” (Riessman, 2008a, p. 74). Combining approaches in a way that

makes sense of what the researcher wants to elicit from the data means that I have in

this project carefully examined not only the themes of the women’s stories, but also the

way in which the stories were told. The pauses, silences, points of rupture, affect,

language and metaphors, among other aspects, enabled the whole story to be explored.

However the focus is on content and themes within each woman’s narrative rather than

a detailed discourse analysis. Narrative research provides rich, complex and nuanced

data that is not necessarily easy to analyse. When thinking about the types of analysis

that are most useful, we need to think about what we want to extract from the

information that has been collected and how it will be utilised.

38
Identifying common elements shared by research participants and their reported events

and actions, and using this to theorize across cases, is an established tradition in

qualitative research (Riessman, 2008a). Other qualitative approaches, particularly

grounded theory, are similar in a number of ways. Thematic narrative analysis is most

often confused with grounded theory. However there are important methodological

differences (Riessman, 2008a). Briefly, in grounded theory prior concepts have no place

in the analytic process, segments of data are taken apart and named, little attention is

given to sequencing, and the main “objective is to generalize inductively a set of stable

concepts that can be used to theorize across cases” (Riessman, 2008a, p.74).

Conversely, in thematic narrative analysis, prior theory and research guides the inquiry

process. In this project, for example, the literature on women undertaking postgraduate

research degrees has been examined for issues that influence a woman’s experience.

These include family support, supervisory relationships and career goals, among others.

As one of my aims was to investigate decisions to undertake a degree, motivation was

identified as a theme before analysis was undertaken. A key issue raised in the literature

is the supervisory relationship and its importance; this too was identified as a theme

before analysis began. However, in the process of analysing the data to understand what

factors assisted the women to continue and successfully complete their degree, a further

overarching theme of resilience was identified.

Most importantly, thematic narrative analysis preserves the sequencing, keeping the

story intact while interpreting it. Riessman (2008a) notes that narrative analysis seeks to

preserve the “wealth of detail contained in long sequences” (p. 74). In this research,

thematic narrative analysis therefore helped me to preserve the sense of the “whole

story” of the women, one of the reasons for undertaking the project. Two final and

important points of difference with grounded theory are firstly, thematic analysis

39
attends to context by historicising a narrative account in time and place; and secondly,

narrative analysis is case centred and does not seek to theorise across cases. One of the

proposed outcomes of this project is to provide information that will be useful to

women who are considering enrolling in PhDs in the future, as well as those who are

currently enrolled as PhD students. This may require comparing, for example, the

different strategies used by women to negotiate supervision and other forms of support.

Riessman argues that thematic narrative analysis is fundamentally case centred, but

there is scope to develop a typology of strategies used (Riessman, 2007). While the

women’s stories are examples set in specific contexts of space and time, we may get a

sense that they are not idiosyncratic; rather, they may illustrate more general and

widespread concerns (Hatchell & Aveling, 2008).

Riessman (2008a, 2008b) notes that research varies in the extent to which it attends to

matters of context, audience, reflexivity and the researcher’s role in constructing the

narratives that are subsequently analysed. Attention is paid in the subsequent analyses to

situating the narratives in the relevant context of time and place, both for the research

(early 21st century, Western academic structures in Australia) and for the women in

terms of their cultural background, age and the stage of the research degree at the time

of interview. I also want to pay attention here to the idea of audience – to whom is the

participant talking when she is telling her story? In some interviews, the women

specifically refer to information that they want other women to know. The audience in

these instances therefore is beyond me, as the researcher, to women research students

more generally.

By asking these women to tell their stories we can get a better understanding of the

nuances and complexities involved in their motivation to undertake the degree, the

40
women’s agency in the negotiation of supervision and support, and their

persistence/resilience to complete the degree. In this research I define agency as the

ability to act on one’s own behalf. I have therefore looked for sequences within each

narrative that refer to instances where the participant describes an experience in

negotiating with their supervisor or another person to obtain support.

Ethics Approval

This research project received ethics clearance from the University’s Human Research

Ethics Committee before any participants were approached to be interviewed. An

application was therefore submitted to the Committee and approval granted. The Ethics

Approval process required that the researcher explain the methodology, and provide the

plain language statement and consent form, and the questions to be asked to be outlined,

before approval was granted.

Purposeful sampling

Qualitative research involves purposeful sampling to choose information rich cases for

in-depth study to illuminate the questions being investigated (Patton, 1990). One

method of purposeful sampling is snowball or chain sampling. This approach for

locating information rich key informants involves asking well-situated people for

recommendations about potential participants (Patton, 1990). By asking a number of

people who else to talk to, the snowball gets bigger and bigger as more names of

information rich informants are accumulated. This project involves case studies of eight

women undertaking doctoral degrees. These women were recruited by asking well-

situated people to identify information rich key participants. Diversity was sought in

terms of age, cultural and linguistic background and discipline. However it must be

acknowledged from the outset that as this is a case-focused project, it was impossible to

41
cover every possible permutation of cultural and linguistic background, sexuality, race,

etc. within the scope of this study. Key informants in my research project included the

Director of Graduate Studies at my university, Associate Deans (Research) and other

students both inside and outside my institution. My role within the Office for

Postgraduate Research placed me in an ideal position to identify both participants and

other people who were able to suggest possible participants. One person distributed the

plain language statement to a student peer support group in which she was involved.

Through this group, one of the participants contacted me to volunteer to be interviewed.

Another student external to my university was recruited through a casual discussion

with a PhD candidate at my university regarding the need for another woman who was

undertaking doctoral research in the sciences. Science and engineering are two

disciplines where women are underrepresented at all levels (Ozkanli & White, 2008;

White, 2004). My problem was not so much finding women to participate but finding

too many of them. Almost every woman I spoke to about the project (and some men

too) volunteered to be interviewed. They wanted to tell me their stories and wanted to

be heard. The length of the interviews and the “dense” information contained within

each transcript – and the focus in narrative inquiry on individuals rather than large

segments of the population – led to a decision during data collection to limit this

research project to eight cases (Riessman, 2007).

Conversational interviews

The primary narrative research method is the conversational interview (Mishler, 1986).

Interviews are conducted between the researcher and participant, transcripts are

prepared (from the tapes and with the help of field notes), and the transcripts are made

available for further discussion developing an ongoing narrative record (Clandinin &

Connelly, 1990; Conti, et al., 2001; Stivers, 1993). Mishler (1986) reconceptualises

42
research interviews as two active participants who collaboratively construct narrative

and meaning. The goal of narrative interviewing is to generate a detailed account of

events or experiences (Riessman, 2008a). Conversational interviews allow the woman’s

story to unfold in her own words, with little prompting from the researcher and most

importantly with her own emphases, pauses and inflections as well as content. How the

participant conveys information can be as important as what is said (Riessman, 2008a).

The interviews were arranged via email contact, and follow-up phone calls, so that I

could forward the participants the consent form (see Appendix A) and plain language

statement (see Appendix B). Five of the interviews took place at the participants’

homes, one in my office, one in the participant’s office and one at my home. All

interviews were tape-recorded with the participants’ permission and I also took notes. I

began each interview with a very short statement explaining that I wanted their story of

their experiences when undertaking their PhDs. At this time I also explained that the

interview would be unstructured, as outlined in the plain language statement. The

interviews varied in length from one hour to two and a half hours. At appropriate

junctures I would ask questions to elicit elaboration on key points. I made notes during

the interviews however these were usually prompts to remind me of a point that they

made to which I wanted to return. I tried not to interrupt the flow of the story for a point

made in passing, but would follow this up at a later point in the interview.

The eight women were asked one initial question – “Could you please tell me your story

of your experience of undertaking a PhD?” The aim in asking one main question

designed to elicit narratives of their journey is to allow the women to express their

stories – the issues and events that they consider as most important – in their own words

and with their own emphases and structure. While I was disciplined in asking minimal

43
questions – rarely adding my own comments – the non-verbal cues and the interviewee

knowing that I was also undertaking a PhD established a particular context for the

interview. For example, as elaborated below, there was a lot of laughter in a number of

interviews. One interpretation is that much of this shared laughter comes from a place of

mutual understanding and experience of issues and events between the interviewer and

participant.

There are a number of points where I repeated what the participant was saying or

rephrased it, in an attempt to elicit further information. Occasionally I asked a question

to follow up an issue further or probe more deeply. I tried to do this unobtrusively – to

elicit further information but not interrupt the flow of the story.

At the end of each interview I informed the women that I would return the verbatim

transcript to them. I asked if they could read it and note any changes that they wanted to

make, in particular to note any segments that they wanted removed. I also asked them to

call or email me if they thought of further points in their stories that they would like to

include.

Following Riessman’s (2008a) criticism that the researcher’s role in constructing the

narratives which are subsequently analysed is often obscure, I detail below, and in

Appendices C, D and E, the specific steps taken in the interview process, transcription

and subsequent “cleaning up” of the transcripts. As noted earlier in this chapter, this is

not a detailed discourse analysis and therefore some cleaning up of the text was

undertaken. This attention to detail will help the reader to better understand both the

data that is being analysed and my role in the construction of the narratives and

following analyses.

44
Data management and analysis

Transcription process
The first transcription of the interview was verbatim, including all utterances by both

the participant and myself as researcher. Most of these were non-lexical utterances such

as “uh huh,” “mmmm,” “yeah,” etc. to encourage the participant to continue with her

story and indicate that the listener was following what she was saying (Glesne &

Peshkin, 1992). Places where the interviewee sighed, laughed or paused were also

noted. Narrative analysis involves immersion in the transcripts and I considered that this

would be aided by undertaking the transcription myself; thus I undertook all

transcription of the interviews. Although a lengthy process, this enabled me from the

beginning to get a sense of the women’s stories and how they were told.

This method of verbatim transcription resulted in lengthy transcripts. One original

transcript for example was 106 pages with single line spacing. The initial transcript was

sent back to each participant for verification so that they could correct any spelling

mistakes and names, add any information that they may have thought about following

the interview, or note any sections that they wanted to be deleted. None of the eight

participants asked for anything to be removed, or amended the content of the transcript.

All participants indicated that the transcript was a true account of their story of their

experiences. I made a point of also letting each of the women know that names (of

themselves and their supervisors) would be removed in the final version of the transcript

and no identifying information would be left in. Possible identifying information that

was removed included the participants’ and supervisors’ names, the university with

which they were affiliated, their specific research area, specific cultural background

details and some specific family information.

45
A revised transcript was then developed from the first version which had been reviewed

by the participants. In the second version, I removed many of my non-verbal or simple

affirmative utterances such as “yeah”, “uh huh”, “mmm” etc. as these did not add

anything to the story being told. Where I made a comment or statement or asked a

question, this remained in the revised transcript, as it is part of the co-construction of the

interview. Possible identifying information was also removed as promised. I asked the

women initially to provide a pseudonym, to give them the choice of what they were

called in the final thesis. Two women provided their own pseudonyms and I created

pseudonyms for the other six participants. I ensured that the pseudonyms did not start

with the same letter of the alphabet or have any resemblance to their original names.

Where a supervisor was referred to by name, I removed the name and inserted [my

supervisor] in its place. The text was left in blocks relating to the event or topic about

which they were talking, unless there was a significant pause. The sequencing was

preserved.

Thematic narrative analysis

When the second version of each transcript was completed, I read it closely. Some

sections of the narratives relating to the three themes of motivation, supervisory

relationship and resilience were apparent during the interview and/or during the

transcription process. Inductive analysis was used which incorporated immersion in the

details and specifics of the data to discover the important categories, dimensions and

interrelationships (Patton, 1990). This first stage of analysis resulted in blocks of text

from each case that related to the three themes.

The second stage of analysis involved deeper immersion in the excerpts or blocks of

text relating to each theme (motivation, supervisory relationship and resilience).

46
Excerpts were shortened where necessary to exclude unnecessary discussion, repetition,

digressions and examples shared by the participants. However the sequencing of events

by the participants was preserved. This second stage also involved noting where the

women returned to a theme within their story. The page numbers for each excerpt were

included to show where within each story an excerpt was located and as further

verification when a participant returned in her narrative to pick up an earlier point on a

theme.

The third stage of analysis involved looking for commonalities and differences between

the cases in relation to each theme. As Hatchell and Aveling (2008, p.14 quoting Denzin

1997, p. 266) note in this way the “text allows the reader to re-experience the events in

question, coming to see the truth of the narratives that contain them.” A table was

constructed for each theme and each case study was listed and classified according to

the way each women represented the theme in their story.

Participants

This section introduces the participants and provides an overview of their background

and story. At the time they were interviewed all except one of the women – who had

withdrawn – were reasonably advanced in their candidature or had completed their PhD.

Interview One — Eve

At the time that I interviewed Eve she had recently submitted her PhD thesis for

examination. She was in her late forties, of Anglo-Australian background and undertook

her research in Humanities. The Director of Graduate Studies at my university (a newer,

dual sector metropolitan university) suggested Eve as a participant in this research. I

chose Eve for the pilot interview because I didn’t know her well and at the time thought

47
that the lack of familiarity with me would help her to be open and honest. At this stage

of my research I had little experience and had not conducted research interviews

recently, and I thought it would be easier to interview someone that I didn’t know very

well. I had administered her scholarship although she had already commenced her

degree when I had started in this role. I contacted Eve by email and asked her if she

would be interested in being interviewed. Once she had agreed to be interviewed the

time and place for the interview were organised by telephone. During the phone call I

provided a brief description of the interview and subsequently sent her the plain

language statement and consent form. The interview was conducted at her home in an

outer north-eastern suburb of Melbourne. Eve’s interview, as the pilot in this series, was

more structured than those that followed. I had some questions to use as prompts and I

also had a list of the important themes that were highlighted in the literature. I began, as

with all the interviews, by asking her to tell me her story of her PhD experience in her

own words. Eve’s story is one of a woman who, although she worked in university in an

administrative capacity, had not completed any formal tertiary qualifications until she

was in her late thirties. Eve told her story in a temporally linear way, meaning that she

started her story where she thought it began in terms of her education and continued in a

mainly chronological order. As with the other participants, once the main story is

related, the participant does then mention some events out of chronological order when

emphasising a particular point. Initially she enrolled at university in a BA in another

state in 1979 but deferred her studies when her marriage broke up. She undertook a

Graduate Diploma at a Group of Eight university and fast-tracked the course to finish a

semester early. This was a fee-paying course and money was an issue. She was

unsuccessful in gaining a scholarship at this institution to continue to her Masters but on

applying to another university she was successful in gaining a scholarship to undertake

her Masters by research. During the course of her Masters by research she upgraded to a

48
PhD. The main issue that Eve raised was about her partner who was diagnosed with

leukaemia just after the first six months of her candidature. Eve talked of taking her

work to the hospital and staying at her partner’s bedside so she could continue to do her

research. It became even more difficult when her partner moved home from the hospital

and Eve became the primary carer while trying to maintain some focus on her research.

The only time she escaped these care responsibilities was for supervision or for a brief

visit to a masseur. Eve noted that continuing with her research at this time was the only

way that she could preserve her identity. In the middle of her data collection, her

partner’s health started to improve. Eve highlighted her partner as a strong role model.

Her partner continued with an Honours degree while sick. In the final year of her thesis

she referred to an increase in her confidence (rather than the crisis of confidence which

she informed me she witnessed in a number of other women doing PhDs). She linked

this to her prior work experience in preparing manuscripts for publication.

Following the pilot interview, I discussed with my supervisors the potential issues

around using the interview protocol. I noted that Eve had told her story of her PhD

experience, starting where it was logical for her at the beginnings of her tertiary

education. She discussed, without prompting, her motivation for undertaking the degree,

her supervisory relationships and within her story she mentioned what got her through

the degree. The aim in using narrative inquiry and unstructured interviews was to enable

the women to tell their stories of their own experiences in their own words and with

their own structure and emphases. It was thought that imposing an interview protocol

that insisted on certain topics being covered, might impact on the reliability of the data

gathered. If one or more of the participants didn’t mention role models, for example, or

financial support, those issues could be said to be unimportant to their related

experience. All subsequent interviews therefore were done without this interview

49
protocol and follow-up questions used by the interviewer were based on points raised by

the participant within her story.

Interview Two — Elena

Elena was the only person that I interviewed who had chosen to withdraw from her PhD

before completion. Her discipline area is Psychology and she was enrolled at a newer

dual sector metropolitan university. She commenced her PhD at the age of 21 and at the

time of interview was in her late twenties. The interview was conducted at Elena’s

home. She is of Southern European background but born in Australia. It was

approximately three years from when she had withdrawn from the degree after a period

of leave of absence. I chose to interview Elena because she had withdrawn. Although

she and I were and continue to be friends, I had been overseas at the time she

commenced her PhD and we previously had not discussed her reasons for withdrawing.

Given the potential sensitive nature of the issues surrounding her withdrawal, being a

friend could be considered to be an advantage as there was already a strong sense of

trust, particularly around the issue of confidentiality. I thought that this would be useful

in establishing rapport. Elena told her story in a temporally linear way but started much

earlier than her PhD with events around her family (particularly her mother) and their

push for her to succeed academically. She described the emphasis on education from

primary school onwards. Although her mother supported her in going to university to

become a teacher, the pressure was mainly on her finishing her degree and getting

married. She did very well in her undergraduate and Honours degree, averaging first

class Honours throughout, but she emphasised that she didn’t feel as though this took

much effort. She successfully applied for a scholarship to do her PhD, thinking that she

would pursue an academic career. Elena commented on the amount of pressure she felt

from the department because she was the first student to ever receive this prestigious

50
scholarship to do a PhD. Elena’s narrative centred on the influence of her family and

pressure from others to do well, as well as her relationships with her initial primary

supervisor and her second supervisor. By the time she began negotiation with a second

supervisor Elena seemed to be lost, unfocused and took a number of periods of leave.

Elena’s story is critical in terms of a woman’s sense of agency in the negotiation of

supervision and other forms of support and has therefore formed a separate chapter of

the thesis. Elena’s story is discussed in Chapter Seven, following the first three analysis

chapters.

Interview Three — Andrea

Andrea is of Western European background and was in her late twenties when I

interviewed her. A student at my university had distributed the plain language statement

for my research project to a student support group that she attended and Andrea emailed

me regarding her interest in the project. The interview was conducted at her home and

Andrea also told her story in a temporally linear way. She was in the final year of her

PhD at another metropolitan university in Melbourne. She did her undergraduate degree

in Australia and returned to her home country to do her Masters degree. Andrea’s PhD

was supported by an industry-funded scholarship so it was a set project that had already

been conceptualised by her supervisors in the social sciences. She had sought out a

funded scholarship opportunity as her primary motivation for undertaking a PhD was

for the learning experience. However the funded project came with pre-arranged

supervisors and Andrea’s story focused in part on her need for additional support

outside the initial supervisory arrangement. Andrea’s narrative shows a strong sense of

agency in her ability to negotiate the additional support she needed. She located an

additional (male) supervisor when she was not getting the support she needed from her

two female supervisors who were chief investigators on this grant. She also joined two

51
peer-support networks for other social science students within Victoria and undertook

an internship on a journal. Andrea briefly discussed her family background as both her

mother and father had undertaken PhDs. She was married and had her first child while

doing her PhD. Part of her interview centred on the utilisation of childcare and family

support to enable her to make time for her research. Interestingly Andrea commented

that she had planned to have her second child by the time that I was interviewing her

late in her PhD. When I caught up with her at a narrative workshop a few years later,

she had recently completed her PhD and had her second child while it was being

examined.

Interview Four — Jane

Jane is of Anglo-Australian background and was in her late twenties when I interviewed

her. The interview was conducted in my office within the university. The Director of

Graduate Studies suggested Jane as a participant when I discussed the need for a woman

in a science-based discipline. She was enrolled in a physical sciences PhD at a newer

dual sector metropolitan university and her two older brothers both have successfully

completed similar PhDs. She did her undergraduate degree at the same university as her

doctoral study. Jane gained a prestigious University scholarship to undertake her

research degree (the first time this scholarship had been offered). Jane told her story in a

temporally linear format, starting with her high school careers advisor’s negative

comments on the likelihood of her becoming a doctor. She also spoke of her

undergraduate degree and the support she received from academic staff, in particular the

woman who was to become her PhD supervisor. She reported feeling that the PhD was

taking too long and this was mainly due to her supervisor wanting her to do further

experimental work. There were some important points to be made here with agency and

negotiation of supervision. Jane specifically pointed out learning from other students’

52
experiences with the same supervisor, particularly over deciding which “battles” to pick

and which to concede. There was also a strong sense of struggle with the power

differential in the supervisory relationship. Jane’s narrative centred on the need to move

forward and finalise her thesis, and there were long segments where she discussed in

detail the difficulties she had with her supervisor around writing and publication of

aspects of the thesis. She also reported difficulties with other staff, mainly in technical

support, due to her supervisor not being liked. This caused delays when her supervisor

was absent from the university and Jane needed technical assistance with equipment

repairs. During her PhD, Jane got married and at the time I interviewed her she was

approximately six months pregnant. She also reported an illness within her family that

increased pressure on the time available for her research. She juggled care

responsibilities during the day with studying at night. Towards the end of her interview,

Jane noted that she still wanted to finish her degree but she was also focused on her

family and considering a year off from the PhD in order to gain a Diploma in Secondary

Teaching from another university. She believed this would broaden her options for the

future.

Interview Five — Karen

Karen is of Anglo-Australian background and was in her mid-thirties at time of

interview. The interview was conducted in her home. Karen was in the final six months

of completing her PhD in the sciences at a multi-campus metropolitan university. A

PhD candidate at my university who was her neighbour suggested Karen as a potential

participant in this research project. Karen received the plain language statement and

contact details and she emailed me shortly after to indicate her interest in participating

in the project. Karen told her story in a temporally linear way, starting with her

undergraduate studies at the same institution where she was now enrolled in her PhD. In

53
Australia, a standard Bachelor degree in most disciplines is three years. Students

wanting to follow a research path will undertake a fourth year (Honours) that normally

comprises coursework and a minor research thesis. A High Distinction or Distinction

grade is required in Honours for proceeding to a research higher degree. Following her

Honours year, Karen worked for a mining company but eventually decided to pursue a

different career. She completed a Diploma of Secondary Education and become a

secondary school science teacher. After two years of teaching she again considered her

options and applied for a PhD scholarship. Her Honours supervisor was very supportive

of her application and she was successful in gaining a scholarship. Her supervisor, with

whom she had a close relationship detailed in her narrative, passed away during PhD

candidature and Karen outlined the difficulties she experienced in dealing with her

grief. Karen found an alternative principal supervisor in one of her co-supervisors.

Karen discussed several issues she had with her new supervisor, mainly pertaining to

having to start building a relationship with her new supervisor who had a different style

of supervision. Karen commenced her PhD thinking that she would like an academic

career but when interviewed was looking at working outside a university. She discussed

issues relating to the theme of agency and negotiation of supervision and other

professional relationships, and also in relation to the “boys club” in the sciences. In

addition, she had other family issues to contend with at the same time that she was

grieving for her principal supervisor. She reported her brother’s addiction to drugs and

his custody dispute that affected her family. She reported needing to unplug the phone

at home so that she could escape these other pressures and continue to work. Her need

to be supportive of her family affected her progress during her PhD.

54
Interview Six — Laura
Laura was of Southern European background and in her late twenties at the time of

interview. Laura was suggested as a potential participant after discussion with the

Director of Graduate Studies regarding woman students in the business discipline. The

interview was conducted in my home. I knew Laura before the interview through my

role at the university, as she was a scholarship recipient. Laura had successfully

completed her PhD in management at the time of interview at a newer dual sector

metropolitan university. Her undergraduate and Masters by coursework qualifications

were undertaken at the same institution. She had recently been appointed to an academic

role at a Group of Eight university within Melbourne. Laura told her story in a

temporally linear way, although at one point she related an incident from her childhood

regarding her parents’ way of developing her confidence in finding out information for

herself. Laura had initially commenced her undergraduate studies in science and was

studying full-time and working full-time concurrently. Through taking a business

subject as an elective, she discovered her interest in management and marketing. She

wound up her studies in science with a diploma and commenced a Bachelor of Business

degree while continuing to work. During her undergraduate studies she discovered an

interest in research and how it related to the business world. She continued on to do a

Masters of Business by coursework with a minor thesis. At this time she started a new

role with another university teaching some undergraduate business students. Her

Masters minor thesis supervisor pointed out the potential for her thesis topic to be

expanded into a PhD but at that stage in her studies Laura had not considered this as an

option. She had encouragement from her Masters supervisor to undertake a PhD and

when her parents organised her re-enrolment by proxy, as Laura was overseas, he spoke

to them about the possibility of her undertaking a PhD. Key points in her narrative were

the good supervisory team relationship and how her sense of agency was developed

55
through her family upbringing. Laura worked as a sessional academic while undertaking

her PhD and also had a scholarship. She was encouraged to work as a sessional

academic and research assistant, as well as publish articles and to attend conferences, by

her supervisory team during her candidature. Laura reported that this encouragement

and the resultant CV were crucial to her success in gaining an academic position so

soon after her thesis was examined.

Interview Seven — Ebony

Ebony had completed her PhD in Health Sciences approximately three years before the

interview was conducted. She is of Anglo-Australian background and was in her mid-

thirties at the time of interview. The PhD was undertaken at a dual-sector newer

metropolitan university where she worked at the time. The interview was carried out in

her office at the university. Ebony told her story in a temporally linear way, starting

with the first time the possibility of doing a PhD was mentioned by a family member.

Ebony had previously completed a Masters degree by research at the same institution.

She undertook her degrees part-time while working as an academic (sometimes working

a reduced load) but still managed to complete her PhD in 2 years full-time equivalent.

Ebony had one child while completing her Masters degree and her second child while

completing her PhD. Her mother also passed away prior to her enrolment in the PhD.

Ebony’s story centres on the difficulties she faced when one experimental component of

her research project collapsed. She wrote a journal article about the experience of

research going wrong. She also talked about her personal commitment to her PhD as it

was related to the disease that affected her mother. Another key part of her story is the

negotiation and re-negotiation that took place with both her work and family

responsibilities as the research progressed. Ebony had a very strong sense of agency in

the negotiation of her workload and home responsibilities, as well as a good relationship

56
with her supervisor. She continues to work as an academic and is now an Associate

Professor.

Interview Eight — Tasha

Tasha is of Anglo-Australian background and was in her late thirties at the time of

interview. This interview was conducted in Tasha’s home interstate. At the time of

interview, Tasha was in the final three months of writing up her PhD. She was

undertaking a PhD in Humanities at an interstate newer dual sector metropolitan

university. I met Tasha at a narrative methods conference and she expressed an interest

in participating in my project. Although she was enrolled in the School of Humanities,

her research is in ethics and nursing. Tasha is a registered nurse and midwife. She told

her story in a temporally linear way, starting at the end of her Honours degree. She

undertook an Honours degree but reporting thinking that this would not be recognised in

her field. She talked to another student who suggested applying for a PhD scholarship,

and she was successful in her application. At the time of interview her scholarship had

expired. She referred to her PhD as an “odyssey” rather than a journey. She had endured

severe physical illness, which triggered bouts of depression and post-traumatic stress,

and she spent varying lengths of time in hospital. Tasha had a good sense of agency in

the negotiating of supervision (she had a good supervisory relationship and worked

through her supervisor to sort out other issues). She has strong support from her family

and friends. Tasha worked part-time when she could and then spent several hours on

campus working (often until the early hours of the morning).

The analysis of these eight women’s narratives is explored in the four chapters that

follow. Each chapter examines in detail a theme that was strongly evident in the data

and relates back to the aims of the research. The chapters are sequentially ordered to

57
firstly discuss the women’s motivation for undertaking, and continuing with the degree;

and secondly to examine the importance of the supervisory relationship and its

negotiation. The sixth chapter is on resilience and the factors that helped the women to

remain focused on their PhD despite a range of personal and professional challenges;

and the seventh chapter explores in detail the narrative of the one woman, Elena, who

did not complete her research degree.

58
 Chapter Four — Motivation

What motivates someone to undertake a doctoral degree? And does this motivation

change during their candidature? Previous literature highlights that there are diverse

reasons why students undertake and complete PhDs. These include expanding

knowledge of a specific subject; improving career prospects (including the potential for

an increase in salary); personal interest in the subject for its own sake; a stalling tactic

(that is, postgraduate study is a way of postponing a decision about career planning);

being flattered and encouraged into it; and contributing to knowledge (Dux, 2006;

Leonard, 2001; Phillips & Pugh, 2005). A UK study by the National Postgraduate

Committee found that nearly half of the students surveyed named improved career

prospects as their primary reason for enrolling in graduate study. Aside from career

advancement, two of the most popular reasons were an interest in the subject matter or

wishing to continue to study (NPC, 2002). The Cambridge Dictionary defines

motivation as the need or reason for doing something (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s

Dictionary, 2009). Motivation is clearly a major factor in applying to do a PhD,

progress of candidature and success or failure of the project (Kiley, 2009). However, as

Leonard, Becker and Coate (2005) point out, while undertaking doctoral study is a

major commitment, relatively little is known about students’ motivation to enrol.

As motivation has been identified as a key issue, this chapter looks at how motivation is

woven throughout these eight students’ stories. The reasons for undertaking a PhD were

also inextricably intertwined with factors discussed in Chapter Six on the theme of

resilience/persistence. If a PhD student has a sufficiently strong motivation, does this

support successful completion? Some participants in this research project mention how

identifying gaps in the literature or issues in professional practice was a primary

motivator. Others had a personal interest in their topic; they enjoyed research in general;

59
wanted an academic career; or, in several instances, were encouraged to enrol. As will

be explored below, in every story motivation was not a singular factor. Each woman

identified more than one motivation for undertaking the degree and on occasion this

motivation could be seen to be contradictory.

Motivation in this chapter refers to both the motivation for commencing the degree and

motivation to continue and complete. As Phillips and Pugh (2005) assert, motivation

can change during candidature. I analysed these stories for both the women’s motivation

to undertake the degree, and also their motivation for continuing with the degree. As

will be shown below, some women were less clear about, or did not discuss, motivation

to continue with their degree. However all the women discussed their motivation for

undertaking their doctoral degrees.

Motivation can be intrinsic or extrinsic, although at times the distinction between these

two categories is blurred. In discussing motivation for undertaking and completing a

research degree, intrinsic motivation includes an interest in the subject and personal

development, and an interest in research generally (Leonard, 2001; Leonard et al., 2005;

Phillips & Pugh, 2005). Extrinsic motivation encompasses improving career prospects,

parental and staff influences, and availability of financial assistance such as scholarships

(Leonard, 2001; Leonard et al., 2005; Phillips & Pugh, 2005). Motivation can also be

positive or negative.

Powles (1984) examined a range of surveys which looked at influences on the decision

to undertake higher degrees by research; influences such as interest in the pursuit of

learning, personal fulfillment, the higher degree as a necessary precursor to a chosen

occupation, enhancement of employability, perception of the labour market in general,

60
parental and academic staff influences, and the extent and availability of financial

assistance. These surveys overwhelmingly showed that intrinsic interest and personal

fulfillment were the main reasons for proceeding to higher degree study. Research on

Honours students at the University of Melbourne (Reilly, 1985) also indicated that

academic interest was the most important motivating factor for the majority of students,

but especially for women.

Interestingly Phillips and Pugh (2005), in their important reference book for PhD

students and supervisors, do not specifically refer to students’ motivation for enrolling

in a PhD. However they do clearly refer to the “reasons why people decide to work

towards a PhD” (Phillips & Pugh, 2005, p. 25). The common “aims” that they identify

include: making a significant contribution to the current state of knowledge in their

field, improving career opportunities and increasing future earning capacity, gaining the

title Dr, and interest in the work for its own sake (Phillips & Pugh, 2005). It is also

important to note that the motivation for doing the degree may change during

candidature. Towards the end of the degree, the aim often becomes simply to finish the

PhD (Phillips & Pugh, 2005). Although self-evident, Phillips and Pugh (2005)

emphasise that a student must want to get a PhD.

Similarly, Leonard (2001) does not specifically refer to motivation in her book, A

Woman’s Guide to Doctoral Studies, but she discusses several reasons for doing a

doctorate that align with those noted by Phillips and Pugh (2005) including: vocational

improvement and contribution to knowledge. Two other reasons put forward by

Leonard (2001) are personal development and helping society or the student’s

community. Leonard (2001) also notes some problematic reasons for wanting a

doctorate including: drift (being unsure what else to do); enjoying the experience of

61
being a student; being unable to get a job but receiving a grant or scholarship;

convenience; other people’s expectations; and specifically for women, to get the title of

Dr rather than continue to be Miss, Mrs or Ms. It should be noted that Phillips and Pugh

(2005) also listed gaining the title of Dr as a reason for gaining a PhD but without

labeling this as a “problematic” reason. Leonard (2001) goes on to explain that patterns

can be seen in these choices:

Various types of doctorates are undertaken for rather different reasons and at
different points in life in different disciplines. They are done more for vocational
reasons and by younger and full-time students in the sciences, and more for
personal development and part-time by those who return to study after a period
of employment, and in the social sciences and humanities (p. 52).

A recent study in Australia by the University of Queensland Social Research Centre

noted that female PhD graduates were significantly more likely than their male

counterparts to report that they undertook a PhD for intrinsic motivations such as

personal satisfaction, intellectual and academic development, and interest in the

discipline area and thesis topic (Dever et al., 2008). An earlier study by Gill (1999) in

South Australia noted that both men and women offered a mix of reasons for enrolling

in terms of career advancement and personal fulfillment. However men were more

likely than women to nominate an interest in following on from earlier studies as a

motivation for enrolment.

Leonard et al. (2005) undertook research on graduates who completed doctoral theses in

Education in 1992, 1997 and 2002. They argue that although the doctorate “plays a key

role in continuing professional development in this field, the benefits of the doctorate

are perceived post facto as equally, and for some more, in terms of intrinsic interest and

personal development” (Leonard et al., 2005 p.135). Their study was undertaken to

better understand what motivates people to start, and persevere through, a doctorate and

62
how it affected their lives subsequently. Leonard et al. (2005) note that there were

multiple initial motives for undertaking a doctorate and respondents mostly gave more

than one reason. The majority mentioned a vocational element and/or interest in a

particular field of research; but personal development and general intellectual interest

were almost equally noted. Taken together, these latter two categories outnumbered

vocational concerns as a motivating factor (Leonard et al., 2005). One in ten of the

respondents mentioned getting the PhD itself; and three in ten noted this as one reason,

alongside other factors.

Motivation was a key issue in this project. The table below summarises the motivation

factors, intrinsic and extrinsic, discussed by the eight women participants. It includes

both the motivations for undertaking the degree and motivation for continuing. The

women discussed their motivations to varying degrees in their stories. For example, as

reported later in this chapter, Eve mentioned at several points throughout her story that

financial support was essential but also that she was proving herself academically. In

contrast, Laura’s story mentioned her supervisor’s explicit encouragement to undertake

her PhD, but little is discussed about her own intrinsic motivation.

On the next page is a table summarizing the motivation of all eight women in this
research project.

63
Table Five: Summary table of participants’ motivation factors

Motivation Issues Classification

Eve Prove herself academically; Upgraded her degree and scholarship Both intrinsic
financial (scholarship); to to a PhD to give her more time when and extrinsic
consolidate career and improve job partner became ill. Wanting to return factors
prospects; encouragement from to study. Strong relationship with
supervisors; sister as role model supervisors and encouragement from
them
Elena Encouragement from the Awarded a scholarship and reported All extrinsic
(see Department to continue; academic pressure from academic staff to enrol factors
chapter career; family influence; financial in a PhD directly after completing
six) (scholarship) her Honours degree. Wanted to teach
at university and needed a PhD to do
so, but this motivation changed as
she experienced departmental politics
Andrea Learning for its own sake; financial Both parents commenced PhDs and Both intrinsic
(scholarship); family influence her mother finished (no specific and extrinsic
mention of active encouragement). factors
Main motivation was learning for its
own sake and she actively sought a
scholarship to enable her to do this
Jane Support and encouragement from Sees lengthy duration of PhD as Mainly
academic staff; wanting recognition stalling her career. Female supervisor extrinsic
and proving herself academically; in male dominated field as role factors
wants the title Dr; two older model, but then had issues with
brothers as role models supervisor. Influenced by the career
advisor at school who said she would
never be a “doctor”
Karen Always considered it an option; Support from husband and All extrinsic
possibility of an academic career; supervisor. PhD could be considered factors
financial (scholarship); a way of stalling while she works out
encouragement from her first what she wants to do. Mentioned of
supervisor going into an academic role but
changed mind during candidature
Laura Academic career; encouragement Had a scholarship but didn’t discuss Both intrinsic
from supervisor; interest in the this as a factor in motivation. Interest and extrinsic
topic and in research generally in research for its own sake, factors
encouragement from her supervisor
and support from her family.
Ebony Furthering her academic career Encouragement from her supervisor. Both intrinsic
(implicit); encouragement from her Developed own topic and then and extrinsic
family and supervisor; personal approached him. She was recently factors
interest in area of research; promoted to Associate Professor
completion scholarship provided by within six years of completing her
her department. PhD and may provide a model of a
strategic academic career
Tasha Academic career; gain the Discussed that she should have Both intrinsic
qualification; interest in topic; to undertaken a Masters instead of and extrinsic
help the profession; financial Honours – the only progression with factors
(scholarship) an Honours degree in her field was to
go on to a PhD

64
Case Study One: Eve

Eve’s motivation for undertaking a PhD was both intrinsic and extrinsic. It centred on

financial support through the scholarship; consolidating her career and improving job

prospects; and proving to herself (and her family) that she could achieve academically.

Interestingly, Eve enrolled initially in a Masters degree and upgraded to a PhD, mainly

because she needed to continue the scholarship for as long as permissible as her partner

was seriously ill and Eve couldn’t work at this time. She also talks about consolidating

her career by enrolling in a Graduate Diploma from which she applied to do a Masters

by research and then upgraded to a PhD. In terms of motivation to continue the degree,

Eve referred to both her sister and partner as role models; and the continuity of the

scholarship when she needed financial support.

Motivation to commence
Eve’s first discussion around the topic of motivation related to being at a point in her

life where she was ready to consolidate financially and she saw a return to study as a

way of improving her career/job prospects. This point was raised early in her narrative

(page 2):

I had a great passion for working basically in the [employment] sector … great
love of language, prolific reader, all of those things, but I, I think I hit a bit of a
wall. At that stage I was, “God I’ve got to go back now”, I must have been in my
early forties, and I was feeling like, I was feeling a bit burnt out, I needed to …
and I also felt like I needed to continue my education … or I could see myself
sort of just rolling along … and I wanted to consolidate something like, fifteen
years of working within the [employment sector interstate]. I wanted to
somehow consolidate that and I wanted to consolidate my, what was left of my
working life and, in inverted commas, “professional career” I think so I, at that
point in time, I took up an offer of a position in the Graduate Diploma in [field]
at [Group of Eight] University in 96

In the process of doing the Graduate Diploma and excelling in her subjects, Eve decided

to continue her studies. She was encouraged to apply by a friend who introduced her to

65
a potential supervisor. Their active interest in her topic and encouragement motivated

her to apply for a scholarship, initially to undertake a Masters by research (page 3):

I made my way to [dual sector metropolitan university] mostly through a peer

and a friend who ended up becoming my co-supervisor, who believed in what I
was doing, who when I talked with her about possible subjects for doing a thesis
she became very excited and she spoke with [the postgraduate coordinator and
potential supervisor]. And she said, “Oh I’d really like to, to take this student on
board.” And so I was actively encouraged to apply and felt all the way from the
beginning with that application that I was, it wasn’t a given, it wasn’t a
guarantee that I was going to get it, but I felt that [co-supervisor] and
[supervisor], and I think the University through them, were really engaged with
and interested in the work that I was doing. So I felt very welcome. I was
delighted when I heard that I had won the scholarship.

This scholarship was an important part of Eve’s motivation to undertake the degree. She

discussed the importance of the financial support as a motivation to commence her

studies, prompted by a question from me (page 17):

I had to win a scholarship or some sort of financial support to be able to take me

forward … I didn’t want to do it part-time. My experience way back in 1979 as a
part-time student, was goodness knows what it would have been like if I had
been off-campus, and having to at the end of a working day like so many
students do, then drive to a night class and then try and stay awake … and get
through your part-time study that way. I was fortunate because I was on campus
but I could still see the pitfalls of part-time study. And the lack of continuity and
not getting a big enough bite at it. And I was more, and I think you know that
now that I’m older I was also more ready to, to step in and fully embrace full-
time study. I really wanted to do that. I think they were the advantages of not
doing it that way. I mean I’ve been very grateful to the university for offering me
a scholarship.

The scholarship allowed her to study full-time, as she had studied part-time previously

and had seen the pitfalls of part-time study. Being granted a scholarship enabled her to

become immersed in research on a full-time basis.

A strong component of Eve’s motivation was proving to herself and others that she

could “achieve academically,” and this appears in several places in the narrative. It was

66
a factor motivating her to start her postgraduate journey, and also a motivation tied to

persistence (page 13):

I was determined I think to finish something, I think there was something at the
back of my brain that was pushing me all the time, which was “you never
finished. This was part of a chapter in your life that is unfinished, its unfinished
business. You never finished your B.A.” … and there are times when I’ve had
messages in my life which weren’t necessarily spoken but about, you know, “you
never achieved academically, you never got past the post,” and I wanted to
prove that I could do that.

While she had been given negative messages of not being academically strong, Eve

turned this around to help motivate her.

She referred to her sister as a positive role model (page 15):

Role models I think are important, and I must, I mean I mustn’t leave my sister
out of this ... my older sister. I saw her return to study, after she had raised three
small children … [five lines deleted] but her kids and her partner could not see,
they were all dumbfounded and they could not understand why she wanted to
return to study. And in fact the lot of them were not very supportive actually
except for my niece … [two lines deleted] … and I think I watched all of that
unfold too, and that made me even more determined. I thought, “If she can do it,
I can do it.”… [four lines deleted] … So I think that she was a role model, and
she still is a role model in, you know, in terms of acceptance of life, of my choice
of lifestyle, my wanting to return to study.

Eve’s sister was identified as a positive role model both to motivate Eve to return to

study and to continue studying. In addition, Eve also mentioned an intrinsic motivation

of doing the degree for herself (page 18):

I sometimes think I’m only kidding myself, but I think that my reasons for
returning to study were for myself as well as for development of what I call the
next stage of my career.

Eve reported in her narrative that she had received messages of not being academically

strong from her family. Her motivation to return to study clearly show that she had an

intrinsic desire to do this for herself as well as the extrinsic factor of consolidating her

working life to improve her career prospects. Her sister was also a positive role model.

67
Motivation to continue
As discussed above, Eve saw her sister as a positive role model who motivated her to

both commence and continue with her degree. She also noted that her partner was a role

model, motivating her to continue her candidature. Watching her partner recover from a

life-threatening illness and pull their life together was mentioned as a motivation to

continue (pages 19-20):

Seeing someone go through what [partner] has gone through and also manage
to put [their] life back together again, has been you know, if you had a choice
about going through an experience like that you’d probably say “no” but if … if
you have to go through it … I mean it’s a strange thing to say but I feel I have
been very privileged … to watch someone do that, because it’s motivated me
when I’ve been feeling a bit pathetic and down about myself, I’ve looked at [my
partner] and thought “God, why are you feeling down?”

She used the strength she saw in her partner as a positive motivation to continue her

degree.

Eve specifically emphasised that financial support was a motivating factor in both

starting her research degree and in continuing it. She made it clear that it would have

been “impossible” to continue without it (page 16):

And I might add, without it, it would have been impossible, it just would have
been impossible with what actually happened. The scholarship was a huge
motivation for me to keep going so I’m glad you’ve mentioned that … laughter I
might also add that it was extremely hard when my scholarship ran out.

Eve and her partner were reliant on the income from the scholarship for financial

support, particularly while her partner was ill and Eve couldn’t undertake any additional

paid work.

She returned to this theme of financial support as an ongoing motivation enabling her

focus on the task of the research later in her narrative (page 19):

68
 Before I took up the offer of the place at [previous university], I was suffering
from burnout. And that had actually happened twice, that’s happened twice for
me in my working life. Why it didn’t happen this time is an interesting one, I
think perhaps it was because through the scholarship I was able on a very basic
wage or living allowance, with the top-up from the carer’s pension, I was
actually able just to focus on the job at hand which was to research and write
my thesis, and for a long time … [a few words inaudible] … so financially as
long as I was careful, I didn’t have to go out and look for more work, on top of
being a full-time carer as well … so that probably made the difference, and I
was working from home, there were times when I had to, when that was the last
thing I wanted to do, but in many ways it was, it also was convenient and that
helped me get through.

Holding a scholarship allowed Eve to continue her studies without seeking external

employment, particularly during the difficult time when she also had a role as a full-

time carer.

Eve again returned to financial consolidation as motivation (page 15)

… it’s not the logical step to take at this time in your life when you should be
consolidating and is what in fact I was trying to do with my study. But I believe
I’m into the next step or stages of, still, as a single independent woman, trying to
consolidate financial security in my life.

Eve saw the PhD as a way of consolidating her industry career so far. This
consolidation was also linked to career development (page 16):

Well, I suppose I thought that that message was still there, that you’re not smart
enough and trying to get full-time jobs, full-time work in [another state] in the
area that I wanted to be in, they are actually few and far between…and so I
thought that if I come through my university study and that’s what I want to do,
then I’m, it’s a logical step.

Here we can see how the external message of not being “smart enough” for study was

intertwined with Eve’s desire to consolidate 15 years work in the industry and build her

career.

Eve’s story demonstrates the multiple nature of motivation, and how it can be both

intrinsic and extrinsic. Her intrinsic motivation was centred on proving to herself, and

her family, that she could achieve academically. She also saw her sister and partner as

69
strong role models. This motivation was central to not only commencing the degree, but

also to continuing on and completing her PhD. Her extrinsic motivation was twofold.

Eve noted that one motivation for enrolling in her research degree was to improve her

career prospects. However once she secured a scholarship, the financial support was a

strong motivating factor in continuing during difficult times.

Case Study Three: Andrea

Andrea’s motivation for enrolling in a PhD was both intrinsic and extrinsic. Like Eve,

financial considerations were important in her motivation to undertake a PhD and what

she referred to as being “an opportunist” when the chance presented itself. A further

influence was that both of her parents started – and her mother completed – PhDs.

Although she didn't refer to them as role models, the precedent they set in terms of

cultural capital could be seen as a facilitating factor in Andrea's consideration of a

research degree as an option. She discussed two main motivating factors – a scholarship

opportunity that she discovered and the challenge of learning. Andrea also explored the

idea that the scholarship was a double-edged sword in terms of motivation. She did not

choose her topic and her discussions with other PhD students caused her to contemplate

the advantages and disadvantages of enrolling in a research degree topic that was not

her choice.

Motivation to commence
Andrea was clearly aware that the interpretation of aspects of her story would depend on

how it was portrayed. This is evident in the first sentence in the excerpt below, early in

her narrative, where she discussed the scholarship opportunity that she found through a

friend (page 1):

70
 I was thinking it’s really a matter of just how you want to portray the whole
story because on the one hand you could say I’m an opportunist because I
simply found out about a scholarship on offer … through a friend … and she
said “Look, they’re looking for someone, I don’t know the details but you maybe
you want to find out,” and I did and applied and basically got the scholarship …
so it wasn’t that much of hard thinking once the opportunity presented itself. On
the other hand I had a look around before, just sort of scoping at a couple of
universities … Just to see what PhDs were on offer, like what would be involved
in terms of HECS [university fees] and all the rest … so yeah you could say I
just took an opportunity…

Like Eve, financial considerations were important, but Andrea clearly identifies that she

took an opportunity that presented itself to apply for a scholarship. She had done some

investigation of what was involved, and was ready when the opportunity arose.

Andrea’s exploration of the options available for further study was influenced by her

family background. Both her parents had commenced PhDs, and her mother completed

the degree (page 1):

You could also say that somewhat it was planned in the fact that I had done my
research before … on what it would mean to do it, and also in terms of my
family background. My mother did a PhD and my father did a PhD except he
didn’t finish it because they had two children at the time and they decided that
there would be an artificial cut-off line in which one person that’s further will
go ahead and so … I wasn’t unfamiliar with … academics and all the rest of it
… so in that sense I didn’t think it would be out of the question to do it.

Although Andrea mentioned her family background she does not, as several other

women did, refer to her parents specifically as role models. Instead her statement that

she “didn’t think it would be out of the question to do it” appears to indicate that she

saw PhD candidature as a viable option and not beyond the reach of her capabilities.

Andrea also explained in this part of her narrative that for her, knowing what you want

from the degree is important. This demonstrated her understanding that her experience

of motivation would vary from that of other people. She clearly stated that “it doesn’t

71
hurt if you have a good qualification” but acknowledged the impact that taking the time

to gain the degree can have on income (page 1):

Of course you’ve got to have a sense of what you want from the degree itself
first and that obviously varies enormously … obviously it doesn’t hurt if you
have a good qualification. Well actually sometimes people say to me it can hurt
because once you consider the loss of income that you have, even when you’re
on a scholarship … let alone if you’re not … they can kind of counter balance
how long a highly educated person takes to catch up in terms of income with
someone that hasn’t got as many qualifications … but of course I’m not after
income but you know if that was a consideration then you would possibly have a
disadvantage for a while … but I guess for me it was always more a matter of
having the learning experience associated with it.

Andrea mentioned here that she is not doing this for financial gain – even holding a

scholarship does not compensate for the lost earning potential. She concluded that for

her the “learning experience” was a key intrinsic motivation.

She continued to expand on wanting a “learning experience” and acknowledged that this

is different for each person who undertakes postgraduate research. In this excerpt she

extrapolated on her experience (page 1):

Even though you don’t really know what you’re in for until you are in that
situation so you know people might tell you what you have to expect or what
trials and tribulations there will be but … in the end you don’t know what your
experience is going to be exactly like. My experience actually doing it … is
varied from kind of complete success in terms of learning and challenging one’s
own ideas, understandings, reading so broadly, that is very enriching and I think
that’s very fulfilling … from being lost in terms of … taking ownership of the
scholarship issue … or topic that was given to me … so to familiarise yourself
with a topic that you don’t actually know that much about.

Andrea claimed that her motivation to commence – wanting a “learning experience” –

was a complete success. However, she tempered this by mentioning that in accepting a

scholarship on an already designed project, she had to familiarise herself with a topic

that was not of her choosing.

72
A further intrinsic motivation for Andrea was also the timing of this project with

starting a family. She repeated from earlier in her narrative that she saw the PhD as an

option (page 9):

In terms of my own motivation as I said I didn’t think it would be out of the

question to do it at some stage in my life and I knew that a lot of women
successfully do combine the motherhood and study period.

This appeared to have been a pragmatic motivation for Andrea in that she considered

that she could realistically combine the study period with starting a family.

Motivation to continue
Andrea reflected later on about the financial motivation of having a scholarship with the

restriction of a topic which wasn’t of her own choosing. She discussed meeting other

PhD students who had an intrinsic interest in their subject and the effect that that had on

their ongoing motivation (page 4):

And that’s the other thing I’ve found … sometimes you think, “okay you’re being
paid you can do something full-time, surely that’s the easier option?” Then I’ve
met other people who didn’t have a pre-given topic and were really passionate
about their topic and did it part-time which was harder because obviously they
had to work the other half, but they still … were so much more enthusiastic and
actually motivated at the time when they did have the time to do things. So I
guess it’s just a matter of working out what actually your working style is and
what you need and then getting that in place if you can.

Andrea here touched on the idea that “passion” for one’s topic can be an ongoing

motivation. Although she does not explicitly state this, I interpreted this point in her

narrative to mean that the financial benefit of the scholarship was not an ongoing

motivation for her. She referred to other people being more “motivated at the time when

they did have the time to do things.” When I later brought Andrea’s attention back to

the topic of motivation for doing the PhD she again emphasised that it might have been

different if she had chosen her own topic, but that one can gain a learning experience

regardless of the topic (pages 9-10):

73
 I would say that for me it was primarily a matter of taking time to learn, because
I don’t think you can be that obsessed about something for such a long time
unless you do a research degree. Because again I was after challenging my own
assumptions, challenging other people’s assumptions … just seeing how they
kind of make sense of the world and … applying that skill … so to get my mind
around critical thinking was really what I was after, here in a sense it didn’t
matter that much on which subject … I would exercise it … [I: you can get that
from almost any topic…the learning experience] … yeah even though it
probably would have been easier, probably, but that’s purely hypothetical, if I
had been given the opportunity to just say, “okay, whatever’s closest to your
heart, you go ahead and study that.”

Andrea’s intrinsic motivation was to develop her research skills, such as critical

thinking, but she acknowledged here that she was not passionate about the topic. Her

motivation was about “taking time to learn”, creating space for a strong research focus,

and developing her critical thinking skills. In her case, she stated that the topic didn’t

matter in terms of what she wished to gain from undertaking the degree.

She acknowledged that having the financial support of the scholarship was a “privileged

position.” The ongoing financial support of the scholarship and additional funding

associated with the type of scholarship enabled her to undertake field work and attend

conferences (page 10):

But of course it’s a big consideration, a big help to be paid to do it and to have
additional research funding to do it. You’ve got to acknowledge that it’s a
privileged position … every photocopy, all of these things that you have to spend
money on … so again so it’s a very privileged position to be in when you’ve got
the scholarship and additional research funding to go on field trips and to
conferences and so forth … I think it all boils down to what you’re trying to gain
from it.

I interpreted this section of Andrea’s narrative to be an acknowledgement of the

ongoing extrinsic motivation that the financial support of the scholarship provided for a

student who was undertaking her research degree for the “learning experience” and not

because of a passionate interest in her topic.

74
Andrea’s motivation is presented as multiple and her narrative indicates a strong

understanding that it depends on “what you are trying to gain from it.” The intrinsic

motivation of learning for its own sake was key for her not only thinking about

undertaking a PhD, but also for her decision to accept a set project with a topic not of

her choosing. Her extrinsic motivation to commence was twofold: firstly, financial

stability of a scholarship enabled her to focus on the task of doing a PhD (which she

considered was a “privileged position”); and secondly, as a learning experience.

Andrea’s parents had both undertaken PhD studies and this family precedent could be

considered to have positively influenced her motivation to commence the degree,

although she doesn’t explicitly use the term “role model”.

Case Study Four: Jane

Jane’s motivation to do a PhD was strongly extrinsic in nature. She focused this part of

her narrative on role models (including her two elder brothers – who had both

completed PhDs – and her supervisor), encouragement from academic staff within the

institution (particularly from the woman who became her supervisor) and the negative

motivation of being told at high school by a careers advisor that she would not become

a doctor. This latter motivation led Jane to focus on achieving the title Dr as an end in

itself.

Motivation to commence
Jane started her narrative talking about her motivation to do a PhD. Initially, like

Andrea, she referred to the precedent of family members – in this instance her brothers

– having already done PhDs and the understanding this gave her of the PhD experience

(page 1):

75
 I was lucky in that I had the experience of two older brothers … who’d already
… one was almost finished, like submitting his thesis and one was kind of half
way through I knew a little bit about what I was in for … I guess that’s probably
different than a lot of other people … especially women in [the sciences]. That
it’s hard enough to understand what a PhD is, let alone when you’re the
minority.

She explained that both her older brothers undertook PhDs and this helped her to

understand what the experience might be like. Her first mention of her brothers here

was in line with describing her family background. There was no mention of role

models; it was more a way of explaining that they understood what they were going to

encounter. Later in her narrative Jane did specifically refer to her brothers as “role

models” – with a twist. She explained that it was helpful to her not only to have people

she could talk to who understood her experience, but that she could see from the start

what not to do (page 14):

So I guess I went into it with my eyes open a little bit more … it’s good too
because it does give me somebody to talk to who understands what it is I’m
feeling … and what I’m going through … but mostly it’s good because I’ve been
able to observe the way they’ve handled conflict or … problems and thought it’s
not necessarily the right way to do it. Yeah they were certainly role models for
me … but as much as anything it was … equally about … what not to do as it
was about what to do. But they’re … especially my oldest brother … his advice
before I started was “Don’t do it.” Which I ignored, obviously … but I
understand why he said that, and I guess the fact that he said it made me at least
contemplate it and think about it so that I, right from the start, was planning for
it to take longer.

In the excerpt above Jane’s role models could be interpreted as acting less as a

motivating factor than a “warning” of the pitfalls both brothers encountered. Something

appeared to have motivated Jane to enrol in her own PhD despite the experiences she

encountered at close range within her family. She also learned from their stories to

develop alternative strategies for dealing with conflict or problems, and planned for the

degree to take longer than the normal duration. It is important to note here that Jane was

supervised by one of the same supervisors that both her brothers had.

76
The central motivation that Jane identified for commencing the degree was for

“recognition”. Similarly to Eve, she wanted to “show the world that she could do more”

(pages 1-2):

I guess the main reason why I wanted to do it was because I wanted recognition
… I enjoyed my undergraduate experience. I did well at it. I wanted to show the
world, whoever that is, that I could do more even though a lot of the advice that
I was given at the time was that as far as my career was concerned it would
probably hold me back.

My interpretation of this is that she is “proving a point” particularly, but not

exclusively, to the careers advisor whom she discussed later. This was a strong extrinsic

motivation to commence, and Jane went on to explain that proving to the world that she

could do it also incorporated wanting the title "Dr" (page 2):

I guess it was just because I was driven to prove myself, to prove that I could do
it and to, as stupid as it sounds, to get those two letters in front of my name
saying that I was Dr [name] and that was … really important to me.

Jane was the only one of the eight women in this research project who emphasised

wanting the title “Dr” as a motivation for enrolling in their PhD. Leonard (2001)

highlighted that wanting to get a PhD for the title “Dr” could be a problematic

motivation. However, in Jane’s narrative excerpt above, she emphasised that the desire

for the title is intertwined with the intrinsic motivation of proving herself. She continued

her narrative by explaining from where this desire to be a “doctor” originated (page 2):

Especially because I was once told by a careers advisor I would never be a

doctor which I always resented her for but now … now that I think about it
maybe that drove me [laughing]. Maybe her negative influence actually turned
into a positive. [5 lines deleted] And she looked at me and she said, “Nobody
from this school will ever be a doctor.” [4 lines deleted] … consequently I never
went back and saw her again. But I guess that kind of drove me to prove that she
was wrong.

Jane’s report of her meeting with the careers advisor when she was in her early high

school years was detailed. She repeated the words “prove” and “drove” which

77
emphasised the impact that this single meeting appears to have had on her motivation to

become a “Dr”. Jane re-emphasised this as she continued, and also reflected that these

negative comments made her more determined (page 2):

So I was determined to prove that somebody from my school could be a doctor.

[Five lines deleted] It’s interesting to me that it actually had the opposite effect
of what you’d think it would have because I always, I really was angry at her for
being so negative about that [six lines deleted] Maybe it was some weird reverse
psychology technique she was using on me. I don’t know … but it worked …
[laughs]

In these excerpts Jane clearly stated that this motivation to “prove” that she could

become a doctor originated in her negative experience years earlier with a careers

advisor. In terms of a motivation to commence a PhD, Jane’s “negative” experience was

turned into a positive. The extrinsic motivation of wanting the title was intertwined with

an intrinsic motivation to prove herself. This intertwining highlights the difficulty of

categorising some motivating factors as solely intrinsic or extrinsic. Jane’s motivation

to prove herself was intrinsic and she chose to do this through getting the title “Dr”,

which could be interpreted as an extrinsic motivation. In this instance, the line between

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation becomes blurred.

Jane then went on to discuss the support and encouragement from academic staff at

university and their suggestion that she might go on to further study (page 3):

And that I guess then the lecturing staff picked up on the fact that I was doing
well and then started to suggest to me that I might think about going on and
doing further research. And like I said because I already knew what they were
talking about … it was obvious to me.

Her reporting of the encouragement from academic staff was positive, in contrast to

Elena’s reported experience (see Chapter Seven). Coupled with her understanding of

what a PhD would entail, these factors combined to give Jane a realistic picture of what

she could expect during her PhD candidature.

78
Jane talked about her supervisor as a role model although she didn’t use that specific

term (page 3):

I guess I struck up a good friendship with my supervisor. Even as an

undergraduate, well even before I came here. I came and saw her before I
transferred … because I wanted to talk to somebody about whether or not I was
doing the right thing … and the fact that she’s female and doing so well … in the
industry I guess is a really positive influence I think. So that made my decision
easier … that I wasn’t so scared of it. Not that I’ve ever really been scared of
being the only girl in the group.

As a woman studying in a predominantly male discipline, Jane was clearly influenced

by her supervisor’s success. She could see that it was possible to succeed in that field,

and I interpreted her description of her supervisor as being a role model which

positively influenced Jane’s motivation to commence the degree.

At the end of the interview Jane again mentioned motivation but explained that it was

not necessarily a single reason, reflecting the literature which suggests motivation is

nuanced and multiple (page 37):

They’re not issues you can tick a box for and say I did my research because I
wanted this or I wanted that. You can’t tick a box for those things, and even if
you could it might not necessarily be the truth, you know, that you might leave it
and think “oh yeah I chose it because I wanted to advance my career” but …
that might have been the case but there’s more influences, so yeah definitely it’s
not a tick a box type.

As with Andrea, Jane was aware of the multiple nature of motivation. Jane’s intrinsic

motivation was to show the world that she could do more. Like Eve, she was proving

herself academically through the research degree. More clearly reported in her narrative

though, were the positive and negative extrinsic motivating factors. The positive

extrinsic motivation for Jane was twofold: her role models and encouragement from

academic staff. Jane’s reporting of the encouragement is positive, while Elena, who also

reported strong encouragement, referred to it more negatively as “pressure”. However, it

79
is acknowledged that one of Jane’s strongest reported motivation was clearly negative –

the careers advisor who told Jane that she would never be a doctor strongly influenced

her to continue onto postgraduate research to get the title of Dr. A point that Jane made

early in her narrative is that people had explained that a PhD meant stalling her career or

life. Andrea also made this observation specifically in terms of income. With hindsight,

Jane noted that this was probably the case, given how long her PhD was taking to be

completed. Jane’s narrative focused on the motivation to commence and there was no

discernable discussion of motivation to continue with the degree.

Case Study Five: Karen

Karen’s motivation for undertaking the PhD was extrinsic and multiple. Primarily she

was looking for a change from her career as a secondary teacher and saw a PhD as one

of a number of options. She was also aware of the scholarship opportunities that would

enable her to be paid to study. She talked later in her narrative about considering an

academic career. All the motivating factors that she discussed were extrinsic and

referred to her commencing the degree. Karen’s only discussion on how her motivation

changed was around the idea of wanting an academic career.

Motivation to commence
Karen explained that she always had a PhD in mind as one of a number of options, but

did not discuss what the other options were. She wanted a change from her secondary

teaching career and was carefully exploring other options (page 5):

And then the bad side of that, I mean every job has that, but I just sort of found
that I thought: “Oh God, I’ve gotta go.” So we talked about me sort of going off
and doing a PhD. It’s just one of those things that I always had in my head,
“well, it’s something that’s there for me if I want to do it”. And so I wanna (sic)
do it. It’s like … all the things that you wanna (sic) do in a hat and you sort of
pick one out … And we sort of thought it was … as good as any time for it.

80
After discussing several possible options with her husband, Karen opted to pursue a

doctoral degree. Analysing this excerpt of her narrative there is no indication of a deep

interest in or passion for a specific topic or area of research. I am not convinced that this

clearly fits with Leonard’s (2001) highlighted problematic motivation of “drift”, i.e.

where a person is unsure what else to do. It could be seen to be a way of expanding her

future options. As will be discussed below, she did consider academia as a potential

career.

Karen went on in this excerpt to mention that she wanted to go back to study in a way

that meant that was cost neutral. She was successful in gaining a scholarship, so there

was a clear financial motivation (page 5):

I’ve wanted to go back into sort of an area of study that meant that I didn’t have
to pay anything and I would be paid [laughs] … so I applied for a scholarship,
and I was very lucky that at the time, my supervisor, [name], had involved this
other lady who, I think she was like the coordinator within the school [nine lines
deleted]…she sort of stood up for me and [I] managed to get in and get a
scholarship. And I started sort of around the same time that school would have
started.

Karen was aware that the support from her supervisor and the postgraduate coordinator

in the School helped her to gain a scholarship. She clearly states above that she wanted

to undertake study in an area that meant no costs to her and that she would be paid to do

the degree. The scholarship was a strong extrinsic motivation for her commencing her

doctoral degree.

Karen did not have an intrinsic interest in her topic area. This excerpt highlighted the

predetermination of her area of research by others (page 6):

I mean [principal supervisor] and I had had quite a few discussions. I’d gone
after school, like the previous year … on several occasions to discuss the sorts
of things that I might do. It was sort of almost chosen for me that I should focus

81
 on [particular geographical area] because … as in the location [name of area],
because … the school already had a number of students who were sort of
working with [a government agency] at [that area]. [Nine lines deleted] … and
then it was just sort of for me to … start off and start some reading and try to
resolve exactly what it was I wanted to do. So right from the start I really had
very little idea as to what my project would be, exactly what I would be doing,
where I would be spending my time.

While she was considering undertaking the degree and making her decision, Karen

spent some time in discussion with her principal supervisor who had also been her

Honours supervisor. It is clear in this excerpt that the initial area of focus of her research

was determined by her supervisor and she then had to spend her initial months in

resolving what her topic would be.

At the end of the interview Karen came back to the topic of motivation, indicating that

although she initially thought about going into academia, she had now changed her

mind because of the workloads involved (page 37):

I’ve enjoyed it. I’ve enjoyed the teaching that’s gone along with it. Having been
a teacher that’s been easy … one thing it’s done is put me off academia. I really
thought when I left teaching that a PhD and going back to uni would be the key
to my next career. Nope … no thank you very much at all … [six lines deleted] I
just thought for the amount of money you get paid … and you know the classes
you have to teach, the repetition of the classes you know the way a lot of the
pracs (sic) are set up now … all the corrections [10 lines deleted] … I’ve liked
sort of doing that sort of thing but it has got to the stage where I’ve just gone …
“nuh”(sic) … the reality … some sort of realities of that job are nice … like that
you can kind of … not come and go as you please but there is a little bit of that
… even if the university does wanna know that you’re in from nine to five each
day or you know there’s a little bit of sort of leeway there.

In this excerpt Karen clearly noted that she enjoyed the teaching that she undertook

while doing her PhD. However she had changed her mind about the marking. She was

also not impressed with the salary. Karen stated that an academic career had been on her

agenda when she went back to university to undertake her PhD, but her experience of

the work involved had led her to change her mind. This is in contrast to Elena’s desire

to become an academic that was changed by workplace politics (discussed further in

82
Chapter Seven). Nevertheless, there is a strong theme in both these narratives about

academia being a stressful and not professionally fulfilling career. To what extent this

was a gendered experience is not clear for Andrea, but certainly for Elena the male

supervisor, as discussed in Chapter Seven, had a reputation – she learnt later – for

bullying his female PhD students, and this negativity may also have had an impact on

her academic teaching.

Karen’s motivation was extrinsic and, as with all of the women, multiple. One clear

extrinsic motivation was her consideration of an academic career. However, the excerpt

above suggests that as her understanding of the workload became clearer, she decided

that she didn’t want an academic career. Less clearly, she talked about wanting a change

from her job as a secondary school teacher and she saw the PhD as an option. As one

option among others, could undertaking a PhD be considered in Karen’s case as a

stalling tactic while she worked out what she wanted to do? Financial support through

the scholarship was also clearly discussed as a positive extrinsic motivation, as was the

support from her initial principal supervisor in encouraging her to apply for the

scholarship.

Case Study Six: Laura

Laura talked about encouragement from her supervisor and support from her family as

motivating factors. Moreover she talked about liking research, having an interest in the

topic, and aiming for an academic career from the time she commenced her Masters by

coursework degree. She had a mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors.

83
Motivation to commence
Laura had what she called a “twisted journey”, starting with an applied science degree

and then taking a marketing subject as an elective. Her interest in the topic was already

present through the undergraduate studies (page 2):

And I suppose that was the first time as I was completing my undergraduate
studies where I started to really gain an interest in postgraduate … and
postgraduate masters in the sense of some type of research component within
the training and change area. So, that was my initial drive, in as to say I’m
really interested in this … so as I was completing the last couple of units, I did
some investigating of my own and found that [dual sector metropolitan
university] had the Master of Business … back then it was called “in training
and change management” discipline, and as a component you could actually do
some research and that was my interest. I wanted to explore … certainly
coursework was important; you know you grow on your foundational
understanding. But that was the ultimate sort of thing … I was always interested
in research right through, you know as long as I could remember my head was
in a book … or I was exploring something so … it’s a natural progression…and
applied … had no problem in being accepted for that.

Laura chose the coursework Masters with a research component. She highlighted that

she saw the coursework as important for “foundational understanding” but that she has

always had an interest in research. Two of her intrinsic motivations are clearly

elucidated here – an interest in the research topic and an interest in research in general.

Laura was curious about the course she was teaching and how some students did well in

“difficult subjects” and not so well in “easier” subjects. Her Masters supervisor pointed

out that this was a potential PhD topic, so she had both motivation to do research

generally and in her topic, as outlined above and here. She also had the extrinsic

motivation through encouragement from her supervisor (page 5):

And that’s when I actually started talking about my, flagging my interest. I had
flagged that early on that I wanted to do a minor thesis and I’d actually spoken
with [principal supervisor] who was the course co-ordinator. He was the person
I spoke to prior to my application coming forward, and I explained to him you
know what my interests were. We sat down and had a good chat and he said,
“Yes, he was happy to supervise in the minor thesis,” and I was telling him
about all these interests and I had done the relevant reading on … so I was quite

84
 clear on what my topic was going to be because it evolved over time. And we
had a good chat and he said “Yes, [Laura] what you’re looking at is not only a
minor thesis, certainly it’s a good starting point for this, but alternatively too, a
lot of things you’re talking about can also be moved on into a PhD.” And I was
sort of looking at him just going “well, I don’t really know if I want to do a
PhD,” … in my mind, starting a Masters was very much I was going to get the
research component that I wanted, you know that was what I was looking to
fulfil. Get the coursework … but also get this research niggle that has always
sort of been following me about for quite a while so that sort of started my
postgraduate … formal qualifications and my little interest into research further
… doing further research that had come through.

Extrinsic motivation came from the strong encouragement from her principal supervisor

even when she was discussing starting the minor thesis in her Masters degree. Laura

explained that until he pointed this out, she had not considering doing a doctoral degree.

She had a lot of support and encouragement from her Masters supervisor to think about

her career path and a possible career as an academic (pages 6-7):

So all of a sudden all of these key things sort of fell together and I thought
“wow.” So as we’re going through this process, you know [my supervisor] had
encouraged me along the way, “You know, you’re strong at what you do,” [he]
wanted me sort of from a career perspective…a career path, “what is it that
you’re looking at wanting to do now that … you’ve had your industry
experience, you’ve had science industry experience, you’ve had … business
industry experience … you’ve come into academia as well in the sense of
working with a very unique kind of scenario with [regional university’s] thing.”
And I thought well, what I’m really liking is being able to have that interaction
and sharing results with students and encouraging them with that motivational
side of thing and being able to share in that sense, but I’m also really keen on
this whole thing of research … sitting down, being able to go out and investigate
what appears to be a very important topic.

Laura reflected here that her supervisor’s questions made her think about what she liked

in her career so far. The combination of teaching and research appealed to her and her

focus gradually became an academic career. She returned to this theme slightly further

in her story (page 8):

At that time I was … not so broad-minded, didn’t really know … too much about
a PhD, didn’t really know, didn’t give it too much thought. Sort of thought,
“well, this will suffice, this will meet my needs that I’m looking for, and that’s
what I’m looking to do, from a pragmatic output.” [10 lines deleted] So I
progressed into that particular scenario at that time as well, was focusing now

85
 on an academic career at the conclusion of it, as opposed to being a little bit
unsure as to, “What is it that I truly wanted to do?” And that’s what really …
set the scene.

Laura talked about being motivated from a pragmatic viewpoint – that she reached a

stage by the time she enrolled of knowing that a PhD would meet her future career

needs as an academic.

While Laura did have an Australian Postgraduate Award scholarship to undertake her

PhD full-time, she only referred to it once in her narrative, and not in relation to it being

a motivating factor (page 8):

So I remember actually taking away those applications and sitting down and
drafting and working towards getting that forward and also thinking about the
broader context, what I had done in the minor … what I was working towards in
the minor thesis was only small, scratching the small surface, so there was
greater potential from that sort of foundation base to then really talk a lot more
complex, more broadly. So that’s when … all of a sudden this PhD that
[principal supervisor] thought about … Day One when he enrolled me [laughs]
… and mentioned to my parents you know at the end of semester one of the thing
when they were there to enrol for me, whilst I was overseas … he envisaged this
as a natural progression.

In this excerpt above she discussed developing a research proposal to include in her

scholarship application and her interest in expanding on the research she had done in her

minor thesis. Again her intrinsic interest in the topic is clear and she referred again to

the encouragement of her principal supervisor who had “envisaged this” as an option for

Laura.

Laura later in her narrative re-emphasised that a PhD was not something she had

contemplated prior to her supervisor’s suggestion. She explained further his

encouragement (page 27):

He told me that before I even started doing the Masters … the minor thesis. He
says, “You know, what you’re talking about is really a PhD.” I said: “I’m not

86
 sure if I’m really wanting to do that.” “Don’t close it off. Keep it as an option.
You don’t have to say yes to it, just keep it as an option.” And that was
discussion that we had … four years ago, five years ago now looking back at the
time. And you know … it worked out.

While her supervisor certainly encouraged her to consider a PhD as an option, there was

no pressure on her to take it on, as there was in Elena’s story. He suggested it as a

possible option for her, as opposed to the strong pressure Elena felt from the School to

continue with her studies. Laura went on to explain that in reflection she could identify

that her supervisor saw her potential (page 27):

It became clear to me that that’s what I … wanted to do. So clearly, in his eyes
he could see the potential and could see the opportunities of doing it and being
there. To…to myself at that time or even earlier, I couldn’t see it. Looking back
though … I could pick out, like you’ve also said: “Oh, you know, you’re
passionate. You can start seeing gaps that you could work towards.” In
hindsight, there’s probably those flag-points that said, “Well it’s really not too
different an endpoint which is where she’s ended up now as to where she was
when she was a lot younger as an undergrad moving into postgrad studies.” So
it’s … hindsight’s very powerful.

With hindsight, Laura identified that she had potential and passion for her topic, which

had motivated her from undergraduate through to postgraduate studies and onto the

PhD.

Laura clearly expressed both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in undertaking and

completing her PhD. Intrinsically she liked research and she also had a topic that she

had a strong interest in investigating. Her minor thesis in her Masters degree barely

“scratched the surface” and she wanted to investigate further. However equally strong in

Laura’s narrative were the extrinsic motivation factors: wanting an academic career and

the encouragement from her supervisor. The encouragement from her principal

supervisor also influenced her motivation for an academic career, as he asked her to

think about her career path when she was doing her Masters degree. He also encouraged

her to think beyond a minor thesis, and clearly believed in her potential to complete a

87
PhD. The motivation for an academic career impacted not only her decision to enrol in

the PhD but also on her experience during the degree, as her supervisor encouraged her

to undertake activities that would help with her academic career aspirations (this is

explored further in the next chapter). Laura discussed motivation in terms of

commencing the degree. However it could be possible to extrapolate from this that her

strong desire for an academic career was also a continuing motivation throughout her

doctoral studies. Although Laura was on a scholarship and discussed it in passing in her

narrative, she did not mention this in terms of a motivating factor for either starting the

PhD or continuing with the degree.

Case Study Seven: Ebony

Ebony’s motivation was both intrinsic and extrinsic. She had an intrinsic interest in

research itself and in the topic she developed through discussion with her supervisor.

She was building an academic career as a lecturer and researcher, for which a PhD is a

requirement. Having previously completed a Masters by research, she developed a

research topic and was encouraged by her supervisor. Importantly, Ebony had family

encouragement to gain a PhD, as noted in the first excerpt. As well, she had financial

motivation in terms of time release from her job to complete her PhD.

Motivation to commence
Ebony started her story at the first mention of her doing a PhD, which came from her

father (page 2):

Well the first mention ever that I might … do a PhD … I never, ever doubted
that I would go to university, but the first mention ever … of a doctorate was
when I graduated from my bachelor’s degree and my father, who had been for
some part of his life a professional photographer, forgot to bring his camera
and this was the first university graduation of his children, because I’m the
eldest … I’m the one who had the reputation of being the brain, much to my
sisters’ chagrin and they still tease me mercilessly … and I had a go at Dad

88
 about forgetting his camera and he said “Don’t worry, I’ll remember my
camera the day you graduate with your big floppy hat.” And … so that was the
first mention of it. And I kind of disregarded it and clearly went out to work.

Although her father clearly believed that she was capable of undertaking a PhD, and the

excerpt shows an understanding of academia in the “graduate with your big, floppy hat”

comment, Ebony disregarded this and went out to work in her chosen health field. She

continued in this excerpt to explain that she later undertook a part-time academic job

and enrolled in a research Masters degree (page 2):

Then after eighteen months or so … took a job in academia part-time and

enrolled in a Masters degree and thoroughly enjoyed getting my teeth into some
research. I’d done a research project as part of my undergraduate degree and
I’d … chosen that when a whole lot of my colleagues chose other coursework
units. [Sighs] [I: Was it a research Masters?] Yeah, my Masters degree was a
research masters and my undergrad research project was … just a project. It
just replaced one subject … I did a nice little study with twenty-two participants
and it got published in a professional journal so I was quite … delighted with all
of that.

Ebony’s undergraduate project was of a sufficiently high academic standard to be

published in a professional journal and this intrinsic interest in research contributed to her

motivation to undertake a Masters by research. As she completed her Masters, her

intrinsic interest in research itself was also facilitated by her choice of supervisor (page 2):

And by the end of my Masters had decided that I was going to go on and do a
doctorate and had chosen my supervisor … [Laughter] … I hadn’t chose my
topic at that stage. I’d found that working with my Masters supervisor was
fabulous and that I wanted to keep working with him. And … then I took a
period of [paid study leave] and while I was on [paid study leave] I kept in
touch with [principal supervisor] and we bounced ideas backwards and
forwards … and the project that I did for my [paid study leave] informed some
of my thinking about my doctorate.

She had developed a good working relationship with her supervisor and decided that she

wanted to go on to a doctoral degree and continue with the same supervisor. Her

continued interaction with him, while she was on study leave undertaking a different

89
project from her Masters, led to the development of her topic for her doctoral thesis

(page 2):

And so while I was away we hit on an idea, you know? I emailed him something
and he wrote back saying, “I love this idea, let’s run with it.” And then … when
I came home I enrolled and away I went. So I enrolled part-time. At that stage
then I was a full-time academic, sort of drifting between being full-time and
being about 0.6 when I had babies.

Ebony was already in an academic career when she enrolled in her PhD, working full-

time and enrolled part-time. Her intrinsic interest in research and her developing interest

in the topic are clear motivating factors in her undertaking the doctoral degree.

Although she did not explicitly state it in her narrative, as an academic, Ebony would

have been aware of the importance of gaining a PhD to climb the academic ladder.

Motivation to continue
Ebony also talked about the Faculty scholarship that gave her time release to complete

her PhD (page 3):

The last six months was full-time. I got a Faculty scholarship to write-up. And
that was really good … it was a brave step, I think on the part of the Faculty
because I’m not sure that everybody that they gave them to … finished … but I
finished and I’m not sure that I would have finished without it, or it would have
taken me a … lot longer.

She clearly identified here that this paid time-release scholarship from the university

was central to her ability to complete her thesis.

Ebony’s narrative clearly shows both intrinsic and extrinsic factors in her motivation.

Intrinsic motivation came from her interest in the research topic and in the research

process itself. Extrinsic factors to commence the degree included encouragement from

her family and supervisor and building her academic career. Financial support from the

90
university in the form of paid time release was an extrinsic motivation to complete the

degree.

Case Study Eight: Tasha

Tasha talked about her motivation for doing the PhD stemming from a good result for

her Honours degree. However she considered that the Honours degree would not have a

practical application in her field. Her motivation was both intrinsic and extrinsic. She

also had an interest in the topic from talking to midwives about ethics but one

motivation seems quite opportunistic as she found out about a scholarship by chance.

Motivation to commence
Tasha talked first about the Honours degree she completed and how she didn’t see its

usefulness in her current work environment. Her failing health during her undergraduate

studies was not conducive to working in a hospital environment, so she decided to

continue to an Honours year (pages 3-4):

I guess the real reason I did a PhD is because I did an Honours degree. Did you
do an Honours degree? [I: yes] [Laughter] It’s only when you do an Honours
degree that you realise that it was a waste of time [Laughter] When I did my
undergraduate degree … I kind of worked out that …[5 second pause] … my
health was not very good. When I did my undergraduate degree my health was
not very conducive to working in a hospital, being a nurse, not so great. Got a
high grade point average and was suggested by Faculty that it would be a good
idea to go and do Honours research and they suggested doing an Honours
degree. So I went “oh yeah, okay, fine.” I just sort of followed my nose.

Tasha’s health concerns and her chosen career were not complementary. Her high

academic scores meant that Faculty staff suggested she continue her studies to Honours

level. However, Tasha later realised that following a more academic path in her

discipline only set her up for further study (page 4):

Not realising that doing an Honours degree really only sets you up for going
into academia and it probably would have been a lot smarter doing a Masters

91
 degree. [I: Would it be more practical?] Well because at least it’s recognised in
the outside world. And having finished the Honours degree I discovered it was
not … [I: recognised?] Recognised? Nobody really cares if you have an
Honours degree except the University and so the only way to get recognition for
the Honours degree was to go on and do a PhD and in fact the day I handed in
my Honours thesis the postgrad coordinator said “Oh, so when are you starting
your PhD?” And I just went [Laughter] “you just have these twenty five
thousand words, I’ll worry about the rest later.” [Laughs] “No, thank you.”

When she submitted her Honours thesis there was clear encouragement from academic

staff that she continue to do a PhD. Tasha herself had realised however that the Honours

degree was a path into academia. With her continuing health concerns, and after further

contemplation, she realised that an academic career would be a good option for her

(page 4):

You can imagine after a year of … hard slog and even then my health wasn’t
good but at the time … when I got over writing the Honours thesis … I thought,
actually that’s probably a pretty good option for me to get into academia
because it gets me out of the hospital setting which there’s illness going around
all the time and where I’m exposed to infection and so forth. So I thought doing
a PhD and getting into academia would be quite a good move for me.

Tasha now had two extrinsic factors motivating her to undertake a PhD: a career in

academia would be better for her from a health perspective and encouragement from

academic staff. She continued in this part of her narrative to talk also about the intrinsic

motivation of her interest in her topic (page 4):

I had a very strong interest in ethics and …between when I finished my Honours
thesis I had an opportunity to participate in the in-service program at the
hospital where I worked and to talk to a lot of the [nurses] where I worked
about ethics … so the combination of what I’d had from the university and the
in-service program got me thinking about a PhD. Because when I was talking to
[nurses] about ethics, I realised that there was (a) not much research about
ethics, and (b) not a lot of understanding about ethics within the profession. And
that made me think it would be really good to do further research in that area so
that’s where the sort of impetus for my study came and … that’s kind of how I
got myself into it.

92
Tasha was contemplating the possibility of a PhD due to extrinsic factors and then

identified an area that she was interested in investigating, thus had an intrinsic

motivation with interest in her topic.

Tasha continued her narrative to discuss finding out about scholarship opportunities.

She applied and was successful in gaining a scholarship as well as a university top-up

scholarship (pages 4-5):

And then another girl that had done her Honours degree with me said, “Oh, I’ve
applied for a scholarship to do my PhD.” I went “Oh, scholarship, there’s an
idea.” Getting a scholarship, that would actually make it feasible to do. And so I
… applied for a scholarship and lo and behold I got not one, but two… I got the
… a university scholarship and on certain criteria that they paid to the ten
highest applicants … and it’s just a top-up scholarship. It was three thousand
dollars extra a year, and … I just happened to be … I think I was probably ninth
or tenth but just got there, but I got it. And three thousand dollars a year is
pretty significant [Laughter] And … got the two scholarships. That enabled me
to study full-time and work very part-time so just continued to work part-time
because I thought it was important to stay in touch with [nursing], with the real
world. Because I’ve always been critical of academics who’ve lost touch with
the real world and, so there I went. Waded in … to the academic world … [five
second pause] … [nursing] and ethics. And there I was – a PhD student.

Although Tasha had both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation already, the tipping point

was finding out about the scholarships. She explained above that this made it “feasible

to do” thus the extrinsic financial motivation of a scholarship was a strong contributing

motivation to her commencing her degree.

Motivation to continue
Later in her narrative, Tasha returned to why she undertook the degree. She referred

here to two reasons why she did her doctoral degree – for the knowledge of the

profession and for the qualification (page 20):

It’s like there’s two meanings of the thesis. One is … what the project is about
and one is what … the … whole point of the project is about as well as what the

93
 actual content is about. And one is what the degree is about, I guess, and why
you did it or … do you know what I mean, the differentiation? One is … why you
did it for the [nurses] and one is about why you did it for yourself to get the
degree. Why you did it for the people, for the profession … for the learning, for
the edification, for the knowledge that is going to be developed and the other
one is getting the piece of paper and the achievement of actually getting to the
end of the degree.

Tasha’s motivation to undertake the degree was also extrinsic in her mention here of the

knowledge gap she identified – she did it for the profession. She also discussed the

motivation to continue in terms of actually getting to the end of the degree. Phillips and

Pugh (2005) highlight that motivation changes during the degree and one major

motivation can be to finish the PhD as Tasha noted above.

Although Tasha talked about motivation in only two sections of her narrative, she

discussed multiple intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors that influenced why she

began and continue with the degree. Her primary motivation factors for beginning the

degree were both intrinsic and extrinsic. Tasha saw a gap in the knowledge base

surrounding her topic and was personally interested in the topic. She was considering a

career in academia to make use of her Honours degree; and she was successful in being

granted two scholarships. The financial motivation was strong in Tasha’s case, as her

health issues meant that she wanted to spend less time working in a hospital

environment. Ongoing motivation included both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. For

Tasha, she wanted the qualification and to finish the degree. These intrinsic factors

helped with her continuing motivation. She briefly noted in the excerpt above, the

extrinsic motivation of helping the profession.

Summary

It is evident in this chapter that there are some commonalities between cases in terms of

motivation. All the women had multiple motivating factors for undertaking a PhD, but

94
there were variations in whether these were solely extrinsic or a mix of intrinsic and

extrinsic factors. Not all of the women discussed motivation for continuing and

completing the degree, but in some cases the motivating factors were the same for

commencing the degree as for completion. However some women in their narratives did

discuss reasons for completion that were different from those mentioned as relevant to

their reasons for enrolment.

Intrinsic motivation factors for enrolling in the degree included: having a specific

interest in the topic; having an interest in research in general; wanting a learning

experience; and proving oneself academically. So does having intrinsic motivation link

to completion of the degree? This is a complex question, as most of the women

interviewed for this thesis had other experiences during their degrees which impacted on

their completion. These included: their own health concerns or those of a partner, family

member or supervisor; pregnancies and having children during their degree; other

family issues, including serious health problems of family members, which impacted on

progress; and issues within the Department in which they were enrolled. A number of

the women at the time of interview had not yet completed their theses. Eve, Laura, and

Ebony had completed their degrees and all three reported strong intrinsic motivation

through interest in the topic and research in general or in proving oneself academically.

All three women completed their degrees within standard duration; that is, three years

full time. In Ebony’s case, although she enrolled part-time and had a child during her

degree, she completed her PhD in two years when the candidature is converted to full-

time equivalent. Andrea, Karen and Tasha were within three to six months of

completing their doctoral degrees as reported by them at the time of interview. Jane was

pregnant with her first child and did not indicate how close she was to completion.

95
Strong intrinsic motivation appears to assist in helping women to complete, but

ameliorating and negative factors also need to be considered.

Extrinsic motivation factors for enrolling in the degree encompassed: pursuing an

academic career; financial motivation in receiving a scholarship; consolidating one’s

career; encouragement from others (including academics, supervisors and family); and

role models. Laura reported encouragement from her potential supervisor helped her to

consider a PhD as a step towards an academic career. This tied in with her intrinsic

interest in research and the topic. In Jane’s case, the high school careers advisor was

someone she wanted to prove wrong and she acknowledged this as a negative

motivation. As mentioned previously, Leonard (2001) pointed out that undertaking a

PhD for the title “Dr” can be a problematic motivation. However what needs to be taken

into account are the other motivation factors. These could have either an ameliorating or

debilitating impact on each other. If gaining the title “Dr” had been Jane’s only

motivation for commencing a PhD, it is unlikely to have been strong enough to also be

motivation to continue during difficult parts of the candidature. Jane wanting the title

“Dr” to prove her careers advisor wrong is connected to her intrinsic motivation to

prove that she could “do more.” Thus in this case, another motivation, in particular an

intrinsic one, supported her to move beyond simply gaining the title.

Motivation for continuing the degree was less easily identified in the narratives.

Intrinsic motivation factors for continuing the degree included: proving to oneself that

you could achieve academically, continuing interest in research in general, and interest

in the topic. Extrinsic motivating factors for continuing centred on financial motivation

in a number of cases (needing the scholarship) and wanting an academic career.

96
Conversely this latter factor became a negative motivating factor for Karen who

changed her mind about wanting to be an academic.

Previous studies, particularly the research of Dever et al (2008), have been survey

based. Even if a survey allows a respondent to select more than one option in terms of

motivation, it does not allow for unpacking the ways in which motivation can be

multiple and complex. Jane in her narrative commented that “they’re not issues you can

tick a box for and say I did my research because I wanted this or I wanted that.” As has

become clear through analysis of the eight narratives here, motivation is multi-layered

and is affected by other factors. These factors include experiences of illness (of self or

others); departmental politics; and encouragement or lack of it from people such as

supervisors and family.

Chapter Five continues the analysis of these eight women’s experiences by looking

more closely at their supervisory relationships, and how these relationships helped or

hindered their PhD journeys.

97
 Chapter Five — Supervision and its negotiation

The supervisory relationship is central to every PhD student’s experience. Students and

supervisors enter into supervision with varying expectations of their roles and, if these

are not clearly discussed at the outset, problems can arise which may not be easy to

discuss or resolve (Phillips & Pugh, 2005). This relationship has been described as “the

most important channel of intellectual inheritance between one generation and the next”

(Federation of Australian University Staff Associations, 1979). However, despite its

importance, it is a pedagogy that is poorly understood. The success of the Australian

PhD system is heavily reliant on the supervisor(s) (Heath, 2002); yet the student-

supervisor relationship is described as probably the most variable factor affecting PhD

students, “because it depends so much upon individual personalities, styles and

expectation” (Smeby, 2000, p. 54). Gurr (2001) argues that supervision requires “a

dynamic awareness of the state of the relationship and flexibility in responding to

inevitable changes” (p. 81). Other research has indicated that while strong academic

guidance is important, the personality of the student and supervisor and how they

interact needs equal consideration (Gill, 1999; Vale, 2004).

Leonard et al. (2005) noted in their study of doctoral graduates in education at one UK

institution that less than one in twenty of their participants mentioned a poor

relationship with their supervisor. Several participants in their research noted that they

were unsure about whether they would do a doctorate again, but they certainly would

not undertake it with the same supervisor. Leonard et al. (2005) reported that even the

few people who had multiple changes of supervisor, overall had few regrets. Many

studies focusing on supervision and its discontents have, according to Leonard et al.

(2005), had restricted or biased samples while their paper had a systematic sample with

a reasonably large response rate. Nevertheless, the critical role of supervision in the

98
PhD candidature and its successful outcome is not well understood in much of this

literature. It is important to note though that Leonard et al. (2005) did not see the

supervisory relationship as a critical factor in timely completion.

This chapter will explore the literature on gender and choosing a supervisor, frequency

of supervision meetings, and single versus team supervision before analysing in detail

the importance of supervision in the narratives of the eight women.

Choosing a supervisor

Surveys of student satisfaction and completion rates indicate that problems in the

student – supervisor relationship are common (Gurr, 2001). Research with Australian

postgraduate students found that twenty-five percent of students in one particular survey

reported being “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with their experience (Powles, 1989).

Of this group, Powles (1989) found that thirty-one percent cited problems with their

supervisory relationship as an issue. Another study with University of Melbourne

postgraduates also reflected this concern, with the most commonly reported problem

relating to meetings with supervisors (Powles, 1989). Gurr (2001) adds that

postgraduate supervision literature has often adopted a teacher-centred, rather than

student-centred, approach. Consequently the collaborative nature of the student and

supervisor involved in this relationship is not adequately emphasised (Gurr, 2001).

Phillips and Pugh (2005) stress that the supervisory relationship is crucial to successful

PhD completion; both sides must understand and discuss their respective expectations

throughout the candidature (Phillips & Pugh, 2005). They outline a number of

supervisor expectations: students should be independent; produce work that is more

than a first draft; have regular meetings; be honest when reporting on their progress;

99
follow the advice that is given; and be excited about their research (Phillips & Pugh,

2005). Phillips and Pugh (2005) detail several strategies for students to ensure that they

take responsibility for managing the relationship with their supervisor. These include:

work on educating their supervisors on the topic; try to fulfill supervisors’ expectations

and discuss differences of opinion; and reduce the communication barriers.

Prospective PhD students need to be selective in choosing their supervisor/s. Leonard

(2001) advises that good students, regardless of gender, citizenship status and age, can

afford to be selective. She emphasises that “women in particular may lack self-

confidence and feel flattered by, and accept too readily, early offers” for supervision

(Leonard, 2001, p. 85). While a good supervisor is pivotal in the PhD experience from

both the training and educational perspectives, this can vary according to the discipline

(Leonard, 2001). Humanities and social science students stress this as an essential

element. However science students often have access to other forms of support within a

team environment (Leonard, 2001).

According to Leonard (2001), the key element in the student-supervisor relationship for

students is availability, both the physical availability and the emotional level of the

relationship. Students need to consider what they want and/or expect in terms of

supervisory interaction (Leonard, 2001). Specifically, will the supervisor be physically

available? Academic research staff may be off-campus, interstate or overseas for

extensive fieldwork, study leave or conferences. They may also have heavy

administrative responsibilities that will impinge on their available time. As well, it is

important to consider the number of other students being supervised (Leonard, 2001).

Another important element of this “availability” is how much a student considers they

can be open and honest in their communication with their supervisor. A supervisor must

100
be both supportive and constructively critical of a student’s work, which can often be a

fine line (Leonard, 2001). Leonard (2001), like Phillips & Pugh (2005) and Salmon

(1992), emphasises the need for both the student and supervisor to discuss the process

of supervision at the very beginning of the relationship. Students develop their problem

solving and negotiation skills through making visible and explicit the accountability,

protocols and process of doing a doctorate with their supervisor/s. This enables

negotiation and, if necessary, for either party to contest their differences of opinion

(Leonard, 2001).

Gender and choosing a supervisor

Students are advised to choose a supervisor who is knowledgeable about the specific

subject areas, compatible with their politics and epistemology, good at communicating

ideas and committed to women (Leonard, 2001; Salmon, 1992). In general, Leonard

(2001) suggests that women supervisors, or other women staff, can be helpful to women

students. She points out, for example, that men and women often have different

conversational styles (Leonard, 2001). Male supervisors may misunderstand women

student’s use of narrative and personal experience, and their silences; and see them as

inappropriate in academic settings (Leonard, 2001). The choice of supervisor cannot

solely be based on gender, as Leonard (2001, p. 95) points out that “not all women have

empathy with women students and some are downright hostile.”

Smeby (2000) found that many studies report that where female students have female

supervisors there are higher levels of satisfaction than those with male supervisors. This

survey of the literature on same-gender relationships also noted findings that both

support and contradict the assumption that female supervisors are important to the

success of female research students. Smeby’s (2000) study on Norwegian graduate

101
supervision found a tendency towards same-gender relationships, which was stronger

among female than male students and supervisors. However it must be noted that the

difference may be due to male supervisors having more students than their female

counterparts. This result corresponds with findings in the literature that female students

generally prefer, and are more satisfied with, same-gender supervisors (Smeby, 2000).

Importantly, discipline differences are noted here. For female students, same-gender

supervision is strongest in the natural sciences and weakest in the “soft” fields; for male

students this tendency is stronger among men in the social sciences and weaker in the

natural sciences (Smeby, 2000). Smeby (2000) argues that the need of female students

for female role models, and female supervisors’ willingness to support female students

in more male-dominated fields, may be more evident in “hard sciences” than in what

may be considered “softer” disciplines.

Other researchers argue that women, particularly in the sciences, may be less likely to

support other women (Ellemers, van den Heuvel, de Gilder, Maass & Bonvini, 2004).

The term queen bee syndrome has been used to describe the way that women who are

successful in male-dominated environments may be opposed to measures that increase

women’s equality (Ellemers et al., 2004). Ellemers (1993, as cited in Ellemers et al.,

2004) argues that female academics often need to have a particularly masculine self-

perception in order to be successful in male dominated work environments, such as

science based disciplines. Since this involved emphasising difference from other

women, rather than similarities, it could be considered as an explanation for the bias of

female academics against female doctoral students (Ellemers et al., 2004).

102
Developing the relationship — gender perspectives

The literature on research students often talks about the need for students to “handle

their supervisor/s”, but the significance of gender is seldom discussed (Leonard, 2001).

Research has shown that the gender of the supervisor is a particularly important factor

for women (Moses, 1990). In a national study Moses (1990) found that Australian

women appear to be denied the support they need, due to the informal nature of the

supervisory relationship. Moses (1990) reported that while most women said they were

satisfied with their supervisor, they were less satisfied than men. She also reported that

women, particularly older women, had less access to, or help from, their supervisors

compared to men. Leonard (2001) argues that in general it can be helpful for women to

have a female supervisor where possible. In particular, men and women have different

conversational styles, which may lead to misunderstandings.

Frequency of supervision meetings

Phillips and Pugh (2005) recommend regular meetings between student and

supervisor/s, whether daily, weekly, monthly or less often. An advantage of frequent

meetings is that often they are more casual and therefore are more likely to help with

ease of discussion (Phillips & Pugh, 2005). Heath (2002) reported on a quantitative

analysis at the University of Queensland of 355 PhD students regarding supervision.

Eighty-five percent of students expressed satisfaction with the expertise of their

supervisor(s). For those who expressed dissatisfaction it was not possible to determine if

this was a result of factors in relation to the candidate or supervisor. However, one

factor that affected satisfaction was the frequency of supervision meetings: 70 per cent

to 85 per cent of students expressed satisfaction with a range of aspects of supervision

when meetings were held at least fortnightly. Students who met their supervisors

monthly or less frequently were overall less satisfied with the various aspects of

103
supervision that were tested (Heath, 2002). It has been recommended that the expected

frequency of meetings is negotiated between student and supervisor/s at the beginning

of the relationship (Phillips & Pugh, 2005).

Heath (2002) points out that we need to be cautious in interpreting results on the

importance of frequency of supervision meetings and its relationship to student

satisfaction. For example, the quality and effectiveness of the meetings while important

were not measured by this survey; and the amount of informal interaction was not

specified. Discipline, gender, enrolment status and nationality were all variables that

may impact on the results. Similarly, supervisor variables such as age, gender,

background and personality differences were variables that affect the supervisory

relationship (Heath, 2002). A clearer understanding of the composition of both the

student and supervisor populations involved is required before firm conclusions can be

drawn (Heath, 2002). The results of Heath’s (2002) study, however, provide some

evidence to support the view that regular formal meetings between a student and

supervisor(s) increase the likelihood of completion and also increase the satisfaction

that PhD candidates report with their supervision.

Single versus group or team supervision

There are various models of supervision. A single principal supervisor can be

appointed, or a principal and co- or associate supervisor. A third model is a team

approach where the principal supervisor will bring in other experts as and when

required.

Interestingly Heath (2002) noted that no differences were found with levels of

satisfaction between students who had a single supervisor and those who had two or

104
more supervisors, when tested for differences within discipline groups, such as the

sciences or the social sciences and humanities. Recommended guidelines at UK

universities are that each PhD student should have a team of two supervisors (Phillips &

Pugh, 2005). This helps overcome some of the issues that can arise with a single

supervisor including: the supervisor being absent from the university or having a heavy

teaching load, the supervisor not being an expert in the whole range of the research

topic, and lack of supervisory experience. These issues are less likely to hinder a

student’s progress if there is a second supervisor available to provide support (Phillips

& Pugh, 2005).

The table on the following page outlines the supervisory arrangements of each of the

eight women, including any issues that they reported and how these were resolved.

105
Table Six: Supervision

Number and How did it work Issues Resolutions

gender of
supervisors
Eve Two (both female) – Worked well – had None reported Very supportive,
one encouraged her a hand-over every personal aspect to
to enrol in a Masters six months (one the relationship
initially and supervisor for six
suggested the months then
second supervisor swapped)
Elena One (male) – she Disastrous, even No personal Changed to another
knew him from when she changed interaction, felt supervisor but
undergraduate to new supervisor unsupported; damage was already
classes (he was not reported bullying done
her Honours behaviour from the
supervisor). She first supervisor
changed supervisors
(to another male)
Andrea Two (female), then Sought an Was not getting Found a third
added a third (male) additional what she needed supervisor to “fill
supervisor to academically from the gaps” in her
provide critical her initial supervisory
feedback supervisor arrangements
Jane One (female), her She had prior Need to negotiate Supervisor was role
supervisor took two knowledge of the was ongoing model. Jane has
six-month supervisor from (learned from other learned to “pick her
sabbaticals during other students, but student’s battles” about what
which time Jane had was not aware of experiences with needs to be
to continue without office politics and this supervisor but negotiated and what
supervision. how this would was finding her own she chooses to let
impact on her way forward) go
students
Karen One principal Difficulties dealing Inexperienced new Learning to
(male) and two or with the death of supervisor negotiate as she
three co-supervisors her principal progresses with her
(mainly male, one supervisor and candidature
female). When her adjusting to the
principal supervisor different style of a
died, one of the less experienced
associates (male) supervisor
became principal
supervisor
Laura Two (male and Strong relationship No negative issues Supervisors seem to
female) – associate with principal mentioned have a structure in
brought in to read supervisor. Worked place which had
draft chapters well as a team. worked in previous
PhD supervision
Ebony Two (male and Mainly worked with Knew principal Prior knowledge of
female) – very little principal supervisor; supervisor from working with
said about co- second supervisor Masters research supervisor.
supervisor (female) utilised when degree Provided
principal on leave encouragement
Tasha Two (male and Excellent Supervisor acts as a Principal supervisor
female) – associate relationship with strong advocate was supportive and
brought in when she principal supervisor advocated for
had drafted chapters Tasha’s rights as a
student

106
While the literature highlights several issues in student-supervisor relationships that

may affect the student’s experience – same-gender relationship, availability,

communication – the women’s narratives are analysed to explore the important issues

that impacted on their experience. This analysis looked at how the supervision was

initiated and negotiated, where discussed by the participants. Supervisory arrangements

differed markedly between the participants and there were varying amount of

negotiation that had to be undertaken.

Case Study One: Eve

Eve had two female supervisors with whom she had a good relationship. She mentioned

early in her narrative that she already knew her co-supervisor, as a peer and a friend,

before she enrolled. She discussed both supervisors in terms of encouragement,

engagement, time arrangements, friendship and support.

Beginning of supervisory relationship

Eve’s supervision started when she discussed possible thesis topics with her co-

supervisor who then contacted another female academic at the university at which she

would subsequently enrol (page 3):

I made my way to [dual sector metropolitan university] mostly through a peer

and a friend who ended up becoming my co-supervisor, who believed in what I
was doing, who when I talked with her about possible subjects for doing a
thesis, she became very excited and she spoke with [the postgraduate
coordinator and potential supervisor]. And she said, “Oh I’d really like to, to
take this student on board.”

Her co-supervisor was enthusiastic about Eve’s topic and sought out a colleague who

was willing to be principal supervisor. Eve then talked about being “actively

encouraged” to apply and stated that her supervisors were engaged and interested in her

work, and she felt welcomed and supported (page 3):

107
 I was actively encouraged to apply and felt all the way from the beginning with
that application that I was … it wasn’t a given, it wasn’t a guarantee that I was
going to get it, but I felt that [co-supervisor] and [supervisor], and I think the
University through them, were really engaged with and interested in the work
that I was doing. So I felt very welcome. I was delighted when I heard that I had
won the scholarship … [I: So it was very supportive?] Very supportive, right
from the beginning. I mean it was the individuals involved, but it was certainly
the university that was saying “welcome”.

Eve was actively encouraged by both supervisors to apply for a scholarship as well as to

enrol. From the outset of her supervisory relationship, she reported that her supervisors

were supportive, engaged and interested in what she was doing.

Regular meetings and balancing co-supervision

Eve’s supervision arrangement was split between the two supervisors on a six-month

on, six-month off basis. Eve noted in the excerpt below that this worked very well for

her (page 6):

I must add that the supervision arrangement with my supervisors that everyone
agreed from the beginning it would be a six-month on, six month off
arrangement. So I wasn’t being co-supervised at the same time. And that really
worked very well. I was free and able to talk to, if I was being supervised by
[principal supervisor] for that six months I was still able to talk with [co-
supervisor], and vice versa, but I was primarily just with one, it was a one-on-
one with one supervisor and I think that worked very well. Because [principal
supervisor] is grounded in academia, and [co-supervisor] is also an academic,
but she’s also has that knowledge of the [relevant] industry. So that …
combination of supervisors worked very well in that on-off, six months on, six
months off … worked actually extremely well.

This arrangement could potentially be risky if the supervisors had different viewpoints

on the direction of the project – six months is quite a long period of time to take a

research project in one direction, based for example on the industry-based supervisor’s

advice. However for Eve this worked well and she was free to contact her alternate

supervisor at any time. At the end of each six-month period there was a handover

meeting held usually over dinner (page 6):

108
 And at the end of each six-month period, we had a handover, which was usually
over dinner. And those dinner meetings were lovely, where we would get
together and talk about what was to come, where I had been, what needed to be
done and for everyone to be brought up to speed. And I would then just transfer
over the other supervisor. And that worked very well.

These regularly scheduled handover meetings were a chance for Eve to connect with

both supervisors and reassess progress. Eve later discussed that in the last six months of

the degree her supervisory arrangement changed and now both supervisors were

working together with her. She noted that this could have proved difficult; but they

worked well together and thus were able to sort out any difficulties (page 12):

I was writing up and in the last six months, the arrangement of six months on
and off with my supervisors changed. The last six months we agreed that all
three would be on board. That we would all work together to pull it together,
and that worked very well as well. And it could have fallen apart in some ways
because I think we were so used to working the way we had where I was taking
directions just from one or the other, so now we were really getting into that,
that system of having to agree and disagree … I think that by that stage we were
working well enough as a group to sort out, to sort out any difficulties there.

Eve showed awareness of the fact that there could have been problems in changing a

supervision strategy that was working well at this final stage of her research. However

the change was a collaborative and consultative one. Eve, in the excerpt above, noted

that “we agreed” and referred to the three people involved as a “group” indicating that it

was to some extent an equal relationship by this time.

Personal relationships
One of the issues noted in the literature is that supervisors can vary in their personal

relationship with their students. Some supervisors believe that any sort of personal

relationship with the student is to be avoided, while others encourage a more friendly

form of interaction. One of the reasons identified for the success of same-gender

relationships between student and supervisor is that many, but not all, women can be

more open to some level of personal interaction with their students (Leonard, 2001;

109
Smeby, 2000). Eve explained that her supervisory relationships were enhanced by

friendship, but also that she understood why sometimes supervisors keep their students

at a distance (page 6):

Constructive, and also, I think that sometimes working with supervisors they
don’t believe that they should have any sort of personal relationship with the
student, that it should be sort of arm’s length. And I understand the reasons for
that and there was certainly, this was a professional arrangement. However you
know the hand of friendship was extended and possibly that was exacerbated by
the personal circumstances as well, but I think that that would have been there
anyway. And it certainly enhanced the professional relationship.

Eve acknowledged that this was a professional arrangement and that her circumstances

may have augmented the friendship component of the relationship. Eve’s personal life

was very difficult throughout most of her degree with her partner undergoing treatment

for a life-threatening illness. Her relationship with her supervisors was strong and she

noted that the “hand of friendship”, mentioned above, was reciprocal (page 20):

Plus one of my supervisors went through her own personal crisis with her own
partner and it was to do with cancer, and that was … that often when you are
just talking about yourself a lot and then all of a sudden, oh, the other person
you know the other person is dealing with something too … that kind of shakes
you out of dwelling on yourself. And so I was able to give a little bit of support
back the other way. And that was good.

The relationship Eve developed with her supervisors then included an element of

friendship and, as indicated above, was reciprocal.

Mentoring, support and encouragement

Eve also discussed the active mentoring and encouragement from her supervisors (page

12):

My supervisors, all the way through were not passive, they were very active
mentors encouraging me to go for things, [principal supervisor] in particular
would send me conferences that she’d heard about and opportunities
electronically. Which was just fantastic … she would be looking through them
for herself or checking them and she would see something, she’d think “Oh

110
 [Eve] might be able to do that, or might be interested.” She tried to help from a
distance ... which was just great.

Her supervisors encouraged her from the beginning of her PhD, before she enrolled, and

this continued throughout her candidature.

Eve’s reported supervisory experience demonstrated many of the factors that have been

highlighted in the literature as important to successful supervision. She had support and

encouragement to enrol in the degree, and felt that her supervisors were interested and

engaged with her research topic. Split supervision on a six month basis was negotiated

and Eve knew she could approach either supervisor at any time. The supervision

arrangement changed in the final six months and this was also negotiated between the

student and the supervisors. There was a strong reciprocal interaction between Eve and

her supervisors which was in part due to Eve’s personal circumstances. This was

reported as enhancing the professional relationship.

Case Study Three: Andrea

Andrea was successful in gaining an industry-funded scholarship, which meant she had

little if any choice in her supervisors or the research topic. Both of her supervisors were

female. She was aware of the difficulties that can occur when a student doesn’t get to

choose their own supervisor and discussed this at an early point in her narrative. She

also discussed not getting what she needed from her supervisors and seeking support

elsewhere through peer networks and a third supervisor.

Beginning of supervisory relationship

Early in her narrative Andrea discussed the issues of the lack of choice in supervisors

and the time that she took to work out their strengths and weaknesses. She also

111
indicated at an early point in her story that she was prepared to look elsewhere for

support if her supervisors could not provide it. This foreshadowed her later discussion

about an additional supervisor (page 2):

And then of course I had also given supervisors and that can bring its own
problems because you don’t know how much they know about the topic. You
only can find out much later what their kind of expectings [sic] is and obviously
you haven’t actually sought them out yourself and so … even with people that
know the supervisors they can have trouble … and then recognising what the
strengths and weaknesses are of the supervisors because not only between the
two supervisors you have but also in terms of what they expect you to do and
what you expect from them and … sometimes it’s off one person you might, she
might be very reliable in terms of administration, letting you know of deadlines
within the university and forms to hand in and all the rest of it. And the other
person might be more like a guidance academically and so forth, so it’s a matter
of finding out the different personalities and what they can offer you … and then
if you can’t find what you’re looking for to look outside.

Andrea didn’t discuss whether she had any contact with either supervisor prior to

applying for the industry scholarship. Her decision to undertake a project where she did

not choose the topic and with supervisors allocated brought with it different issues to

those of students who had initial discussions with a supervisor/s that had an interest in

the same topic or area of research. The excerpt above indicates that Andrea was aware

that there could be added difficulty in accepting set supervisors: their depth of

knowledge in the research area and their expectations of her as a student were unknown

before she began working with them.

Negotiating supervision
Andrea talked about working out the respective roles for student and supervisor, but

referred to it as “figuring out” rather than negotiation when I probed further about any

difficulties with supervisors. She mentioned that she wanted “guidance” from her

supervisors but she wasn’t getting the sort of guidance that she wanted (pages 3-4):

Not so much negotiation, more … just trying to figure out what you’re supposed
to do and what they’re supposed to do … as I said learning about their strengths

112
 and their weaknesses and I was initially someone who looked for a lot of
guidance and couldn’t find it. Until you kind of start to realise that you can have
all the guidance in the world, you still need to do it. And so it’s a matter of …
presuming that you are confident enough to write the damn thing.

As she had not selected her own supervisors, Andrea reported that it took some time to

work out their respective roles. She indicated that she wanted guidance and appears to

have expected this from her supervisors, particularly in the early stages of her

candidature. A number of researchers have found that this is common. Gradually as a

doctoral student continues they will become more independent, or can be encouraged to

do so (Delamont, Atkinson & Parry, 2004; Leonard, 2001; Phillips & Pugh, 2005).

Andrea was clear on what, to her, was good supervision or “guidance” (page 4):

And proper guidance, I don’t mean that someone puts you on a pedestal and
tells you all the compliments but more critical feedback, that someone is actually
competent to read the text and give you on the text detailed feedback of how you
haven’t thought it through properly or what you’re kind of assuming the reader
to already know or any of those things so … it’s not necessarily a matter of the
supervisor having the expertise in your very area but just to be recognised as a
person who’s trying to do a job decently. And one of the things that used to
annoy me is that … each supervision session started with “What was your topic
again?” so I just felt like… [sighs] … in a production line … where you’re just
not counting as an individual, you’re just there being processed.

Andrea wanted supervisors who gave critical feedback on her work, particularly her

written work. She reported feeling like she was “in a production line” and that her

supervisor wasn’t paying attention to her as an individual research student. She

continued in this excerpt to explain that she had to find a way to compensate (page 4):

Look they are busy people and I don’t blame them but it’s still not fair. And I’ve
heard worse stories so I guess mine isn’t really bad in comparison but again it’s
a matter of … where you’re at and what you can source otherwise. If you’ve got
excellent books or if you’ve got excellent people to run ideas by then you very
quickly compensate for the … weaknesses of your supervisors.

Andrea understood that there were worse supervisors than the ones she had. She had not

selected them herself due to the type of project she was working on and she started

looking elsewhere for the support and guidance that she needed. She mentioned seeking

113
out reference books and other people to “compensate” for her supervisors’ weaknesses.

She continued her narrative to explain why the supervision she was experiencing wasn’t

working for her (page 4):

But if you’re still kind of figuring out what you’re trying to achieve and where
you’re heading and like, they did things like let me write the introduction like
five times, ten times, more over and that just is not helpful when you haven’t got
a main plan yet … so it’s also a matter of actually having the experience how
such a thing as a thesis comes about. And … I guess they had a more positivistic
understanding … that you make yourself a plan and you apply a cookie cutter to
the data and you generate hypotheses and all the rest of it and then you’ve got
your thesis, but that’s not how most learning occurs. It occurs much more
organic and … but as I said you find that out just by doing it, so there’s nothing
like experience.

Andrea expressed frustration here at the repeated suggestions from her supervisors to

continually rewrite her introduction. What she wanted was a better understanding of

how to plan out the research project, but reported that her supervisors were very

positivistic while she was in search of a more “organic” learning experience. She

concluded this segment with her understanding that this happens through doing the

research.

When Andrea talked about the time that it has taken to complete (she stated she was

within 6 months of finishing when I interviewed her) she referred back to her

supervisors and the issues she had (page 7):

Again on one hand you can say it’s because of the child, because it’s exactly
that timeframe that I’ve added on. On the other hand you could say it’s because
of various struggles with supervisors. I actually changed one supervisor because
… well he’s just so much better … and he provides me with the critical feedback
that I need. He’s the right kind of mixture between being confident that you can
do it and being critical on how you’re doing it … so whether that’s a struggle or
whether it’s a child, I don’t know … it’s hard to say.

114
She was clear about the type of supervision she needed (critical feedback and support)

consistent with that suggested in the literature (Delamont et al., 2004; Leonard, 2001;

Phillips & Pugh, 2005).

Gender and supervision

Andrea acknowledged here that having a child was impacting on her time to complete

her degree. However she also emphasised that she had struggles with her supervisors

and sought out an additional supervisor who provided her with the supervision that she

needed – including both support and critical feedback. Her new co-supervisor who was

male but Andrea was of the opinion that her supervisory difficulties were not gender

related (page 7):

There were first two females and now the new one is male … that’s a hard thing
to judge because first of all it might depend on the discipline, just in terms of
how many males or females are working … [I: especially when you get into
sciences…] Yeah, social sciences is usually pretty good in terms of females but
… I wouldn’t say that necessarily it was related to gender that I had difficulties,
yet you could say there was, there’s a certain presumption how things will go.
And because they’ve been both mothers, you know how you will mother or any
of those kind of things but in terms of the supervisory relationship I think it’s
more dependent on personalities than on gender.

Andrea thought that a good fit between student and supervisor was more personality

dependent than gender-related, although she does comment that there were

presumptions about how she would “mother.” I interpret this to mean that her two

female supervisors’ had commented or made assumptions to Andrea about how having

a child would impact on her research degree. However Andrea did not elaborate further

on this topic.

Finding alternative support/supervision

Andrea sought an additional co-supervisor to provide the guidance and support that she

felt she wasn’t receiving from her original supervisors. This new supervisor gave her

115
critical feedback and was confident in her ability to undertake and write up the research

(page 8):

One of the things that I appreciate most about my new supervisor is that he
simply hasn’t stopped learning … he doesn’t think he’s eaten wisdom by the
spoonful … and I think that’s very important because you need to keep that
curiosity. Otherwise … you just don’t feel you really need to finish the PhD in a
way because if you already know it well then, what [sic] are you bothering?
That’s one of the things of real … as I said critical feedback and I guess a
willingness to learn … and I guess as I said before that confidence in you being
able to write it as well as still working on the text and … wanting to go on the
journey with you. Because that, he always says that’s what methodology’s all
about, it’s the way you come to learn about something and that’s a simple yet
striking way of just thinking about methodology. So he doesn’t have necessarily
more years, not many more years than my first supervisor, both my supervisors
of which I’ve kept the principal one but he just sees … so many PhDs through as
an external supervisor that he knows the tricks of the trade.

Andrea used some very evocative phrases (for example, “he hasn’t eaten wisdom by the

spoonful”) and in the end it sounded as though Andrea had come to terms with adjusting

to her new co-supervisor’s style. Fundamentally, she was prepared to be flexible in the

supervisory relationship because she respected his track record and willingness to “go

on the journey with her.”

It is interesting to contrast this supervision style with that of Elena’s first supervisor,

who was only interested in output, not sharing the student’s journey. Andrea described

having trouble with her principal supervisor not providing consistent guidance (page 8):

So because my one supervisor, the one I kept, she keeps on changing the … the
guidance let’s say… [I: how?] … If you come one day and you say you are
going to write it like that she says “oh yes that’s fantastic” and the next day you
could, next supervision you can put it completely on its feet and she’ll say “oh
that’s great, that’s wonderful, that’s the way you should do it.” So in other
words it’s not even a sounding board, it’s just … she doesn’t think much, she
just … anti-thinking sort of thing, she’s very good at admin and that’s good
because quite often … that’s what you need to have at the end of the PhD you
need to give the proper updates … do all your defence and … progress reports,
all of these things and you need to have someone that’s actually capable of
getting all these forms in on time, informing you that they have to be filled out in

116
 the first place and all the rest of it. So I wouldn’t underestimate that, but I just
know that I can’t get the [word missing] theoretical or thinking.

Andrea reflected that her principal supervisor’s strength was the administrative side of

the doctoral process, but that Andrea had trouble with getting consistent feedback. If in

two separate supervision sessions Andrea could present two completely different

versions of something and not receive critical feedback, how engaged was her

supervisor with the project? An alternative explanation is that the principal supervisor

was trying to get Andrea to decide which version was the best one to move the research

forward. However Andrea’s specific criticism here was that she couldn’t even use her

supervisor as a sounding board, indicating that her supervisor was not engaging in

critical discussion and feedback. She continued to explain that it took her a while to

work out that her supervisor was more data-focused than theory-focused (pages 8-9):

Because as she just makes maybe one or two sentences of comment on a 10 page
draft and that’s just not enough … that’s fine as long as I know that she’s not …
at first I was confused, I didn’t know whether it was just me and now I’m think
well maybe it’s me but also her. That we just don’t have that relationship. And
I’m not sure whether she … can give that guidance to anyone … because it’s …
not that she’s incompetent, by no means but she has a way of not relating to
theory as much. She is much more kind of a data cruncher, positivist, kind of,
quantitative person, and if you say life was difficult, she just goes, “Yes, but
what about my typology.” So that’s the kind of frame that she comes from and
that’s fine, as long as you recognise that … and you just say, “yes of course”
and move on and you’re not that disappointed anymore.

The final sentence in this excerpt was very interesting – “and you’re not that

disappointed anymore” – because the “anymore” could indicate that she was initially

disappointed but accepted she couldn’t get what she needed from her principal

supervisor, and looked elsewhere for guidance.

Later in the interview I asked Andrea about advice or strategies she would give to

someone else who was thinking of doing a PhD. She emphasised finding an appropriate

supervisor (page 17):

117
 You should try and find a supervisor that’s in your area who’s got that attitude
of wanting to learn with you … and still being able to give you critical feedback
… you should maybe look at what they’ve published, and whether there are any
similarities in approaches or thinking that would suit you.

Andrea’s advice reflects the literature which suggests that students should research and

interview potential supervisors to determine their theoretical and methodological

approaches; find someone who can give critical feedback and who wants to “learn with

you” (Delamont et al., 2004; Leonard, 2001; Phillips & Pugh, 2005). Not every

supervisor and student will be able to develop a compatible supervisory relationship. In

some cases, as for Andrea, this can be overcome by seeking additional supervisory

support.

Andrea’s supervision experience highlighted the need for students to be able to

negotiate and get the support that they need, either from an additional co-supervisor or

from other sources such as peer networks. Andrea’s self-awareness of what she needed,

in terms of critical feedback and encouragement that she was capable of writing the

thesis, enabled her to seek out a suitable co-supervisor. It also highlighted the difficulty

in undertaking a predetermined project that has set supervisors attached if the student

later finds that they are not able to get the supervision they require.

Case Study Four: Jane

Jane’s principal supervisor was a woman at professorial level in a hard science

discipline. Jane talked about respect for her supervisor early in her narrative, but was

aware that she could be difficult to work with as her brothers had been co-supervised by

the same person. The delays that Jane described with her thesis related back to issues

with the supervisor wanting further experimental work. She talked in detail about her

negotiation with her supervisor.

118
Beginning of supervisory relationship
Jane’s principal supervisor helped her to transfer as an undergraduate from a different

university (page 5):

First of all I came and met with her and spent a couple of hours talking to her
and then she arranged for me to actually spend a day here attending lectures
and things which was good … [12 lines deleted] … but definitely that was a big
influence and I held such respect for her … because I knew that people … even
for my age … people were still surprised when I told them I was doing
[discipline] and often there was “oh not many girls do that.” So I was impressed
and happy that she was older than me and she was so advanced, and had so
much respect from the people around her for what she did … that I gained
respect for her.

Taking the time to help her as an undergraduate influenced Jane, who was also

impressed with her supervisor as a successful woman in a male-dominated research

field.

Negotiating supervision
At the time of interview Jane was in the latter stages of her research degree and wanted

to finish, but her supervisor wanted to re-do experiments in order to answer questions

raised in response to journal articles (page 8):

Is it worth another twelve to eighteen months of trying to get this finished when
maybe it won’t be finished? Maybe … there’s things that come up and you think
well … to answer to that researcher’s question who’s criticised the last paper I
wrote I’m going to have to do another six months worth of experiments. As much
as my supervisor would love that I would do that, realistically that’s not an
option for me. I’m not willing to do another six months of experiments and then
however long it takes after that, because the truth of it is, once you’ve done that
… another question might come up and then another one and then another one
and you’re there forever. I guess that’s a source of conflict between candidates
and their supervisors because the supervisor has got, as far as they’re
concerned, all the time in the world because once this student goes, another one
will come along and keep going.

Nearing the end of her doctoral degree, Jane was struggling with what she identified as

a source of conflict between some students and supervisors. In some disciplines,

particularly the science-based ones, chapters are written as articles and submitted for

119
journals in order to receive feedback. What Jane was finding was that with her

supervisor, this could become a never-ending cycle of further experiments in order to

answer more questions. She appeared in this excerpt to be struggling to convey to her

supervisor that for Jane, this constant re-experimentation was not a realistic option.

Supervision and departmental politics

Jane discovered that some staff, including technical staff, did not get along with her

supervisor. By default, when Jane had problems with her equipment, she found it almost

impossible to get fixed. The dislike of her supervisor was transferred to the student.

This continued even when her supervisor was on leave (page 9):

That [equipment concerns] put me in limbo and also that [sighs] created a lot of
tension … within the working environment that as much as when I was an
undergraduate I thought that everything would be wonderful because I know all
the staff, after that happened it turned out that a lot of the staff didn’t get along
with my supervisor which … then apparently transferred to me so they no longer
got along with me either. [I: office politics…] Office politics, which you know, is
all it was but it … that honestly slowed me down as well. Because when you
can’t ... like if you’re doing experiments and something breaks, if you can’t turn
around and walk into the workshop and say, “This broke, can you please fix it
for me?” then you’re stuck and you know you have to find another way. Which,
sure there always is another way but it can be a time-consuming way, not to
mention stressful way. And my supervisor has taken two six-month sabbaticals
while I’ve done my research … which means then that when those things do
happen then I’m all alone to deal with it which makes it even harder so … that’s
probably eighty percent of why it’s taken me longer than it should.

This issue of departmental politics severely affected Jane’s progress in a highly

experimental research project. While it could be said that no supervisor will be

universally liked by all staff in their department, a strongly entrenched dislike as

reported here by Jane is most likely to negatively impact on any student associated with

that supervisor.

Jane continued in her narrative to discuss issues she had with her supervisor not wanting

to submit articles to journals for feedback. As mentioned above, this is a common

120
practice in science disciplines. While Jane here accepted some responsibility for the

time that the research was taking, she specifically stated that this reluctance to submit

work was a cause for concern (page 9):

Probably my supervisor is the reason why it’s taken … she’s responsible for the
rest of that. I’m sure I’m responsible for some of it [laughing] I’ll put my hand
up for that. I’m sure I’m responsible for some of it. I mean things happen, but I
guess that at times she seemed reluctant to submit my work. And that I’ve spent
a long time writing and preparing a paper and then at the last minute she’ll say
“oh no, we won’t submit it” or “let’s do something else before we submit it”
and before you know it, that paper’s been put on the shelf and forgotten about.
Well, I spent three months writing that paper and now it’s sitting on the shelf.

Jane outlined that she would put months of work into a paper intended for publication

and review, only have it shelved. She continued to explain that, for her, even a bad

review would have provided her with critical feedback (page 9):

I think I’ve only had really two publications that count … and I personally feel
that … not putting it out there is … just as much of waste because if you’re not
putting it out there and you’re not … even a bad review is still a review so … but
for her a bad review carried with it so much more because it’s people she has to
face forever more and it’s people that she knows and it’s her reputation on the
line. But for me it’s my only source of feedback of how I’m going in my research
and if I’m not getting any indication of how I’m going then it’s hard to remain
committed and focused. I guess that you start to fear that what you’re doing’s
not good enough … but I guess a whole stack of rejection letters wouldn’t be too
good either.

While Jane reflected in this excerpt that she understood that a bad review might affect

her supervisor’s reputation in the discipline, it was an essential source of feedback. Her

supervisor’s reluctance to put out the work for critique, and subsequent lack of

feedback, was affecting Jane’s focus and commitment. I prompted Jane at this point to

talk about how she negotiated with her supervisor. She outlined that she had learned

from other people’s experience and decided not to make an enemy of her supervisor.

She recognised that her supervisor’s need for respect is compounded by the difficulties

that she had as a woman in her field (page 10):

121
 I try to negotiate, but I have learnt from other people’s experience that if you go
up too hard, you make an enemy, and if you make an enemy, life’s difficult. So
as much as it’s not necessarily my personal style or personal opinion, there’s
times when I know that I have to just say “Okay, that’s the way it is. If that’s the
way you want to do it, that’s the way I’m going to do it.” Even if I disagree with
it, even if I would rather be standing up for myself and saying “No, this is the
way it’s got to be done” I know that if you insult somebody’s ego then you’ve
got to have the pain …[laughs] so you have to be careful to not stand on toes
and also I think that you’ve got to know your place as a PhD candidate because
I think that that’s where a lot of difficulties have arisen for other people in that
everything’s fine when your supervisor knows more than you do and they tell
you what to do and … they’re god-like and they know everything, but you reach
a point in your research where you know more than they do about it and you’re
on the brink of becoming … of applying for jobs and being their equal … and I
think that they have difficulty in that transition. So, especially for supervisors
because … I dare say it even more so for a female supervisor who’s had to
struggle up against it … to get where she is in the first place … so she demands
a certain level of respect and she deserves it … but she also gets very quickly
and very easily insulted if people don’t give her the respect. That she gets upset
if people disrespect her ... and once she’s upset with someone for disrespecting
her, it’s very hard to get back in the good books because you know once you’ve
upset her … then that’s kind of it.

She discussed how she tried to negotiate about writing up and how she used other

people’s experiences with the same supervisor to her advantage (pages 10-11):

Also I think a lot of conflict arises especially in [discipline] because of writing

styles … [nine lines deleted] … but when you give it to someone like my
supervisor who’s been properly trained in the correct form of the English
language, then when she reads what I’ve written it grates on her and … she
needs it to be technically correct, which for me I can stand back and say “okay
if that’s the way it has to be, even though that sentence no longer makes any
sense to me. Even though what I wrote sounded fine and what you’ve changed it
to sounds ridiculous – fine!” I can let it go, I try to be [word inaudible] but I
know a lot of other people can’t because it’s so personal that they feel like,
“Hang on, this is the way I want it to be, that’s all there is to it.” I don’t think
it’s worth spending three months of your life arguing about whether you should
have a comma before or a comma after.
Jane had learned what is worth arguing about and what it is easier to let go of,

particularly when it came to the mechanics of writing. She had observed other students

who would not compromise and therefore had more difficulty with their supervisor/s

(page 11):

Even though I think I’m right, oh well, if that has to be, that has to be … I’ll do it
your way and I’ll put my name on it and I’ll get it done. Whereas for some

122
 people it’s been a cause of major fighting and once you start fighting, then you
know things don’t work properly … if you’re stressed and your supervisor’s
stressed and everyone’s unhappy … things don’t move. And when things stop
moving it becomes much more challenging in all those other aspects that you’re
dealing with … with your motivation … should you continue with it? Is it worth
it? All those questions become more intense when there’s conflict. My policy at
the moment is just try and avoid conflict.

At the time of interview Jane had come to an understanding of how to work with her

supervisor on some issues and not others. She realised that arguing over grammar would

lead to conflict, which in turn raised stress levels. Jane’s observation here was that if

both parties in the relationship are stressed and unhappy, “things don’t move.” This can

intensify other aspects of the degree and affect motivation, thus Jane had adopted a

policy of avoiding conflict.

Jane continued her narrative to explain that she could see that the supervisor’s view of

the thesis is often different to that of the student. For Jane, the thesis was a step in her

career, but for her supervisor it carried more weight (page 11):

I guess I acknowledge the fact that for me, my thesis will be written, will be
submitted, whether it passes or fails once we get to that stage, it will be bound, it
will be put on a shelf and as far as I’m concerned probably no-one will ever
look at it, whereas for my supervisor I understand that … when it comes to
comparing herself with other people, it’s about how many there are on the shelf
and how good they are and how often they’re referred to. So for her it carries
lingering weight, whereas for me all it does is get me my first job. And once I’ve
got my first job, it doesn’t matter anymore … [eight lines deleted] but I do also
acknowledge that my supervisor, it means more to her so I have to respect the
fact that if means more to her and respect that if she wants a comma there, then
I’ll put a comma there …[laughs]…or if she wants an extra experiment done,
I’ll do an extra experiment…up to a point…[laughs]…it can’t go on forever.

Jane’s ability to see the situation from her supervisor’s point of view helped her to

understand what she was being asked to do. However at the end of the excerpt she notes

that she will change the grammar and punctuation, and do some additional experiments,

but that there also needs to be an end point. At the time of interview, as can be seen in

123
this and earlier excerpts, Jane was reaching a point at which she wanted to stop the

additional experiments and finish her thesis.

Jane’s narrative continued to centre on the negotiation that was ongoing in her

supervisory relationship. She talked again about the difficulties in [her discipline] of

ensuring that the papers get sent to the right people for review (page 13):

Well I’ve had disagreements with my supervisor about, when we have had a
choice … about who it should go to … earlier on in my research, I guess I
wasn’t listened to in that regard. But after some bad experience now I am
listened to … [Laughter] … Listened to a little bit more or she agrees with me
anyway that certain people are … not going to like our research no matter what
we do, so … at least we’ve come to an agreement on that [ laughs]

Jane’s relationship with her supervisor had developed to a point where Jane’s opinion

on some issues was listened to. Earlier disagreements had ended with Jane being proven

correct. Jane went on to emphasise that personal attitude was important in smoothing

the way forward in the supervisory relationship (page 15):

Because there’s so much personal attitude comes into it that … if you’re of the
attitude that, you write something and you want it to be submitted the way
you’ve written it and you can’t bend on that, then your experience is going to be
difficult and painful. If you’re of the attitude that “I’ll write it but if you don’t
like it you can change it” … it … makes it more enjoyable for you [laughs]
and… you hopefully get through it easier.

Jane’s emphasis in her narrative is on the negotiation that had taken place in her

supervisory relationship. Although the excerpt above relates to her own flexibility to

make it easier, the previous one emphasised that her supervisor too had learned to

compromise, or at least listen to her student on some issues. Later in the narrative, Jane

mentioned other students who had had trouble in negotiating supervision (page 24):

I mean even apart from my brothers’ experiences, that other … students who’ve
gone before me … they’ve had the same issue …in my opinion what’s been their
biggest barrier is their relationship with their supervisor ... and two of them
ended up taking their thesis and going to a different supervisor. At first they

124
 thought, “Yeah that’s the best thing to do because it was taking too long with
this supervisor”, but … then the process of changing supervisors takes a long
time too so they might have been better to just stick it out.

The implication here is that she is talking about students who have been supervised by

her current supervisor. Although changing supervisor/s can be an option, it can also take

time to organise and then establish a good working relationship with the new

supervisors. Jane reflected that staying with the same supervisor and moving forward

may have been a better option. It is highly likely though that the students she referred to

had reached a point where they were unable to negotiate any further within their

supervisory relationship and, for those students, a change of supervisor was required in

order to complete their degree.

Towards the end of her narrative, Jane questioned her supervisor’s inability to learn

from her prior students’ experiences and her persistent need to always be right (page

25):

I’m surprised a little bit that … it seems as if maybe my supervisor hasn’t learnt
from those experiences because seems to be making the same mistakes or having
the same attitude with subsequent people, that hasn’t realised … I personally
don’t think she’s realised that … there’s an element of her involved in that
situation. It’s not just these PhD candidates that lose their mind, that there’s
some responsibility of hers involved in that … I don’t think she quite appreciates
that … so I just thought [laughs] the same problems keep coming up.

Jane here shows that she understood that there were issues on both sides of the

supervisory relationship. She was aware that this had been an ongoing dilemma for a

number of previous PhD candidates, but that her supervisor did not seem to have

learned from prior experience.

Gender and the supervisory relationship

According to Jane, the negotiation and reflection that she had referred to earlier, in

terms of being listened to regarding potential journal article reviewers, did not extend to

125
her supervisor reflecting on her own role in ongoing difficult student-supervisor

relationships. Jane reflected that this could be psychological, but she also recognised

that her getting to professorial level as a woman in a male-dominated field would have

been a “battle” (page 25):

I think that’s part of her psyche of … being very dominant and being very out to
prove herself and always being right … and not being comfortable with ever
being wrong … [I: and that’s maybe why she’s got to where she is as well …
maybe she’s had to be that way … to get to where she is…] Which is what I
think … like I said even now kind of look at me and say what are you doing that
for, so I can only imagine what the response to her was when she went through
you know, thirty years before me. I’m sure she’s had to battle.

It can be seen that this observation of Jane’s was prompted to some extent by my

comment that perhaps her supervisor’s personality or way of working helped her to get

to the level she is now. Jane picked up on this and agreed, adding her observation that

people commented even in the present day on her choice of discipline. She continued on

the theme of gender in the supervisory relationship, and noted a difference in the way

male and female students interacted with this supervisor (page 25):

I’m surprised that the … I shouldn’t say surprise …I’ve observed that there’s a
difference between the way [that] female … candidates of hers deal with the
situation compared to the way the males do. That the males seem to be … very
much … quicker to get annoyed with it and quicker to either dismiss it or to get
really angrily defensive of what it is they are doing or trying to do whereas the
females will tend to be more submissive and say, “Okay, alright, do it your
way.” And defer to her judgement and defer to … her opinion to try and get
through.

Jane noted that female students tended to defer more to the supervisor’s opinion or

judgement, whereas male students would more rapidly become defensive. Interestingly,

the compromise and submissiveness of the female students was not necessarily making

the situation better in the long run according to Jane (pages 25-26):

Even though that is the case I don’t think that it necessarily makes it much
easier for them … because … if anything sometimes it means that they get
bullied a little bit more and it takes them a little bit longer because she … the

126
 supervisor, is able to say “Oh, go and do another experiment” that will take
three … knowing that you’ll say [sighing] “okay” whereas … some of the other,
not, not all of the other males but majority will take it up to a point but then will
say “No that’s it. I’m not doing any more, this is ridiculous” and they’ll end up
being quite hostile and outwardly hostile. Whereas I think the females tend to go
sighing “Oh, alright” and just kind of take it away.

Jane’s reflection of the way male and female students interact differently was

perceptive. In particular, her note that by accepting the supervisor’s judgement and

continuing the work, rather than reaching a point of putting one’s foot down, female

students may in fact be leaving themselves open to being further “bullied.”

Jane’s story highlighted the difficulties that students can have in the negotiation of

supervision. A student can be advised of possible difficulties with a potential supervisor

but decide that they will be able to handle them better. Jane has been flexible in

negotiating her supervision, apparently compromising much more often than her

supervisor. However her frustration with how long the thesis is taking is clear.

Case Study Five: Karen

A large part of Karen’s narrative is focused on supervisory issues as her principal

supervisor (who had also been her Honours supervisor) died during her candidature.

One of her co-supervisors then became her principal supervisor who, she reported, was

quite inexperienced. Both of these principal supervisors were male but there seemed to

be no difficulties with gender issues. Karen did not discuss the beginning of the

supervisory relationship with her initial principal supervisor. She mentioned that he had

been her Honours supervisor and she had approached him when she considered

undertaking the PhD.

127
Beginning the supervisory relationship
Karen’s principal supervisor, whom she had known for about 12 years, died when she

was in the third year of her PhD. Initially Karen had started with her principal

supervisor and three co-supervisors. Her new principal supervisor had been “second in

charge.” She explained that the only female co-supervisor had left after an argument

with her first principal supervisor, and her other co-supervisor’s contract had ended so

he had left the university. The co-supervisor who remained then became her principal

supervisor (page 14):

So then [new supervisor] came on board and so he was the sort of only useful
one that I’ve been left with and for a little while, like I really didn’t want to
discuss with him …the whole issue of him being my supervisor, it was just too …
[I: too close?] Yeah, it was … [principal supervisor] had only just died and I
just, I couldn’t talk about it too without crying …I felt terrible.

Karen’s supervisory arrangement at the time of interview occurred almost by default

following her initial supervisor’s death. She explained briefly that she didn’t want to

discuss the change in supervision with him as she was still grieving. She continued to

say that she started by rewriting some work that had already been done and presenting it

to her new principal supervisor (page 15):

I rewrote a lot of the stuff that I had already done for [principal supervisor].
Like just the kind of you know historical sort of review and review of the area
and I’d written up … like the location type things. This is sort of chapters you
know two and three and gave them to [new supervisor]. And he was “Oh that’s
all kind of stuff for starters, that’s fine.” And he really didn’t read it, I don’t
think he read it properly anyway because he knew [original principal
supervisor] read it.

Her new supervisor’s response could be interpreted as encouraging or reassuring Karen

that she was on the right track. However Karen’s interpretation seems to be that he

didn’t bother to read these chapters but just assumed they were okay because they had

been read by her original supervisor.

128
Negotiating the supervisory relationship
Karen had to learn to negotiate this new supervisory relationship and found that she had

to chase her new supervisor to read things. By the time he read a chapter, three months

after she gave it to him, she had changed it and had to give him the new version (page

16):

Then I … moved on to chapter six which took me a long time. Probably towards
the end of last year ... I actually gave him a copy of that in October. He sat on it
for three months. I was really … getting so annoyed … the start of this year,
January … and I’d been teaching for him all that last semester as well so we
were in fairly constant sort of contact and he kept saying to me “Oh I haven’t
read it yet, I haven’t read it yet.” And in the end I said, “Don’t bother reading
that because I’ve changed it a bit now anyway.” Because you’d carry on with
the next bit and then realise that you need to go back and do other things.

Karen got frustrated with his lack of action and contacted the coordinator for advice but

in the end she dealt with it herself. Although the coordinator offered to speak to her

supervisor, Karen declined (page 16):

I … ended up ringing this coordinator lady in [other campus] and just said
“Look, [new supervisor’s] been sitting on my stuff for three months. I’m a bit
concerned about that.” And really I just wanted to lodge with someone my sort
of disapproval at this having happened. Just to protect my own ass really … she
said, “Well I could speak with [new supervisor].” I said “No, no.” She made
excuses for him, which I was really annoyed about when I consider everything
that I thought I’d dealt with myself. I’ve always been very professional with him
… I just emailed him and said, “Look, when will you have read that by. I’d like
to come and see you in two weeks.”

Karen decided to take matters into her own hands and set a meeting up with her

supervisor. She acknowledged that she was the one initiating contact and pushing for

him to read her work but that she accepted this was a way to get him to act (page 16-

17):

And he did. He’s one of these people if you really do sit on him, he’ll do it. It’s
just that at the end of last year I really thought he was just … [a] very stressed
out person. I have been told he suffers from depression. And sometimes it seems
like he’s so approachable, and this is rare. He actually rang me the other day. I
just about fell off the [laughs] side of the bench, because he never … approaches
me, he never rings me … I chase him. And … that’s fine. If that’s the way it is,

129
 that’s the way it is. There’s plenty of other supervisors operate that way I’m
sure.

Karen had worked out a way of working with her supervisor that meant she made most

of the contact. She reported above being surprised that he actually contacted her. She

appeared to have accepted this as “the way it is” and acknowledged that other

supervisors behave in a similar way.

Karen talked later in her narrative about her new supervisor’s requirement for her

chapters to be grammatically correct and well-written (page 19):

I’ve had this circular argument with [new supervisor] trying to … he says, “oh
but it has to make sense, if you give something to me to read you want to make
sure that it’s as well written as possible so that I’m not correcting your
grammar and I’m just correcting the science of it.” And I’m like “Yeah, but
[supervisor], sometimes my grammar gets pretty ratty because I just … my brain
is just clogged. It’s like constipation. I’m trying to do my best to get the ideas
down so I apologise for poor sentence construction but it’s … if you want me to
sit on it forever, we can just wait, but I’m handing it to you because I’m stuck
now. Like I’ve had it, I’m done with it and I’m giving it to you. I want to know
what you think.”

Karen wanted to give him chapters as she was working on them to get critical feedback

instead of waiting until they were well-polished. She continued to explain that she was

aware that she compared her new supervisor with her previous supervisor (pages 19-

20):

See I’m his first PhD student who will complete ’cos he’s a … oh, how old would
he be? He’s in his forties so he’s sort of a young researcher. I find that kind of
you know amusing, that he just doesn’t get that, like you know [original
supervisor] would have said … this is what I do a lot now, I go “At this stage
[original supervisor] would have … [original supervisor] would have…”
[Laughter] [I: comparing them] It’s too easy … because that was the part that
[original supervisor] was good at … [removed seven lines descriptive] … He
didn’t mind fixing things up for you. And he didn’t sort of begrudge doing that
… he enjoyed it. It was something a bit fun, something he could do, something
he could help you out with.

130
What is clear here is that her first principal supervisor was experienced and the second

one was inexperienced. Karen seemed impatient with this inexperience particularly

when she started comparing her original supervisor with her current one. This may be

mainly due to the fact that she wants a supervisor who will help polishing draft

chapters. Phillips and Pugh (2005) and Leonard (2001) both advise students to work

towards presenting their supervisors with polished work where possible and not rely on

the supervisors for polishing and editing. In Karen’s case, she appeared to expect this

from her new supervisor as her initial principal supervisor had always helped her to

rework rough drafts.

Support and encouragement

Karen noted that – like Andrea and her principal supervisor – her supervisor could be

contradictory in his advice but didn’t elaborate on how she dealt with it (page 20):

[New supervisor] is a difficult person anyway, he’s a bit of a difficult character

… he’s just … he’s a man of contradictions. He’ll say to me … on a good day
he’ll say, “Look no-one else is gonna [sic] do work like this at all. No-one else
is going to do this really detailed work, so you might as well … whatever you
think, put it out there because no-one else is gonna [sic] do this.” And then
other times he’s like “Oh, well you don’t want to be controversial. I think that
you really … you ought to be more circumspect … than this.” [Laughs] I get one
or the other.

This support and encouragement could be helpful when it occurs, however when Karen

gets the contradictory advice, she may have experienced doubts. It is difficult to

accurately tell as she did not elaborate on how she responded to these contradictory

responses. Karen reflected later in her narrative that there were issues on both sides

(pages 31-32):

I can complain about [new supervisor] and our relationship and whatever and
he is difficult but maybe I’m difficult with him too, because he just pushed my
buttons [laughs] but … he’s positive generally [laughs] … he’d send an email to
someone … who he was asked by another professor to get in contact with about
some overseas examiners for me and he cc’d it to me, just so that I knew that

131
 he’d actually got off his bum, and written “[Karen] is a good student.” And I
thought, “Oh that’s nice.”[Laughs] If that’s what he actually thinks of me then
that’s good. And I’d say I’m a good student too because I’ve done all this with
just nothing from no-one just … really there’s not been a lot of actual sort of
help from the university from the department … basically it’s all been done in
my back room.

Karen stated here towards the end of her narrative that “he is difficult” but

acknowledged that she may have been difficult with him too. However in general he

had been positive and supportive.

Karen experienced difficulty in her supervision after the death of her first principal

supervisor, with whom she had a good working relationship. Her story highlights two

points emphasised by Phillips and Pugh (2005): firstly, the need for a second supervisor

who can ensure continuity of supervision if there are problems with the principal

supervisor; secondly, the need for students to set a good example by organising regular

supervision sessions. The main difficulties Karen experienced related to her second

principal supervisor’s lack of experience, his contradictory advice and little support

from the postgraduate coordinator within the Department.

Case Study Six: Laura

Laura had a strong relationship with her two supervisors and referred to them in her

narrative as a team. Her principal supervisor was male and her co-supervisor was a

female professor. She focussed on the encouragement she received from her principal

supervisor before she began the PhD, as he supervised the minor thesis in her Masters

degree.

Beginning the supervisory relationship

Laura had a lot of support from her principal supervisor before she commenced her

PhD. He encouraged her to apply for a PhD when she was thinking of doing her Masters

132
degree minor thesis as discussed in the motivation chapter. Laura noted that she was

fortunate to be able to continue her supervisor relationship with him (page 8):

I think I was one of the most fortunate PhD candidates in the University. I was
fortunate in the sense that I was able to continue my supervisory relationship um
with [principal supervisor] and at the same time … [I: so you already knew him
before you started the PhD…] Exactly … and we worked well together from a
supervisory perspective.

Throughout her narrative, Laura was positive in her discussions of both her supervisors.

She had already been supervised by her principal supervisor in a minor Masters thesis

and knew she would be able to continue to work well with him.

Laura’s principal supervisor also spoke to her parents when they were organising her

proxy enrolment into the Masters degree for a semester. He specifically told them that

she was PhD material (page 6):

Well the first thing [my principal supervisor] said to them was “Oh, do you
realise that [Laura’s] PhD material?” [Laughter] And my parents were quite
beside themselves “Oh well thank you.” and “She’d never considered...” And
this is something that was spoken about quite early in the piece, just before I
started my minor thesis. We hadn’t even really started supervision with regards
to minor thesis and this was a comment that was … aired.

Given Laura’s European background, and strong links with her family, her supervisor

appeared to understand that family support was important. Even before he became her

principal supervisor, Laura’s supervisor was focused on encouraging her to seriously

consider the PhD as an option.

Supervisory team
Laura was emphatic about the quality of supervisory experience with two supervisors.

They encouraged not only her PhD research but also her conference papers, teaching

and research assistant work to develop her academic career and she referred to them as a

supervisory team or more like a research team (page 9):

133
 I also had [co-supervisor name] as well, so I … had the Director of the
[Centre]. She was also very keen in my research area so here was I, having
instead of a primary supervisor and a secondary supervisor, I had a supervisory
team that worked together and we progressed through this journey together
collectively, as a group of three as opposed to … research student over here,
supervisor one over there, co-supervisor over there and then good luck in trying
to integrate the three together. So that was really … that’s why I’m saying that I
think I was really fortunate.

Laura’s case is a good example of how well a supervisory panel or team can work. She

referred to them as a group that worked collectively. She continued to explain further

about the student-supervisor (page 9):

[I: It was more like a research team] Absolutely, and you’d come to your
meetings and you’d say look, “These are my thoughts. This is what I’ve done,
this is where I’m at and this is where I’m going.” And … you ask for advice …
that’s all part of the process. You’re not saying, “Here, please make the
decisions for me.” But “this is my thinking process.” And then of course they
would also give from their … vast experience and insight “Well have you
thought about this? That’s really great what you’re thinking of there, but …
which pathway are you going to take? You realise … as you’ve flagged there are
these options, but have you also considered this option that you could follow?”
And that was just really, really helpful.

Laura’s narrative was of an independent student who relied on her supervisors for

advice and guidance but not to make decisions for her. She used them more as a

sounding board.

She provided a good example of how the supervisory team relationship worked

effectively towards the end of her thesis. Laura mainly worked with one supervisor until

she had a full draft (pages 12-13):

And it was great the way my supervisory team worked as well. So I worked
closely with one member, and he was actually looking at the different drafts that
was [sic] coming through and then he got to a stage where he says “Yep, I think
it’s great, now for our second supervisor on my supervisory team.” So
intentionally for a period of time, we didn’t have that person look at any of my
work, not to get too close to it. [3 lines deleted] She hasn’t seen that final sort of
draft that was coming through. Until it was final draft and we’d got it to what I
considered to be penultimate and also what my other supervisory member said
“Okay, its penultimate, get it across. It’s ready, let … that person, the other
supervisor now, have a read through it.” And if there’s any changes etcetera

134
 that need to be done … then those will need to be amended then it should be …
you’re very close to its submittal time.

This strategy can be contrasted with Eve’s supervisors who alternated in six month

blocks and then worked together in the final six months. Both strategies worked well.

Laura did have input from both supervisors through most of her candidature. She went

on to note that her second supervisor’s feedback was provided in a timely manner (page

13):

To my other supervisor’s credit, as I was continuing reading through, making

sure there wasn’t anything else that tends to creep up in the literature, when
you’re focusing on other things, she … went through it in about two weeks. You
know, close to a hundred thousand words in … two weeks, came back to the
table, came back to the meeting and just said, “Look I think it’s great. Couple of
little … bits here that I want you to consider and … in my judgement I think that
they need to be slightly revisited. Won’t take you very long to do. I don’t want to
see it again ... Do it, get the paperwork up, let’s sign it off. Let’s get it off to
examiners.”

Laura’s supervisory team worked well together right until she submitted her thesis.

However Laura herself was the key component in this. Her independence in her work

and ability to accept critical feedback was central to this success.

Later in her narrative, Laura returned to the topic of her supervisory team, noting that

she did quite a bit of the organising to get the three of them together (page 36):

Yeah, they were great! They were a great combination. They worked well
together. It was difficult getting the three of us together at the one point in time,
what that meant was that I’d meet with one supervisor at certain times. I’d meet
with another at other times and then get that joint meeting of everyone together.
So there was a little bit of running around from my perspective.

Laura’s supervisory team worked well together and separately. She went on in this

excerpt to note their willingness to share their knowledge and experience (page 36):

But really their … knowledge base was just … huge and the fact that they
weren’t … apprehensive in sharing that. And they weren’t defensive … as [to]
what does that mean for them. I … can’t speak for other supervisors and how

135
 they work ’cause I really have no idea but I, what I’m saying is … there wasn’t
this defensiveness like I’m sharing too much of me and potentially feel insecure.
There was … no sign of that. It was like, “You’ve got a great topic and you’re
moving along the right way.”

Laura’s only experience with supervision prior to her doctoral candidature was with her

principal supervisor on her minor thesis for her Masters. Therefore she had no point of

comparison regarding other supervisors. I interpreted her statement above to be her

inference from discussion with other doctoral students. Laura was able to discuss her

work critically and accept their guidance and feedback. The hallmark of the supervisors

was a willingness to share their knowledge and insights.

Guidance and critical feedback

Laura outlined her strategy of organisation and discipline to get through the PhD with

the assistance of her supervisors (page 11):

Having the guidance of two very experienced … supervisors made that journey,
made that process so much … from my perspective so much easier in the sense
of being able to sit down, have a chat, as we are now over a coffee, and saying,
“look, this is where I’m at. This is what I’m thinking about. This is how I’m
thinking about tackling it. “Does that sound … your opinion please? Have I
missed something critical that I should be aware of?” And gaining their actual
feedback and then neatly assess where I was through that winding path to get to
that submittal … [10 lines deleted] … I was always … not highly critical of
myself, but I’d always look at my writing and my work critically and say “How
would an examiner … ?” especially towards the end, “How would an examiner
view this? Is it clear?” Read through, “No I’m going to make these changes,
going to make those changes.” And then bringing in the supervisory team and
saying, “Okay, could you have a look at this? Could you have a look at that?”

This excerpt demonstrates that Laura was quite an independent student. She looked to

her supervisors for guidance, but she was always thorough and strategic in her

approach. It should also be added that Laura had the maturity and self confidence to

accept constructive criticism with good grace. Later in her narrative she discussed how

she expected the supervisors to provide constructive and critical feedback if she wasn’t

working hard enough or to a sufficiently high standard (pages 36-37):

136
 And you know certainly there were … the reality points as well. Like … for
example if your writing wasn’t up to standard they would tell me that. I’m sure
they’d be the first ones to point it out. “Okay I’m sorry I don’t know what this is
or what you are trying to do here. Take it away and … seriously think about
what you’re doing.” I was never in that type of position where I had that kind of
confrontation but I’d imagine that if I’d needed that they would have done that
as well for me and said, “Well, listen here, what are you doing? It’s not a
holiday … go and put some more real work and real effort into it.” But I can
honestly say I didn’t have that type of experience but I hope to think that given
the way that they’ve guided me through the process, if I needed that sort of kick
up the backside that they would have been there to give it to me.

As noted earlier Laura did not in fact need either of her supervisors to tell her she was

not working hard enough. She noted though that she would have accepted, and even

expected, that they would have confronted her if she had not been performing to their

expectations. Laura noted that she tended to use her supervisory team as a reference

group to keep her on track (page 37):

They were a good reality focal point where I was … the reality of how much was
still left to be completed. Is it still on time? Is there anything that I need to do to
make up some time? So in that sense they were a real focal point as well as
being supportive in the sense of where I was facing.

In terms of the literature on effective supervision, Laura is an “ideal” student (Delamont

et al, 2004; Leonard, 2001; Phillips & Pugh, 2005). She is open to critical feedback and

guidance, but this is rarely required as she always presents her supervisors with work

that was well-developed and well-written

Developing an academic career

Central to Laura’s narrative of her doctoral experience is the fact that she is working

towards an academic career. While Dever et al.’s (2008) findings demonstrate that

female students were less likely to be encouraged to undertake activities that would

assist in building their academic careers beyond the doctorate, several women in this

research project reported a wide range of support from their supervisor/s. Eve’s

supervisors, for example, encouraged her to go to conferences.

137
Laura’s supervisors encouraged her to gain a breadth of academic experience while she

was a PhD student. As well as refereed conferences, she undertook sessional work

(pages 8-9):

And that was sort of the relationship that happened over the … three years that
it took me … to complete my PhD and through that, I was also doing the
academic sessional work … [14 lines deleted]. And I was also concurrently, and
was being encouraged to do so, as I was going through certain parts of
research, get it out there … in the broader community. So that’s what I was
doing. Refereed conferences … and the best way to do that, refereed conferences
to begin with. They are at the forefront of what is happening within the research
area.

Laura’s supervisors encouraged her in a number of ways to undertake other related

activities which would help to position her for an academic career beyond the PhD.

(page 37):

I always felt and I always do say I had a great supervision. I probably wouldn’t
be where I am today if I didn’t have those supervisors ’cause how was I to know
that it’d be important to do … some more sessional work as I’m going and not
just withdraw all my energy from that and just said, “I’m on a scholarship,” and
just do the thesis. Or what that means from a conference perspective and
international conferences and networking and actually presenting in an
academic context as opposed to a student context and getting experience like
that.

Because Laura’s supervisors ensured that she developed broad academic skills beyond

international conference presentations where she could gain publications and start

networking, it is not surprising that she successfully applied for a job at a Group of 8

university in the same week that she graduated from her PhD. (page 37):

Who would have thought … a supervisor doesn’t sit down and say, “Look, these
things are equally important on your journey as the thesis itself.” I don’t think
I’d be in the position that I am today which is the position at [at a Group of 8
research intensive university] in an academic role in their Department of
Marketing. I just don’t think that the match would have been there.

She acknowledged here that the knowledge and encouragement of her supervisors had

enabled her to build a solid base from which to launch her academic career and to be “a

138
step ahead” of other students who started developing these other skills after completing

their PhDs (page 38):

I’m already a step ahead … a step ahead of the average person that has gone
through that same process and gotten similar results or identical results. At the
end of the day, two weeks after the conferral ceremony, where are they? What
are they doing as opposed to where I am now?

Laura’s successful supervisory experience highlights many of the points made in the

literature about good supervision. Her principal supervisor encouraged her to apply for

the PhD; and both supervisors actively supported her development as an academic.

Laura was prepared for her supervisors to be critical of her work if it fell short of PhD

standard and put in the effort required to ensure she presented them with work of a high

standard. Laura’s narrative highlighted an exemplary standard of supervision that built

on her Masters experience and in turn positioned her well for an academic career.

Case Study Seven: Ebony

Ebony is an academic who had, like Laura, been supported by her supervisor earlier in

her career, in this instance when she completed a Masters by research degree with him.

She developed her own research topic but had already decided that she wanted to work

with the same male supervisor. Ebony mentioned a female co-supervisor who stepped in

when the principal supervisor was on study leave or very busy.

Beginning the supervisory relationship

Ebony had already completed one research degree with the same supervisor. They both

worked at the same institution and she kept in contact with him while she was on study

leave (page 2):

And by the end of my Masters had decided that I was going to go on and do a
doctorate and had chosen my supervisor [Laughter] I hadn’t chosen my topic at
that stage. But I’d found that working with my Masters supervisor was fabulous
and that I wanted to keep working with him. And then I took a period of [study
leave] and while I was on [study leave] I kept in touch with [principal

139
 supervisor] and we bounced ideas backwards and forwards … and the project
that I did for my [study leave] informed some of my thinking about my doctorate.
And so while I was away we hit on an idea, you know? I emailed him something
and he wrote back saying, “I love this idea, let’s run with it.” And then I …
when I came home I enrolled and away I went.

While Ebony had a pre-existing working relationship with her supervisor, she did not

talk about this in as much detail as Laura. She had some initial discussions via email

regarding potential research topics and then enrolled.

Guidance and feedback

Ebony also had a co-supervisor who stepped in when her principal supervisor was

physically absent. However she rarely was out of contact with him (page 12):

I had fabulous, well two fabulous supervisors, but principally it was [name].
[Co-supervisor] would step in periodically when [principal supervisor] was
away or when [he] was sort of over-worked with something … [8 lines deleted]
He spent a period of [study leave] in Scandinavia while I was doing my
doctorate and I actually can’t recall when it was because it didn’t make any
difference to the quality of the supervision that I got … it just happened over
email rather than anything else.

Ebony’s main supervisory relationship worked well even at a distance, utilising email.

While she had the co-supervisor in position, the need to use them was rare; as Ebony

noted here, she couldn’t remember when it specifically was that her supervisor was

away as the feedback was consistent in his physical absence.

Support and encouragement

Ebony discussed her supervisor throughout her narrative in very positive terms. In this

excerpt she was reading from an article that she had published about what happened

when part of her research project going wrong (page 10):

“My partner and my supervisor were supportive and kind, nevertheless deep
down I was afraid that their investments in me might be wasted if my PhD efforts
failed along with this study. My supervisor’s response, when I became brave
enough to disclose this fear, was “That was never an issue, from your

140
 supervisor’s point of view – more a concern of a neurotic, over-achieving
student with good hair.”

Ebony’s supervisor could be relied on for support during a difficult stage in which one

part of her research project looked likely to fall apart (this is discussed in greater detail

in the chapter on resilience). She noted that he still required high standards in her work,

even when things were difficult (page 12):

I mean [my supervisor] always … the things that I … that for me capture his
supervision style were that his standards were always high. He would never let
you get away with putting forward something that wasn’t of high quality. So he
would read everything and he would question everything. If anything you wrote
was challengeable he would challenge it … but he gave me plenty of room to be
human … so when my mother died, when the babies were born and when we
moved house, all those other things that happened in the middle of the doctorate
… he just gave me space to let those things happen. It was never … those things
were never an excuse for producing sub-standard work but they were allowed to
happen.

This support, through the birth of her second child and the loss of her mother and friend,

validated her pain and grief and helped her build resilience (page 12):

And so about … halfway through my PhD a … another woman who reminded

me very much of my mother also died and I fell apart and … [my supervisor]
just let me fall apart and his words were “Well you have every right to be a
f[…]ing mess right now.” [Laughter] Just be one … but it was … never a
rationale for doing something that was less than … high quality. I think that’s a
nice balance to hold, because its … you can’t stop those things happening to
people and you can’t expect them to produce good work at that time but in the
long run you can expect them to … get back on track and get back to doing high
quality work.

Her supervisor’s acknowledgement of the difficult times, allowing her to put the

research project on hold, was finely balanced with asserting his supervisory authority

and requiring her to produce work of a high standard.

Ebony emphasised the central importance of communication between supervisor and

student and that each party needs to be open about those events or stresses that impact

on supervision (pages 13-14):

141
 I think … you want students to be able to identify which are the really big things
… and most … of us can identify that this particular death is one that is going to
knock us around … and this one’s actually not such a big deal. I have to go to
the funeral and do the family bit and show my respects but it’s actually not
going to really knock me … [sighs … 5 second pause] … I guess that that
requires … that … students and supervisors need to have relationships that are
fairly open and allow communication of those things.

This sort of open communication is only possible on the basis of trust, particularly when

both student and supervisor work at the same university. Ebony talked about the

importance of confidentiality in the supervisory relationship (page 14):

The other thing that [my supervisor] always did was he always made it very
clear to me right from the beginning that whatever I said to him was
confidential. And that greatly increased my comfort in telling him when I was
falling apart. And look I know that at some points he would have had to report
my progress and so on, but … I was confident that when I said to him “I’m a
mess because …” it would stay there.

Ebony’s principal supervisor provided her with emotional support when it was required,

and understood that it was not possible for her to work when in a crisis situation.

However he also expected a high standard of work. In analysing Ebony’s narrative, it

appears clear that her supervisor’s own standards were high. This meant that she was

remained contact with him even when he was absent from the University and he

provided feedback in a timely manner (page 12):

I hear horror stories of students who have given their supervisor a complete
draft of their thesis and six months later it’s still sitting on their supervisor’s
desk and … my experience was quite different to that. [My supervisor] would
say, “I’m flying to the US in a week. If you can give me a full draft before I get
on the plane, I’ll read it on the plane.” And he would. And then he would get off
the plane in LA and post it back to me express post with comments all over it
and it didn’t matter that he was half a world away I would still be getting good
supervision.

Ebony’s supervisor took his responsibilities to provide timely critical feedback

seriously. Although she had a co-supervisor who was physically present, her principal

supervisor always kept in touch.

142
Developing an academic career
Importantly, Ebony’s positive experience of supervision has now flowed through to

how she supervises her students (page 12):

My experience … my own PhD and being the way that I was supervised through
it shapes how I now supervise students. I had a very positive experience of
supervision and … I try and model some of that. I’m not sure I always hit the
mark but … and I’ve heard some horror stories about poor supervision but I
have to say I didn’t … have those.

She was already working as an academic and now supervises students herself. She has

integrated elements of her supervisor’s style and models this in her own supervisory

practice.

Ebony’s supervisory experience of mostly one supervisor who kept in contact even

when overseas, worked well. He encouraged her to develop the research topic she had

chosen; was supportive when she had personal concerns; held her to high standards; and

was an excellent communicator.

Case Study Eight: Tasha

Tasha had nothing but praise for her principal supervisor who was prepared to advocate

strongly for her with the Department in which she was enrolled. She did not discuss

how they began the supervisory relationship. Nevertheless, the strong relationship was

crucial when Tasha underwent numerous periods of serious illness. She also had a co-

supervisor who had a minor role in the thesis. Her principal supervisor was male and

her co-supervisor was female. She didn’t discuss having to negotiate within the main

supervisory relationship, and her principal supervisor negotiated with her co-supervisor

on her behalf. Within her narrative she focused on the support he gave her throughout

her candidature.

143
Support and encouragement
Tasha’s principal supervisor provided strong support and encouragement. After some

time he came to understand that her work rhythm was complicated by frequent illness.

And while he still pushed her to keep working on the thesis, he knew that she needed

time off when she was sick (page 7):

My supervisor was really superb … he never put pressure on me. My supervisor

is what I’d call a supervisor from heaven. I’m so blessed … so blessed. Not
many people have the supervisor from heaven … but I do. He knows just when to
push me and just when to back off. When I’m sick he understands and he doesn’t
expect too much of me. When I’m well, he encourages me to work as hard as I
possibly can because he knows I’ll get behind when I’m sick … but he also
doesn’t … push me if I just say “I’ve just got to have a day off, I’m just too tired.
I’m not sick, I’m just too tired.” He goes: “Well you need to probably do that
sometimes.” When I’m working he knows … he’s not going to see me. I mean
when I’m in employed work and he knows I’ve got to do that because I’ve got to
survive. He’s just … fantastic. He really is the supervisor from heaven … you
could not want for a better supervisor.

Tasha appreciated her supervisor’s support and understanding. He turn understood that

her illness affected her research and also that she needed to undertake paid work to

survive financially. She noted that he did push her for work when she was physically

able, but this was tempered with an understanding of her health and work

circumstances. Central to this understanding was Tasha’s ability to communicate

honestly with him.

Advocacy
Tasha’s supervisor was a strong advocate for her. He spoke to the Head of School on

several occasions when Tasha’s part-time status meant that she was missing out on

services available to full-time students (pages 7-8):

Just lovely … if I could give him a University award myself, I’d give it to him,
he’s just the best and he’s … [a] really fantastic advocate for me as well with all
those terrible, crappy things were happening to me like that thing with my office.
He went straight up to the Head of School and said, “Why has this happened?
It’s not fair.” Another time I got charged for a computer program that other

144
 people had access to for free and nobody could tell me why I was being charged
for it and nobody else was. ’Cause I paid for it because I needed the program
but … when he found out he just went up to the Head of School and said, “This
is not fair. Why should she be charged for it because she’s part-time? Every
other PhD student gets it free just because they’re full-time but because she’s
part-time she’s got to pay. And they all need it for the same research. It’s
ridiculous.” And I got reimbursed. The Head of School said, “That’s ridiculous.
We pay for it out of school funds if we have to.” He was not impressed. So
whenever anything that was vaguely unfair happened, my supervisor went into
battle for me. He’s pretty good.

The supervisor’s strong advocacy to the Head of School demonstrates that when

supervisors are prepared to fight for what is “fair”, a student is not placed in the

invidious position of going to the postgraduate coordinator – as Elena and Karen were –

and advocating from a weak position. Later in her narrative, Tasha reported another

example of her supervisor’s advocacy for her, in this instance for office space (pages

33-34):

But I’ve always worked at uni. But I … being part-time … and theoretically only
entitled to an office space two days a week and I negotiated with [name], with
our Head of School, “Well, you can confine me to using an office two days a
week but I want to finish this PhD. Because I’m only enrolled part-time but I’m
here full-time. I’m here four or five days a week and on weekends. Because
otherwise I won’t get this finished.” And a lot of the full-timers don’t even come
in to uni so, the admin staff that were there at the time said, “You can’t get a
full-time space, we don’t have enough space.” And after I had this little word in
the Head of School’s ear, they arranged it for me. Because that’s another thing
with [my principal supervisor], I told [him], [he] told [the Head of school]. [My
principal supervisor] got [the HOS] to come down and we discussed it with
[him]. So yes, that’s the kind of thing that [my supervisor] does for me. He just
got [the HOS] there and told him what the issue is … and so I got my space to
myself.

Tasha showed here that she was prepared to negotiate for herself, but she was not

successful in discussions with the administrative staff. Her supervisor then arranged for

the Head of School to discuss the situation with both Tasha and himself, successfully

intervening to get her office space.

145
Role of the co-supervisor
Tasha returned to the theme of the support and encouragement of her supervisor and co-

supervisor, but at the same time makes it clear that they have separate roles or functions.

University policy stated that Tasha had to have her co-supervisor because her principal

supervisor doesn’t hold a PhD (page 25):

He’s always been Humanities … because the focus of my project is ethics I

wanted to have a principal from Ethics, a principal supervisor. Because I was
studying in Nursing … because I’m a nurse, it seemed sensible to enrol in
Nursing. Or it did at the time, turned out not be such a good idea. I thought it
was sensible … so I … enrolled in Nursing but because I wanted a principal in
another School, they were okay with that as long as I had my … associate in
Nursing. As it turns out … my principal supervisor doesn’t have a PhD. No one
cares about that too as long as my associate had a PhD. He’s actually … [my
supervisor] has supervised a lot of PhD students but he doesn’t have a PhD
himself. One of the University requirements is that at least one of your
supervisors has a PhD so, I’m sure that’s okay.

Tasha understood the need to have a principal supervisor in the key research area she

was investigating. The University guidelines meant that she also had to have a co-

supervisor. She is forthright in acknowledging that having her co-supervisor as a

principal supervisor would have been unworkable (page 25):

’Cause my associate [Laughter] wouldn’t have been able to be my principal. My

associate supervisor is a nurse. She’s not a [specialisation] and she has a small
interest in ethics, and she’s got a PhD. She is a lovely person. She’s very open-
minded and willing to discuss things in an open and collegial environment. She
has no understanding of narrative ethics, no understanding of narrative
methodology and … her views on [specialisation] are way different to mine
[Laughter] But she’s lovely and very open-minded and she’s one of the few
people in the School of Nursing that I have a good deal of respect for so … I …
like her but as a supervisor … [five second pause] not very helpful from the
point of the view of getting feedback that’s useful so when … she wasn’t
involved in a couple of meetings … she became confusing for me because the
feedback she gave me was very different from the feedback I got from [my
principal supervisor]. So it was almost impossible to incorporate both lots of
feedback.

From what Tasha reported, there was little need to negotiate within the supervisory

relationship. She noted here that when she was receiving conflicting advice, she spoke

to her principal supervisor who then spoke to the co-supervisor (pages 25-26):

146
 I … discussed it with [my principal supervisor] and [he] discussed it with [my
associate supervisor]. And it was decided that [she] wouldn’t be involved any
further … this was early last year … wouldn’t be involved any further in the
ongoing writing process but that she would be working with the examination
process and she was happy with that. So we’re hoping that when she sees the
thesis as a whole and gets the methodology and all the chapters together that it
will make more sense … to her. But she has also been very encouraging and …
every time I’ve needed to have [indistinguishable] every time I drop her a line to
say “Well, yeah, I’m still plodding along. Getting there.” Because it’s still best
to keep her in touch, keep her informed. She always sends back very affirming …
emails. “That’s really great. So glad that you’re still keeping at it.” So she’s
very affirming and [a] really, really nice person [five second pause] But …
hasn’t been … particularly helpful in terms of … getting the work done but I
would say that she has been supportive and been very encouraging.

Tasha’s co-supervisor was useful in terms of encouragement and support, “affirming”

and “lovely”, but not particularly helpful in terms of constructive feedback. The strategy

implemented by her principal supervisor to work closely with Tasha and then ask the

co-supervisor to read the final draft was one way forward.

Tasha later mentioned that her co-supervisor was in effect a back-up in the event that

her principal supervisor was unavailable. The excerpt above outlined why Tasha

thought that her co-supervisor could not be an effective principal supervisor, which was

a possibility when her main supervisor was seriously ill (page 26):

I think really at [my university] the role of the secondary or associate supervisor
is mostly as a back-up person if your principal becomes unavailable. And all I
can say is thankfulness that didn’t happen … because it wouldn’t have worked. I
don’t think it would have worked. Maybe it would have if I’d had to
[indistinguishable] … it was a bit scary a couple of years ago. [My principal
supervisor] had cancer and was going to an advanced stage and we didn’t know
if the surgery was going to work so … [five second pause] I … a) it was very
scary for [him] of course. We were all really worried about him and he actually
was off work for six months, so I was working on my own for six months, which
was challenging for me. But b) what if he doesn’t come back to work because he
left not knowing if he would ever be back. So … please get better … this is very
selfish but please get better for me too. [Laughter] I want you to get better for
you but I want you to get better for me as well and thankfully he did and he’s at
the moment now quite well.

147
Tasha’s university had a policy of requiring at least one supervisor to have a PhD, thus

she needed a co-supervisor. One of the key reasons for having a co-supervisor is to

“backfill” when the principal supervisor is absent. However when her principal

supervisor became ill, Tasha reported that she worked on her own for six months. Given

her earlier statement regarding the difficulty she had with her co-supervisor’s feedback,

Tasha preferred to continue working on her research without supervisory support.

Overall Tasha had only positive feedback about her principal supervisor. He was

supportive during her numerous personal illnesses and advocated on her behalf with the

department. While she had a supportive co-supervisor, Tasha recognised that she would

lack the skills to be a good principal supervisor.

Summary

The seven women discussed in this chapter had varying supervisory experiences which

elucidate a number of issues raised in the literature and contrast with other issues. While

each woman’s experience is unique, there are commonalities which highlight the

negotiation and development of successful supervisory relationships.

How did the way in which the supervisory relationship was initiated affect the women’s

experiences? Does knowing your supervisor before enrolling make the experience easier

in any way? Eve, Jane, Laura, Karen and Ebony all knew at least one of their

supervisors before enrolling in their degrees. Laura, Karen and Ebony had all been

supervised previously by their initial principal supervisor in some form of research –

either Honours, Masters minor thesis or research Masters degrees. The development of a

good working relationship led all three of them to approach this supervisor again when

they were thinking about enrolling in a doctoral degree. In Karen’s case, her

148
supervisor’s death meant that she then had to negotiate a new supervisory relationship

with one of her co-supervisors. Jane’s prior knowledge of her supervisor was based on

undergraduate teaching experience, not as a research supervisor. In addition, both of

Jane’s elder brothers were supervised by the same person. Andrea didn’t know her

supervisors; she applied to do her degree based on the industry scholarship that was

offered. She reported that she had a steep learning curve as she tried to understand their

expectations of her as a research student. When Andrea couldn’t get the type of

supervision she from her assigned supervisors, she looked elsewhere for additional

supervisory support. Tasha did not discuss whether or not she knew either supervisor

before she enrolled.

Not all women discussed the process of negotiating supervision. However, Karen talked

about learning to work with her previous co-supervisor when her principal supervisor

died. Jane also reported in detail ongoing negotiation with her supervisor over language,

undertaking further experiments and publication. While Jane noted that she tried to put

herself in her supervisor’s position and understand her approach, the overall sense from

her narrative was one of frustration.

Only two women in this project had a single supervisor throughout their entire PhD

candidature. Jane’s narrative highlighted some of the concerns associated with single

supervision when she talked about her supervisor’s absence from the university on

sabbatical on two occasions. When Jane could not resolve problems with equipment,

she reported having nobody who could advocate on her behalf with the technical staff.

Clearly having a single supervisor puts more pressure on the student and the supervisor,

especially when the supervisor is on sabbatical.

149
Contrary to some literature, the gender of the supervisor was not raised as a key concern

for the women in this research. They had quite varied supervisory arrangements – a

single supervisor, two supervisors who alternated each six months, a principal and co-

supervisor with little interaction from the latter, and a team supervision arrangement.

They also had different combinations of female and male supervisors. Andrea pointed

out that supervisory style and experience was more important for her than gender when

she added a male co-supervisor to her existing arrangement of two female supervisors.

Ebony and Tasha both had male principal supervisors with little input from their female

co-supervisors. Jane, in a male-dominated discipline, had a senior female academic as a

supervisor and reported difficulties with supervision. Whether Jane’s issues were due to

the supervisor’s personality or the working style that she had had to develop in order to

succeed in a male dominated discipline, could not be readily determined from Jane’s

narrative.

It was clear in most cases in this chapter that support, encouragement and advocacy

played an important role in a successful student-supervisor relationship. Six of the

women reported personal difficulties such as illness and care responsibilities, and noted

their supervisors’ ability to understand and encourage them through difficult times. This

support, as well as the advocacy role clearly demonstrated by Tasha’s principal

supervisor, was central to the women’s sense that they had someone to turn to when

things got difficult.

Another important aspect of supervisory support was the way in which these women

were, or were not, supported to build skills which would position them well as early

career academics. Laura’s supervisory team demonstrated a best practice model in

encouraging her to present conference papers and undertake sessional teaching. Laura’s

150
candidature was utilised to its full extent, and the activities she undertook helped her to

gain an academic appointment in the same week that she graduated. This level of

support makes a huge difference in gaining academic jobs post-PhD. Dever et al. (2008)

note that it can be highly gendered. However women in this study did not the

encouragement of their supervisors to undertake these activities.

Based on these seven women’s experiences, an optimal supervisory experience

includes: finding a supervisor whose style complements that of the student – this is

enhanced by having worked with the supervisor previously in some capacity (preferably

on a smaller research project); understanding each other’s needs and responsibilities and

being able to discuss and negotiate these openly; support and encouragement on both

personal and academic levels; having a co-supervisor or supervisory team with all

parties kept regularly informed of progress; and encouragement towards building an

academic career. The following chapter looks at how these factors, as well as others,

work to build resilience which enables the women to successfully negotiate their PhD

journeys to completion.

151
 Chapter Six — Resilience

One of the strong themes in these case studies was the ability of most of the women to

cope with multiple demands on their time and still keep focused on research even

though some experienced quite life-changing challenges during their candidature. For

one it was her partner being diagnosed with an aggressive and potentially life-

threatening cancer, for another it was developing clinical depression as an aftermath of

nearly dying from pneumonia and as a result becoming suicidal. For yet another, it was

her mother dying just prior to her commencing the PhD, while a fourth woman had to

contend with serious illness in her family and she – as the daughter – was expected to

provide the physical and emotional support.

Then there were the usual challenges for younger women of trying to balance research

with having babies and working out how to keep focused on the PhD. Isolation and the

need to build peer support were also discussed as challenges by many of the women.

The need to share common experiences, build peer support and seek out role models are

important strategies for women to combat isolation in their research degrees (Marshall,

Kearns, Bayntis & Gardiner, 2006; Leonard, 2001; Phillips & Pugh, 2005)

What I was interested in understanding in the stories was from where does the strength

develop to face the multitude of challenges and still keep going with the PhD? Why did

some face death of a supervisor or a loved one and yet still go on? Why did another

woman who seemed to have everything going for her – a brilliant Honours result, PhD

scholarship, and no family commitments – fall apart and eventually withdraw from her

PhD? I turned to the psychology literature on resilience for information on how people

may respond differently to loss and potentially traumatic events.

152
Resilience is defined in psychology literature as the ability to face adversity with hope

and not be crushed by the challenges and stresses of life (Deveson, 2003; Wicks, 2009).

Resilience is about taking action to overcome problems, enduring and surviving (Vale,

2004). Each of us has a range of resilience formed by heredity, early life experiences,

current knowledge and our level of motivation to meet life’s challenges (Wicks, 2009).

As will be evident in this chapter, the women faced numerous challenges during their

candidature. These challenges were met with success in most cases. However the

strategies they used to cope with these situations varied. Many people experience loss

and potentially traumatic events at some stage in their lives, and yet they show only

minor, transient disruptions in their ability to function (Bonanno, 2004). Resilience in

the face of loss or potential trauma may be more common than previously believed by

psychology theorists, and the pathways to resilience can be multiple and sometimes

unexpected (Bonanno, 2004). Fosha (2002, p.2) highlights that “trauma awakens

extraordinary capacities that otherwise would lie dormant, unknown and untapped.”

Bonanno’s (2004) concept of resilience to loss and trauma relates to the ability of

adults, in otherwise normal circumstances, to maintain relatively stable, healthy levels

of both physical and psychological functioning. Psychologists have highlighted a

number of factors that impact on people’s resilience. These include: finding or creating

a supportive environment (including role models); the ability to create realistic plans

and follow through; knowing your own strengths; communications skills (the ability to

communicate with others, be assertive and problem solve); and emotional balance

(Goldstein, 2009). Bonanno (2004) proposes four distinct dimensions which suggest the

multiple, and sometimes unexpected, pathways to resilience. These include hardiness;

self-enhancement; repressive coping; and positive emotion and laughter.

153
So what is the nature of resilience? Where does it come from, how is it nourished and

how important is it in successfully completing a PhD? This chapter will carefully

analyse the stories, focussing on the theme of resilience, to better understand its role in

the process of undertaking postgraduate research and ensuring that the experience is

both productive and rewarding.

Below is a summary table outlining factors which the eight women discussed regarding

their resilience.

Table Seven: Resilience

Factors in resilience Issues Strategies

Eve Peer support, role models, Partner’s illness, isolation, Support from supervisors
mentors, self-confidence confidence in her ability helped her to focus on
research
Elena Self-confidence negative Self-confidence as Support from second
but became more positive transferable from teaching supervisor, peer support
when she began teaching role, few friends and little
family support
Andrea Self-confidence; peer Need “confidence in Peer support groups,
support; family yourself to write it”; utilizing childcare, family
isolation; children support, building research
network
Jane Family support, role Father’s illness; Seeing her choices as
models, choices pregnancy, how long thesis valid; support from
is taking husband
Karen Support from – but death Putting family first; grief Making herself a priority
of – supervisor, counsellor, over supervisor’s death, despite family; working
choices, self-confidence, lack of university support; from home
persistence to complete lack of family support
Laura Family support; building Intellectual concerns with Her family in her
an academic career; thesis formative years taught her
persistence to be self-reliant
Ebony Personal – PhD is about Mother’s death, time away Support from supervisor
you; balancing home and from work and husband, time away
work (especially with from research when things
children) are bad
Tasha Peer support, Multiple bouts of serious Friends who supported her
determination to finish the illness; difficulties at when in hospital; taking
degree university days off

154
Case Study One: Eve

Eve’s partner was diagnosed with a life-threatening illness early in her candidature. At

the point of diagnosis the partner was given three months to live. She described quite

graphically her nightmare of being confronted with the possibility of her partner dying,

spending most of her days at the hospital and yet, needing to keep working on her thesis

to provide “another focus.” This extraordinary resilience is worth examining at length as

it may provide clues about how to survive major trauma or setbacks while doing a PhD.

Her partner’s illness impacted severely on Eve who spent a great deal of time at the

hospital and travelling between there and home, while still attempting to stay connected

with her research (page 4):

Also there was the possibility, a very real possibility that [they were] not going
to live. At the point of diagnosis [they] were given at the most three months …
and possibly less, so without getting too much into the medical side of things I
was just on automatic pilot, I did what I had to do every day. There was a lot of
travelling involved, back and forth between the hospital and in the meantime I
was trying to keep some sense of continuity in my research and my studies.

Eve talked about being on “automatic pilot” and coped by focusing merely on one day

at a time. She noted that while she was at the hospital every day she still wanted to keep

connected with her research. The key to her being able to keep this connection was the

support she received from her supervisors and other staff at the University.

Supervisor support
Although she spent most of her time at the hospital, Eve kept in touch with her

supervisors through email and telephone contact. A central element in her story is her

supervisor’s compassion and support in building this resilience (pages 4-5):

Throughout that time, the worst time, which would have to be from June 98 to
the end of that year … until … I mean near the end of the year, [partner] had a
bone marrow transplant in September 98, [they] had intensive chemotherapy
and [they] had full-body irradiation. So and that all happened over a period of
eight to nine weeks but there was a lot going on … before and during and after

155
 that. So I basically juggled, or balanced two roles – one was immediate and I
had very little choice about – the other I think I would have thrown the towel in
on several occasions if it hadn’t been for my supervisors. And if it also hadn’t
been for the support I think of [the research office] … and [admin person]. They
really were the people who I must say [previous scholarships officer] was also
and I mean I can’t thank her enough – she was there for me.

It is not only supervisors who provide support to students in difficult times. The contact

that they have with administrative staff that can provide advice and support can also

help during these extremely difficult times. Eve continued in this excerpt to state that

she continued to work on her research (page 5):

And so I was mostly largely absent in many respects but I did continue to work
and I think my supervisors stood by me because they knew that I wasn’t about
to, that if I really wasn’t going to be able to hold it together I’d let them know ...
and also they were asking for … they were supporting me and asking me for
proof of work and trying to give me small assignments to keep me … to keep me
going, to give me a focus and I remember a really important discussion with
[supervisor] where we really both agreed that without the focus of the academic
work … that I would probably fall apart because I needed that in fact to just to
help me maintain a sense of self and my own identity.

Eve reported a good supportive relationship with her supervisors. Eve talked about the

research giving her something else to focus on, to keep a sense of her own identity,

during such a stressful time.

Eve found the culture of the University, and many of the staff, to be supportive on the

infrequent occasions when she managed to get to the campus. She made particular note

here that the support came from women (page 10):

When I could get there and people … people never gave up on me, I think that
was important and I must say that these were all women.

These few words convey a great deal about the support that helped Eve build resilience.

She felt that she had support through this extremely difficult time which was ongoing.

The fact that “people never gave up” on her was an important factor in her continuing

with the degree.

156
Coping mechanisms
I asked Eve to more specifically elaborate on how she coped during this difficult time

(page 6):

It was one day at a time. The coping mechanisms were [sighs] coming home
every few days and sleeping like a log and then getting up and starting all over
again. But in terms of my academic work, I think that what I did there was I’d
take reading to the hospital with me. So I was trying to do a bit of that, and in
fact that was quite welcome at times because it gave me another focus which
was … not having to deal with the immediate stuff around me, and staying in
contact with both of my supervisors.

Eve coped by using the research as another focus away from the traumatic situation with

which she was dealing. One of the major problems for women dealing with issues such

as family illness or work is finding time for the research and in doing so, staying

connected with it. In the segment below, she said that although exhausted she would

work through that fatigue and refocus (page 8):

I can imagine, and this is a strange comparison but I can imagine what it would
be like for a woman returning to study with small children, and responsibilities
and possibly a part-time job or whatever, but when you’ve got your kids with
you that you just grab those times whenever you can grab them. I think one of
the problems, and I’m sure this happens to young mothers too, is that you are
fighting fatigue, and it’s not only … for me it was not only physical exhaustion
but it was emotional. And so you pull up when you actually had a moment to
refocus and study. As I call it in this house, going to my corner … [gestures to
desk set up in corner of lounge area] … and I would just find that I was
exhausted and I would just have to move through that because I could easily
have just collapsed in a corner and fallen asleep. I think being able to leave the
house was difficult but actually getting out and to supervision sessions face-to-
face was like a holiday.

There was a sense in which a focus on her particular research interest provided another

level of motivation that broke through the tiredness barrier. Eve talked about the

strategies she used to cope with issues of time, comparing her situation to that of a

woman with small children, and the need to grab time for the research when she could,

regardless of physical and emotional exhaustion.

157
Maintaining wellbeing
Eve also discussed ways in which she tried to maintain her own wellbeing. This

included having a weekly massage (page 9):

During that time I found a local masseuse and I saw her on a weekly basis.
Particularly when the pressure was on when I was really feeling … I mean the
pressure was on all the time but there were times when I really felt … when I felt
like I was going to go under, I’d think, “She’s not far away, I’ll pop around and
see her.”

Eve understood the need to look after her own health and wellbeing during this time and

made sure she found ways of coping with the stress. A further important facet to her

resilience was the peer support she found and utilised.

Peer support
Eve used various peer support networks, including a group that operated as an electronic

chat group (page 9):

I had some peer support through a group that actually set up … there are about
ten in the group. They’re an electronic group, a chat group, and it’s basically a
group of PhD students who, there are a couple of Masters students in there, who
are all in the same area … all finishing off their theses, and they’re all around
Australia and at different universities. We found each other through conferences
and word of mouth and knowledge of each other, and so that peer support group
became very important to me, I think because I felt so isolated from my own
university.

This group comprised students from a number of universities around the country and it

helped Eve deal with the feeling of isolation from the university due primarily to her

partner’s illness. Eve also kept in contact with two students from her university

although she was not able to get to campus very often (pages 9-10):

I got to very few University functions, though I was made to feel very welcome,
but other than the sort of departmental seminars where I presented some work
and the kind of social get-togethers that happened, annual get-togethers, I really
felt … I didn’t feel like I was part of the University. It wasn’t that my Faculty
wasn’t making me feel welcome, it was just that it was impossible to … for the
best part of two years, to really be able to fully become a bit more involved in
those things. And I never think, and I don’t think that I ever really did, and it’s

158
 been circumstances mostly. The things that I did get to were also very important,
and they were important for me finding two other students at [name of
university], [name 1] and [name 2] and those two students have been absolutely
fantastic, just phoning each other up and occasionally seeing each other and
turning up to the same things and just being able to talk through various aspects
of related issues to do with study at my own university, because … the process is
different at every University, we were able to sort of guide each other a bit, and
help each other. And that was … really important.

It was critical to her strategy of keeping connected to research, despite the dire personal

circumstances, that Eve also found two students at her own university with whom she

could share her journey. This helped deal with the common issue facing many PhD

students – isolation.

Isolation
Isolation is an issue that all of research students have to deal with to varying degrees

throughout their candidature (Leonard, 2001; Marshall et al., 2006; Phillips & Pugh,

2005). This was particularly the case for Eve and she mentioned it more than once in

her narrative. Her isolation was exacerbated by not being able to get to campus very

often and interact with other research students (page 10):

It’s a really common one. Just about every one of the peers that I, in the
electronic group, and the people that I know, unless you are based within the
department and they are actively engaged in doing either a bit of tutoring or
they are actually involved in their Faculty’s life, at whatever level that might be
… and I think a lot of students … that are doing full-time research can have that
feeling of being quite isolated.

Eve’s strategies of the electronic peer network, and the two students from her own

university with whom she was in regular contact, helped her to deal with this central

issue of isolation. Given the growth in social networking sites over the last ten years,

Eve’s strategy of keeping in touch through electronic means when unable to attend

campus, was an effective one that can provide a sense of connection for students in

similar circumstances, and especially for those in geographically remote locations.

159
Role models
Role models and peer support were important facets in many of these women’s stories.

Eve particularly mentioned role models as an important factor several times in her

narrative, with special reference to her sister and her partner. It is clear that these role

models helped her build resilience (page 15):

Role models I think are important, and … I mustn’t leave my sister out of this,
my older sister. I saw her return to study, after she had raised three small
children, and she, and she returned to do her mature age entry into university
and she actually dux-ed [sic] the class, she dux-ed [sic] the lot of them … [seven
lines deleted] … but her kids and her partner could not see, they were all
dumbfounded and they could not understand why she wanted to return to study.
And in fact the lot of them were … not very supportive actually, except perhaps
for my niece. So she’s got two boys and a girl, and the girl was supportive. The
men could not understand why Mum was going back to study, and I think I
watched all of that unfold too, and that made me even more determined. I
thought “If she can do it, I can do it.”

Eve’s sister was an important role model and also, as she continued in this excerpt, we

see she was a support as well (page 15):

[She] had acknowledged at the beginning the lack of support from her own
family members, and she didn’t want to see that happen to me. So I think that
she was a role model, and she still is a role model, in terms of acceptance of my
life, of my choice of lifestyle, my wanting to return to study, wanting to do a lot
of different things.

Eve came back later in her narrative to mention again the importance of mentors, peer

support and role models (page 19):

The electronic peer group from my own field and then the two students that I
found at [my university] through the few events that I did actually attend,
they’ve been very important … yes, role models from my own family, mentors.

Given Eve’s return to the theme of the support she both received and drew on from

other people, this was clearly important to her. She included her partner as a role model

in her narrative here and described the enormous resilience in the face of death and its

impact (pages 19-20):

160
 I should say another role model has been my partner who has had an
interrupted academic career as well … [five lines deleted] [They were] …
getting very badly burnt out and very badly paid, which is why [partner]
returned to university but seeing … someone go through what [partner] has
gone through and also manage to put [their] life back together again, has been
… if you had a choice about going through an experience like that you’d
probably say “no” but if you have to go through it, I mean it’s a strange thing to
say but I feel I have been very privileged … to watch someone do that, because
it’s motivated me when I’ve been feeling a bit pathetic and down about myself,
I’ve looked at [my partner] and thought “God, why are you feeling down?”

For Eve, watching her partner put their life back together after a life-threatening illness

provided a wellspring of energy and determination to continue with her research. Later

Eve briefly returned to the idea of role models and peer support as important ways to

build your community.

Persistence
Towards the end of the narrative I asked Eve to discuss what gave her the staying power

to keep going (page 21):

I mean somehow believing I was a rock on an island … [Laughter] I think the

determination to succeed, I mean I think that if you talked to other people
who’ve known me for years they’d pretty much say the same thing. I think that
there’s always been great determination and great will, if I’m passionate about
something and I want to do it. If I’m not interested I’m absolutely hopeless. I
think if I got into a workplace and I wasn’t interested in the work it would just
be a disaster, so … I think all of those things, critical awareness, I think, of the
feminist, as a woman of not wanting to fail, not being seen to fail … I think it’s
… the double disadvantage sometimes of difference, being in various workplaces
or different communities where you are seen as different, and you’re determined
to rise above that and not … be the brunt of other people’s jokes about failing or
not being able to cut the mustard … grit.

This extraordinary determination came from a self knowledge that there was a core of

persistence, resilience and sheer “grit”. It also came from bitter experience of not being

considered tough enough or good enough, “not being able to cut the mustard”. In

addition she located this within a feminist discourse of the “double disadvantage”

women often experience in the workplace. The theme of being passionate about your

161
research, combined with persistence and determination to finish was present in the

narratives of a number of women, including Karen and Tasha.

Self confidence
Eve discussed maintaining self confidence as a key factor to succeeding in her PhD. She

noted that she had a crisis of confidence at a couple of points in her candidature. She

emphasised the moment in the middle of research where she thought that she was not

able to “hold it together anymore” but noted that as soon as she acknowledged this, she

was able to keep going. She was acutely aware that the last part of the candidature could

be difficult; she was almost anticipating this. Nevertheless she reflected that the last

twelve months on the thesis were a positive experience (pages 23-24):

If you can find your role models and your mentors and if you can build your
community … and you can maintain your self-confidence, because I think a
common story is, I don’t know why it is, but a lot of people towards the end of
their PhD … the confidence, they fall apart. I’ve been trying to think about that
and I’ve talked with a few people about it, it should be interesting for your study
too … what I see, because surely if you obviously you have several crises in your
research and writing but surely as you’re getting towards the end … again I
think it’s coloured by my own very positive experience with the last twelve
months of my thesis where I was able to go for it.

Eve was referring here to what advice she would give other women undertaking

doctoral degrees. Core elements in her resilience were reflected here – in particular

building a community through peer support, mentors and role models – as well as

maintaining self-confidence. Interestingly for Eve, self-confidence was not an issue in

the final twelve months of her candidature, as she likened the production of the thesis to

previous work she had undertaken and felt comfortable with this process. For Eve, the

confidence issue came later as the quite critical financial support provided by the

scholarship came to an end (page 23):

162
 But my own sense of stepping out and feeling my self-confidence start to wane
again has been when those supportive structures like the university and the
scholarship were removed at the end of it.

Eve continued here to explain that finishing the PhD was a positive experience for her

and self-confidence was more of an issue earlier in her candidature:

Not finishing the PhD, I mean I felt like I was growing from strength to strength
to strength, I think my crisis of my own self confidence was actually right at the
beginning when I had my first conversation with [principal supervisor] about
theoretical frameworks [seven lines deleted] The self-confidence one, happened
at the beginning and it happened in the middle when I think I just got to a stage
of where I thought all of my life I’ve been holding it together and I can’t hold it
together anymore. And as soon as I’d said that to myself, I kept going. But it was
being able to say to myself “I can’t do this anymore.” And then a voice came
back saying, “Yes you can.” I must say that perhaps the truth of the matter is
that I didn’t see any other alternatives or options at that point in time.

Eve’s description of despondency in the middle of her candidature highlighted that she

reached a point where she thought she might not be able to “hold it together” and

admitted this to herself. But in acknowledging this she found the strength to continue.

This strength was partly resilience, yet Eve herself acknowledged that it was also due to

the lack of options or perhaps ways of escaping that she could see at that point in time.

Financial security
Eve went on in this excerpt to discuss the role of the scholarship in allowing her to

persist with her candidature. Continuing with the research enabled Eve to keep her

scholarship (page 24):

The scholarship was my safety net, and I used that safety net, but there wasn’t
any point I don’t think that I could honestly say throughout my candidature that
I ever felt like, that I thought I was riding off the back of the university or that I
thought that I was just going to take the money and I was never going to finish.
It never ever occurred to me that I was doing it for those reasons.

There was a sense in which Eve saw the scholarship as a contract. She was paid

regularly, but in return she needed to perform. Despite the intense trauma experienced

with her partner’s near death she was not going to “ride off the back of the university”.

163
There is a fundamental sense that remaining on the scholarship is linked to performance,

regardless of what else was happening in her life. Contrast this attitude with that of

Elena who drew on a scholarship for three years without even producing a candidature

proposal, let alone writing even a chapter of her PhD.

Eve talked about having experienced burnout twice before in her working life, but

interestingly not during the PhD. She credited this to the financial support of the

scholarship. This enabled her to focus on the research without looking for other work;

thus a fundamental underpinning of her resilience was minimal financial security. While

the stipend attached to the scholarship was roughly equivalent to the minimum wage, it

enabled some sense of stability in otherwise often difficult personal circumstances (page

19):

Before I took up the offer of the place at [previous university], I was suffering
from burnout. And that had actually happened twice, that’s happened twice for
me in my working life. Why it didn’t happen this time is an interesting one. I
think perhaps it was because through the scholarship I was able on a very basic
wage or living allowance, with the top-up from the carer’s pension, I was
actually able just to focus on the job at hand which was to research and write
my thesis. And for a long time … [several words indistinguishable] … so
financially as long as I was careful, I didn’t have to go out and look for more
work, on top of being a full-time carer as well … so that probably made the
difference, and I was working from home, there were times when I had to, when
that was the last thing I wanted to do, but in many ways it was, it also was
convenient and that helped me get through.

Eve’s resilience is shown in her ability to keep working through very physically and

emotionally draining times. She had role models and mentors including her partner and

supervisors. She also had a peer support network which helped her overcome the

isolation that many PhD students experience, as well as support from administrative

staff within the University. Her scholarship provided the opportunity to focus on her

research and not take on outside work, particularly when she was a full-time carer for

her critically ill partner.

164
Case Study Three: Andrea

Andrea’s motivation for doing a PhD was, as previously discussed, a learning

opportunity. She had her first child while doing her PhD and utilised childcare to give

her time to work on the thesis (as her parents had done when she was young). While not

being provided with the supervision she needed, she organised another co-supervisor

and joined several peer support networks for graduate students. Andrea was one of the

women who didn’t report experiencing great highs and lows while doing their PhD. She

emphasised the need to know yourself and how you best work – in her case she needed

both guidance and the confidence to do it.

Starting a family
Like many younger women, undertaking postgraduate research often coincides with

starting a family. Andrea had her first child while doing her PhD (page 4):

Of course the other thing that I forgot to mention is that you always look around
… how postgraduate study fits with your family plans as well. So I had
[daughter] in that time which you could see, say it was a delay in terms of the
formal progression of the PhD, but in terms of my learning I would say it was a
definite benefit and I would recommend it to everyone … but admittedly I have
to fully rely on childcare at this point, just to be able to continue with my work.

Andrea discussed having a child during her PhD in a very matter-of-fact way, including

her need to use childcare in order to continue studying. Andrea, Ebony and Jane all had

children during their PhDs with varying impact on their research.

Overcoming isolation
Andrea also talked about isolation and how she actively looked for peer support outside

of the supervisory arrangement as a way of building networks and resilience (pages 2-3):

So I think with almost any PhD I’ve come across it’s a type of isolation you have
to go through. At least the first one or two years until you get the frantic stage of
“Gee I need to get something down on paper.” And so … [sighs] what I’ve done

165
 in the second year was not only shape the project more to my own
understanding of the topic but also to look more actively for postgraduate
discussion groups, because what I’ve actually found is that not a lot of
universities are prepared to foster some kind of postgraduate culture … so you
just don’t … readily kind of meet people that are either doing the same thing or
even you an associated area … but you could still share certain experiences or
even library tips or which software to use and all these things that are incredibly
useful.
Andrea understood that peer support was a good way to network and share information,

even if students were in different research areas. She also commented that universities

don’t seem to understand this need for support. She continued to say that she found two

groups (page 3):

So I found then two groups, one at a university and one not at a university where
postgraduates were meeting … and one group was more concerned about
reading texts and just discussing them … and the other was more a matter of
what came up at the time that was important to the students that turned up. So
they would either discuss a text or they would discuss supervisor problems or
they would discuss how you structure a PhD thesis, what seems logical for your
thesis, that type of thing. So it [was] just a matter of the person speaks who is
actually in that situation where they need advice. So it’s on a needs basis … so
that was very helpful.

These two different groups enabled Andrea to talk with other students about both

research specific issues such as relevant literature and also more practical concerns such

as supervisory relationships. These forms of peer support allow students to share their

experiences and find different ways of doing things that they may not have previously

considered.

Self confidence
Andrea initially reported needing considerable guidance but then realised that she

needed the confidence to do it (page 3):

I was initially someone who looked for a lot of guidance and couldn’t find it.
Until you kind of start to realise that you can have all the guidance in the world,
you still need to do it. And so it’s a matter of … presuming that you are
confident enough to write the damn thing. So I guess in the end it comes down to
your own self-esteem and things like that … but obviously your way can be made
a whole lot easier if you have proper guidance.

166
Andrea noted that guidance from supervisors only goes so far, and that a student needs

to be confident that they can write the thesis. In the previous chapter she also linked this

issue of self-confidence to also having a supervisor who had confidence in you, which

would indicate that supervisors have a role to play in helping students to build

resilience.

Persistence
When asked about the personal factors that help someone to get through a PhD, Andrea

talked about being disciplined, focused, and academic and social pressures. Like several

other women in this research, Andrea emphasised that she is someone who finishes

what she starts (page 11):

I think I’m basically probably a person that … finishes what she starts … I think
in the end the discipline to just sit on your bum and write a 1000 words every
day. I think that type of thing gets you through, I think … it’s just discipline, it’s
not really intellect or skill; I think it’s just discipline.

Like Eve and Tasha, among others, Andrea portrayed herself as someone who finishes a

task that she commences. She notes here that discipline is important to being able to

keep working on it every day. Andrea’s was aware that people work in different ways,

and that while some students work well from the outset, she had to find her own

working style (page 11):

I know of people that have written two-thirds of their PhD in the first year, now,
I’m not the type of person, I need the pressure and then I’m getting on with
things, but I know someone that rewrites … you know x many versions … but I
write one rough draft and then I go through that but then it’s already pretty
dense … so it’s just a matter of finding your own working style … some people
work well in the morning hours, or they go jogging and then come back to work
or … whatever suits the person, so you have know yourself well, and the type of
hours you’re good at learning … you are better writing at that time … and
better at reading later … so finding your level of work … and it changes too,
especially when you’ve got outside pressures and children, husbands, families,
and friends.

167
Andrea worked well under pressure and reflected here that while you may develop an

effective routine, it needed to be flexible in the face of external pressures. For her, using

childcare, being disciplined but flexible, and utilising peer support all helped her to

continue through her candidature to completion.

Andrea, like Eve, also used peer support networks to help overcome the isolation that

research students often experience. Echoing a number of women in this study, Andrea

mentioned being someone who finishes tasks that they start. Self-awareness of her most

effective working style, and the realisation that she was the one that had to write the

thesis helped Andrea to keep moving forward. Starting a family while studying appears

to have made little impact on her progress; Andrea was happy to utilise childcare

facilities to give herself the time required for her research.

Case Study Four: Jane

Jane enrolled in a PhD directly following her undergraduate degree. One major factor

that impacted on her research was her father’s serious illness. She discussed rearranging

her schedule by studying at night in order to spend time with him during the day. She

also started her family during her candidature.

Starting a family
Jane was six months pregnant when I interviewed her and she raised the issue of the

timing of the baby and how it might affect her career (page 6):

Now that I’m having a baby the idea is that I’ll have a break now so … but
that’s something else that I think plays on my … I was saying before that I regret
that it’s dragged my life out … that to be honest and as much as it’s probably, I
don’t know, something that I’d not ever really have wanted to admit before, the
fact that I’m a woman and that I do want to have a baby does have to be fitted
into that calculation of how long it’s taken me to do this and whether it was the
right thing to do … and I guess it was taking so long that it’s eventually got to

168
 the point where we said, my husband and I said, “Well, look let’s have a baby
now and if I can find a job when I’m finished I can, and if I can’t well I’ll find a
job that’s just an engineering job or I’ll do something else.” So as far as my
career goes it’s probably not the best thing to do, but then there’s probably
never going to be a [right] time, and I’m already almost thirty so it was kind of
hurry up and do it or we won’t be able to.

Like many young women, Jane’s decision to start a family coincided with the time

when she undertook her doctoral degree. Nevertheless, she had sufficient

confidence/resilience to decide to have a child even if that might impact on future career

options.

Balance and perspective

Jane’s father was diagnosed with cancer two years prior to the interview. She reflected

that while she was distracted by this, the PhD allowed her to be flexible in terms of her

use of time (page 18):

Two years ago now almost … my Dad was diagnosed with cancer, which is …
another thing that … it’s life and life happens and … it distracts you from your
studies. And there’s things that come up that mean that your studies have to be
put on hold for a little bit … you’re not quite as productive as you otherwise
would have been because there’s other things going on … I guess that in one
sense it was good because I was able to do what I needed to do to be with him
and my family … because my study hours were flexible. So I could study all
night and be with him during the day, or vice versa that I was able to be flexible
like that which you know, not everybody’s got that ability so I was lucky. I
appreciate that fact … that I was able to do that. But at the same time … it does
really distract you from what you’re doing.

Jane understood that other facets of her life could and would impact on her studies, and

that there would be times that productivity would be reduced. But the flexibility of a

research degree enabled Jane to spend time with her Dad and support her family through

this difficult time. She noted that these events also made her re-evaluate her priorities in

life (page 18):

And changes too, I think, some of your opinions on life and what’s important.
And previously maybe I’d been more directed and gung-ho about getting this
thesis finished and done and whatever and then maybe … when that happened I

169
 realised well hang on, no the clock does tick, a light does go on, and I guess that
influences other decisions in your life about … you’ve got to balance your life …
still have one … away from university and away from your thesis … because
your thesis could take another three years and a lot of life can happen in three
years.

Jane’s father’s serious illness caused her to reflect on what was important. While the

thesis was important, she acknowledged that it could take a long time to complete and

there were other aspects of her life on which she needed to focus. She continued in this

excerpt to discuss that the pressure of the thesis can cause a lot of stress (page 19):

I mean the same with so many other life experiences too, somebody passing
away or … world events can happen and all of sudden you can think, “Well,
hang on, no … whilst it’s important that this thesis gets finished and as much as
I want it to be finished … if at the moment it’s causing me so much stress that
I’m not sleeping at night and that I’m so sick all the time because I’m anxious
and worried about it, it’s not worth it.” It’s not worth making yourself sick over
… if you can do it without making yourself sick then do it that way. If you can’t
then you have to consider what it is you’re doing and why you’re doing it … but
… that comes down to personal attitude and that’s something that’s completely
internal and it’s just a shift in your focus of saying, “okay I’m not going to let it
get to me anymore.”

Jane emphasised here that through difficult life experiences, one’s perspective can shift.

While her thesis was important to her, it was not worth making herself ill over it. She

emphasised that she had to realign her focus. She discussed how she managed to make

this mental shift in perspective when she realised that she had choices.

Choices
Jane went on to discuss how realising that she had a choice to continue or not actually

helped her to keep going with the PhD (page 22):

I think that the knowledge that … that I could stop it if I wanted to, or had to, is
almost empowering. That you think, especially because if I have that opinion
that you haven’t failed in your life’s work if you do let it go that that actually
gives you the strength to keep going with it somehow … it’s the opposite … it
oppositely turns in your head … you think I’m not doing it because I have to …
I’m not doing it because I’ve got something to prove, or because everyone
expects me to … I’m doing it because I choose to do it. And I could choose to

170
 stop if I wanted to … but I choose to still do it … so that gives you … some
strength to keep going.

Her decision to continue was tempered by this realisation that whether or not she

continued, it was her choice and that she was in control about making that choice. It was

the knowledge that she had choices that helped build resilience.

Jane, like Andrea, had chosen to start a family while undertaking her degree. As Jane

was interviewed while she was pregnant, her narrative doesn’t elucidate how she coped

once she had the baby. She mentioned that seeing the PhD as a choice, informed her

decision to continue. While she regretted the length of time that the PhD was taking, she

came to understand that other facets of her life were important and needed her attention

as well.

Case Study Five: Karen

Karen’s story illustrates the crises that can occur both with PhD candidature and also

within the family, and that in these circumstances one needs to create a space to build

resilience. Karen’s supervisor died while she was enrolled in her PhD and she also had

family issues, which resulted in her mother needing Karen’s emotional support.

Interestingly she talked about seeing a counsellor who gave her “permission” to take as

long as she wanted to grieve and to switch off the phone. She talked of a period of time

when she felt she was a magnet that attracted problems and explained the strategies she

developed to regain control.

Grief
Karen talked at length about her principal supervisor’s death which occurred when she

was in the third year of her PhD (pages 10-11):

171
 Probably it was about three years in, coming to the end of the third year …
[principal supervisor] was pretty sick. He was pretty sick all the way through.
He was only … fifty-five … but he’d been ill as a child [37 lines deleted] He was
in intensive care … and it was about a week or so before he passed away. And I
mean … it was just a horrible time … because here’s someone, it was sort of
secondary to me at that time at that stage that he was my supervisor because he
was someone, he was my mentor and … I don’t think there are a lot of people
that get a mentor … and I think you’re damn lucky if you’ve had one, even for a
while. You know, someone who you can really look up to … respect their advice
… their opinions, their views even if you don’t agree with all of them.

Karen had a good relationship with her principal supervisor, whom she described as

more like a mentor. She was well into her candidature when this tragic event occurred.

It was also one of the few times that she had had to deal with the death of someone

close to her and she went on to explain its effect. Her hesitance in the narrative serves to

illustrate its strong impact (page 11):

And, yeah … yeah so it was just … you know, I don’t think … I think my
grandparents, or my grandfather … my grandmother had died and you know,
I’m just trying to … there’s no-one that, oh my acupuncturist died, that was a bit
rough … she’d died about a year before, only twenty-seven and had had breast
cancer which is terrible … I think for the first time I found myself not just sad
that someone had died and “oh that’s terrible, that’s unfortunate” or whatever
but really grieving, feeling just … that horrible feeling that can’t, you can’t do
anything about until some time passes.

Karen struggled to come to terms with the grief over her supervisor’s death. In addition,

he had other issues happening concurrently (discussed below). Karen went on to say

that the memorial service helped her come to terms with her supervisor’s death (page

12):

Anyway we had [principal supervisor’s] service … [two lines deleted] … so that

was a good chance to see everyone else feeling as crap as I did and … we all
had lunch together and colleagues came down from [interstate] … that sort of
thing’s good … Well I knew that everyone else was feeling just as…’cause I’d
been into uni and as soon as I saw [colleague], one of my other colleagues, she
started crying and that made me cry and everyone’s trying not to cry and just
discussing … things.

172
Karen was helped in coming to terms with what had happened by interacting with

colleagues from the university who had also known her supervisor. Sharing the grief

helped her to accept what had happened.

Family issues
She concurrently had to deal with her family’s concerns over her brother’s drug

addiction and subsequent legal issues (pages 11-12):

I went to see a counsellor at [name of university] because also at that time, my

brother had been a drug addict for … ten years or so [5 lines deleted] and so, I
reckon like the same week that [principal supervisor] passed away … it was
coming up to the time that my family were going to court [over brother’s access
to his child]. Mum and Dad had a stake in this. It was really only my sister and I
that didn’t but yeah, I really didn’t want to go because I had my own you know
business to deal with … but Mum … really insisted. “Oh if you could just come
for me” and I went as I had done a couple of times before in that year … it
wasn’t a good outcome on the day and [brother] and his partner sort of freaked
out and ran from the court ranting and raving and all the rest of it. And you
know how you, with something like that you sort of leave the place just feeling
like … when you’ve done an exam and your adrenalin is so high and then when
it’s over you feel flat as a tack. You just feel wiped out. And I just felt shocking
… like that?

So, while trying to come to terms with her supervisor’s death, Karen also had to provide

emotional support to her family. Emotionally she was drained and reported that her

family in turn didn’t seem to respect that she had recently lost someone to whom she

was close (page 12):

And I was so annoyed [laughs] I’d sort of been dragged into all this stuff when I
had my own … and just the fact that no one seemed to sort of really respect that,
you know? And … I think too my friend was getting married that week as well.

Karen had three major events with which she was dealing at the same time. She was

“annoyed” at her family expecting her support while she was grieving.

173
Seeking help
Karen decided to seek counselling to help her through this difficult time, and also to

help her find strategies to move forward (page 12):

I went to see this counsellor … I talked through all this business with my … that
had been going on with my family because people just really seemed to be
wanting stuff from me all the time but I seemed to be letting them … take it?

Karen implied here that she felt her family and others were too demanding at a time

when she was still grieving about the death of her supervisor, and that she was letting

them “take” energy from her. The counsellor helped Karen to work through her grief

(pages 12-13):

And she just said, “Take the phone off the hook for the day if you’re trying to get
work done.” Because I was just sort of left thinking “well, God what am I going
to do now?” I still feel like … I’m on my way, but I really haven’t resolved
exactly what I’m doing … and I’ve got all this other business to contend with as
well … and she said to me, I told her about [principal supervisor], and she said,
“just because, you’ve had the … the funeral or service or whatever doesn’t
mean you have to be finished with grieving. You take as long as you like.”

This advice helped Karen to see that she could take back control by putting her needs

first and also to understand that she could allow herself to take the time needed to work

through her grief. This was the first step in Karen starting to take back control over

issues which were draining her emotionally.

Taking control
Karen continued to describe in her narrative that she reached a point where she realised

that she had to make some changes because she seemed to be almost a “magnet” for

trouble. This happened over the Christmas break at the end of her third year of

candidature (page 14):

I said to [husband] “That just does it. I’ve had it.” I’d been through this period
of this crap with my family, brother, I was sick of hearing about him, and that’s
how [colleague who referred Karen to me] and I got on as well, because of her

174
 family … I was baking every week, a slice, a cake and just eating it [laughs] and
… still teaching at uni and just really been digging a bit of a hole for myself …
and just out of control. Everything was annoying me. My neighbour, I’d say,
“Hi, how are you?” and I’d regret saying “Hi, how are you?” because I’d get
all of her shit. “Oh [name] this happened and oh you know, oh my kids” … I
didn’t get paid one week and the girl was like “oh, well I’m sorry, it doesn’t
really matter does it?” and you’d think “Yes it does matter.” Some woman ran
into me on the [name] bridge … and she said sorry … and it was just heaps of
stuff all at once and I’d just sort of been through this sort of period … you’ve got
to think after a while, like why am I a magnet to all of this. And that’s because
you just … need to change some stuff, you need to turn things around.

Karen reported here feeling “out of control”. Her realisation of this led her to start

making some changes “to turn things around.” She came through this period of family

instability and profound grief at losing her supervisor by making a decision or series of

decisions that, little by little, built her resilience. She talked about taking control back

by doing little things that she had been putting off (pages 15-16):

At the same time I realised that there were so many decisions that I was putting
off that meant that I couldn’t move on with what I was doing, things like … just
stupid stuff but it seemed like a big deal the previous year. [12 lines deleted] …
And you know like, “Oh, that’s another hurdle” so I just decided, I just had to
take things on … just tackle them and then I started going to these workshops
that are offered through the University for anyone … and it was a real kind of
“Right, okay everyone, you’ve probably, you’ve read enough papers, you could
go and read some more, but I’m sure you’ve read enough. And your PhD isn’t
going to be any better because you’ve read another one, and another one. So
you should write. Get to it and write.” And that’s what I really needed that sort
of kick up the bottom and so that kind of helped. And I … wrote an introduction
which … it will change again now but that’s okay because it’s fairly sort of well-
written and it won’t be too difficult.

Karen took control back with her research and started tackling a number of tasks that

she had been putting off and which were holding her back. In taking control she started

moving forward again.

Support from others

Building this resilience would have been difficult without support from her husband –

both financial and emotional (page 17):

175
 At the start of last year [supervisor] read it and then my scholarship had run out
by then. I don’t know … like August or something last year, and then when I
worked for him that sort of gave me enough money … to pay the bills and
whatever. And [husband] had been saving while I was still working and … from
the start of this year and maybe even November last year I haven’t worked at all
and I’ve just been concentrating on writing up. Because [husband is] basically
the one sort of, “You will finish this thesis” [laughs] more so than the university
I have to say … my candidacy expires on the … well it was going to expire on
the twenty third of June but I already put in for an extension and I got that. It
was granted for six months part-time till the twenty-third of December, so that
now gives me heaps of time to get it all done.

Karen and her husband had saved money to enable her to have a period of time at the

end of her candidature to focus on writing without having to work.

Persistence
Having developed resilience, Karen was able to persevere, particularly towards the end.

She noted that you have to take responsibility for yourself and do the work (pages 18-

19):

You just have to keep moving. You can’t make anyone else responsible. It’s …
about you applying your bottom to the seat, and sitting in front of the computer
and writing the sucker up. [Six lines deleted] Anyway, I just keep pushing on [20
lines deleted] No-one’s on my back. No one is on my back, which is good but I
still … I put the pressure on myself.

Karen had taken responsibility for pushing herself forward to completion. It was

interesting that while the other women in this research project discussed isolation, and

overcoming it, as important in building resilience, Karen took the opposite perspective.

She worked at home, turning a spare room into an office, and rarely went to campus in

the last few months. As we see below, Karen found other people’s interaction and

opinions to be distracting.

176
Isolation
Another means of building resilience was keeping to herself and not listening to other

people, because she considered this discouraging and would not help her complete the

thesis (page 25):

The other thing is too that it’s very hard … you know people say “Oh it’s nice to
have all these sorts of continuing relationships with people and all the rest of it
so you don’t feel isolated and all that type of thing.” But I often find that it can
only sort of … there’s just been a comment or two from someone that just really
puts me off and I really would have been better off not hearing it. So I just think
I’m just better to lock myself up [laughs] because … if something puts me off a
little bit and I don’t sort of get back into my writing straight away, then that’s
not helping me complete my thesis … it doesn’t take much to make you sort of
think “oh, it’s all a bit hopeless really.” [Laughs] … you are sort of on the edge
a little bit … because you’re so into it yourself “Oh, what if I’m completely
wrong”, or I don’t know … just all that sort of stuff, so I just think that you’re
just better to shut up shop and get your own story going and get into it and get it
done and if your supervisor likes it … and they’ll certainly tell you if they don’t.
Then there you go, that’s all you need.

Karen endured the loss of her first principal supervisor and had to deal with her grief, at

the same time as supporting her family in an emotionally stressful time. At the point of

being out of control she sought the help of a counsellor, and together with the support of

her husband, she gradually took back control of her life, including her PhD. She noted

that she needed to keep to herself and not listen to negative comments from others, and

maintain her perseverance. This strategy worked for Karen and contrasted with the

strategies of the other women who sought peer support to help them overcome isolation

in their PhD journey. It demonstrates that ultimately doctoral candidates need to

develop strategies that work for them.

Case Study Six: Laura

Laura’s narrative demonstrated that her successful journey was underpinned by

enormous resilience that she had learnt from her parents. She discussed the ways in

which her parents had encouraged and also helped her build an ability to do things for

177
herself. She described her experience as “phenomenal” (p. 11) and mentioned no

personal issues that impacted on her PhD completion. The only minor difficulty that

Laura mentioned was an intellectual problem of “feeling stuck” when working on her

thesis.

Family background
It was clear in the narrative that Laura had learnt resilience at an early age. Her family

had always been supportive of her education and career goals (page 28):

My parents … have been supportive right from the outset … they’ve been
supportive in sort of any domain area that I’ve shown interest over the years.

Laura clearly had family encouragement and she lived at home throughout her doctoral

degree. She expanded on this theme by discussing how they had encouraged her to be

independent and do things for herself from a young age. This is illustrated in following

example where she wanted to take up tennis. Parental support taught her lessons in

independence, trying her best, and going after what she wanted; that is, she was being

taught resilience (page 29):

It would have been the beginning of Grade Five or something and I said to my
Dad and my Mum. “Oh, you know, I’d like to learn to play. You know, I like it. I
want to learn to play. How do I do this?” And I’ll never forget my Dad saying to
me “Well, you have to become a member of a club. So you have to have a look
and see about becoming a member of a tennis club.” And that’s what he said to
me. I remember at that stage picking up the White…the local community Yellow
Pages whatever it was and I looked up tennis clubs and I found a club that was
just around the corner from where we were … and he said, “Okay ring them.”
And I said, “Am I going to ring them?” He says, “Ring them.” And I rang the
clubhouse. And of course I wasn’t getting anything because it’s a clubhouse and
of course people don’t live there and I ended up ringing back. Dad said “well,
what you have to do is just ring … after school and you’ll find out what they do.
You’re going to get someone that will answer. There will be someone there at
some point.”

Laura’s parents encouraged her to be independent – to find out information and follow

it up. When she was not having any luck, rather than take over, they advised her to keep

trying (page 29):

178
 So I’d be ringing after school. And I rang, I think it was a Wednesday afternoon
or something and I got someone. And that was the … one of the nights where
they actually had functions on and people could go and play and all the rest of
it. So I remember getting all the details down and the cost of membership and all
of these type of things. The days … the afternoons that they are open for these
type of functions for juniors and all the rest of it. And I sat there and I said,
“Well, this is the information that I have.” And Mum and Dad are both …
beaming … “Here’s this child, how serious is she? You said it to her and …
she’s done it.”

By helping Laura to seek information and to persist when she initially couldn’t get

through on the telephone, her parents were teaching her valuable skills for her future as

a research student. It is clear by their reaction that Laura was also aware that they were

proud of her problem solving skills. Laura talked further about her parents’ support of,

and active interest in, her education (page 30):

They were very supportive in that endeavour. They were very supportive in the
sense of education. Never … never pushed. They never said, “You have to … We
encourage you. It’s important to get an education. We’re not saying that you
have to be number one.” So even from primary school Mum was always actively
involved in the primary school when we were going through primary. Reading,
writing … all the important things and she’d come into classes and you know
how you have your volunteer mums that would listen to reading or they’d help
with other activities. That was Mum. But that’s what she did … through that
process.

Laura’s mother took an active interest in her children’s education with an emphasis on

encouragement, support and “doing your best.” Laura continued to explain that this

early start carried through to high school (page 30):

And you know after school you’d sit down and you’d be encouraged. “What did
you learn? What did you learn at school today?” You’d have a reader that
you’d bring home. They’d sit down, “Let’s read the reader.” You know,
encouraging. Not “You must. You must do this. You must do that.” There was,
there was none of that. And that was just sort of the encouraging thing so by the
time you got to … high school, you were set … I, well both my brother and I
were set into certain ways. We knew that it was important to do as best as we
could and that was the message. It wasn’t, “You have to be the best of the best of
the best and you can only be number one and anything less than number one is a
failure. No. Do the very best that you can, and as long as we know that you’ve
done the best that you can, be satisfied with the results. You can always look at
improving the results but it’s not this or nothing else.” And so they’ve always

179
 been very, very encouraging. And they’ve been very encouraging with regards to
going to University.

Laura’s family background and upbringing instilled in her values of working hard,

trying her best and being independent. She had continuing encouragement throughout

her secondary schooling and tertiary education, even when she changed disciplines.

This is in stark contrast to Elena’s story, as outlined in the next chapter, of a strict

mother who expected her to excel at school and “be the best.” While Elena succeeded

academically, she had less resilience and coping skills when she commenced her PhD

and had to learn to become an independent researcher. Laura’s experience in trying to

join the tennis club – of not succeeding on her first phone call and having to persist –

taught her to problem solve and persist when things get difficult. This was central to her

successful PhD journey.

Problem solving
Laura used an analogy of the PhD as putting together building blocks – a three-

dimensional puzzle. She submitted her thesis within the three-year standard duration

and commented that this required discipline, organisation and an ability to be critical of

her own work (page 11):

Certainly I was very disciplined in order to do that. I did have a scholarship so

it meant that I had three years full-time component to work towards it and it’s a
matter of setting an agenda. And I’m relatively organised, and I try to organise
myself as to say what it is that I’m going to focus on. And I certainly didn’t look
at it from day one of year one saying well by the end of year three it’s going to
be finished. Certainly that was the ultimate goal, but I was looking at it in small
segments.

Laura explained that her discipline and organisational ability helped her to manage her

research project from the outset. She considered that her scholarship of three years

should set the parameters of her initial timeline. She went on to explain how she broke

down the project into manageable tasks (page 12):

180
 What’s the first thing that I needed to achieve? Oh, candidature. Okay, what
timeline does that need to be done by? So then your energy then breaks down
back from that first sort of goal. And the second one would be, okay ethics
approval and clearance … [four lines deleted] … Getting it through the
appropriate ethics committees, set-up and so on and then that next stage, which
would have been “Okay, data collection.” Meanwhile, of course you’re still
reading, your reading hasn’t stopped. But looking at that type of progression, so
I was sort of looking at it as building blocks. Building block one, got to the end
of building block one, knew what building block two was, soon as I sort of ticked
off that first building block, started the next one. And then as soon as that was
achieved, started the next one. Of course you had those ongoing ones, which you
always factored in. But that’s how I sort of looked at it. It was just like building
this … puzzle or 3D puzzle but that at the end you’re going to have that
completed thesis which will go off to examiners … and that was sort of the
process and the mentality that I took through that journey which made it a lot
easier to conceptualise, what I felt a lot easier to conceptualise on what needed
to be done, how it was going to be done, and where I was going to end up.

Laura demonstrated considerable project management skills in her approach to the PhD.

She focused on each task in sequence, but also kept an overall picture and plan of the

way the puzzle fitted together. From the description above we can see that she knew

what the next “building block” was before she finished the one before, and she kept the

final goal in sight – the finished thesis. She explained that the “big picture” made the

process much easier for her to conceptualise, while focusing on each discrete element.

Laura used the term “rollercoaster” to describe her journey. However her narrative was

positive and I specifically asked if she could expand on what she saw as some of the

low points. She didn’t talk much about emotional lows, and the “rollercoaster” appeared

to be an intellectual one. In the excerpt below she described this as “self-questioning”

and demonstrating how she developed resilience in sorting through the literature to

define her research topic (pages 20-21):

I suppose some of the low … lower points through that process would definitely
have been … when you’re really nutting out what it is that you’re going to do ...
[23 lines deleted] All of those things … that was the first big sort of scenario we
had to sit down out and work … work out how and took a while to get that
framework. The second one would have been when I had all this literature
review written up on brand equity and of course some of it is talking about one

181
 component, some was something else, so I had to restructure it. And that was
mind-boggling. And that would have been one of those … low-lights of that
rollercoaster ride. [Seven lines deleted] So that was one of those titanic
struggles that I had, just because the clarity in the literature base was not there.
I’m thinking, “What have they all done? They’ve gone out on their own thing
and labelled it differently but essentially it’s the same thing.”

Unlike the other women in this research project, all of the low points revolved around

these intellectual issues and how she worked through them (page 21):

So definitely that would have been one of those … trying periods, which when
you’re working towards it, or at the beginning of it, it really does seem like a
period that’s never going to end. “If I can’t get this sorted, how am I going to
the next stage? And what about this three-year completion, oh we’re not going
to meet that…not at this rate. We’ve come to such a slow here. Is it going to
work?” So certainly there were times like that where you sat down and thought,
“Where am I? Where am I going? How am I going to get there? What’s the
plausibility of getting there the way I wanna [sic] get there?” So you know, you
do have a little bit of self questioning that did come in, in a couple of phases, but
that probably would have been one of the bigger ones.

Laura’s description here reflects her concern that these problems would prevent her

meeting the submission deadline. She refers to this as “self questioning” and explains

how she dealt with this difficult time by breaking down the research into stages and

taking breaks and then coming back to it (pages 21-22):

I tried to break it down. I tried to take a step back and not think too far in
advance and just look at … I thought, “Well, whatever’s going to happen at that
end point will happen. We’ll deal with it when we come to it.” And then I
thought “Okay, you’ve gotta break it down. It’s gotta be more measurable. It’s
gotta be … its more, more consumable parts. So that I can digest it … what it is
that I’m looking at and what it means say for my data collection perspective.
What it means from my results perspective.” It’s no good setting the scene early
on in your literature for something that you’re not going to follow because then
it will come up with the question of “well, you start talking about this material
but it goes nowhere.” So that’s when I started to break it down in that way …
take a step right back from it and how do I do this? I left it for a bit. I thought,
“No, need to clear my head. I’ll do other things that are related to the thesis. I’ll
come back.”

Laura’s strategy to get through this time was to work on other aspects of her research

and put the literature review, with which she was struggling, aside for several weeks.

182
She outlined how she gave herself a short break away that coincided with a conference

(page 22):

I gave myself maybe a fortnight or two, three weeks about that, break from it.
Didn’t care what happened. I just wanted to really separate myself and what
was really fortunate was that was at the time when I was heading overseas to a
conference. [60 lines deleted] … and things like that so there were some …
trying moments and some trying points but it was a matter of just trying to step
away if you’re working too closely with it and then just trying to break it back
down and come through.

Laura’s strategy of taking time away from the problem, while staying connected with

her research, worked well. She brought this back to her research management practice

of breaking the work down into manageable segments.

It is clear from this case that a stable family and a happy childhood provide a strong

foundation for building resilience. Laura’s parents not only encouraged her education

but also helped her to build the skills to tackle problems for herself. She took a strategic

approach to her PhD by breaking down the project into manageable tasks and working

through each one. The difficulties within the PhD to which she referred were intellectual

ones which she tackled by putting the work aside for a couple of weeks and then

coming back to it.

Case Study Seven: Ebony

Ebony was working as an academic and had recently completed a research Masters

degree. She had her first child while doing her Masters degree and her second while

doing her PhD. Shortly before commencing her PhD, her mother passed away. She

talked about the PhD as personal; the negotiation with her husband and her employer;

and dealing with difficulties when the research goes wrong. Overall Ebony commented

that doing her PhD was fun, although she certainly had to deal with a number of

challenging issues.
183
Starting a family
Ebony’s son was born while she was doing her research masters degree and her

daughter was born while she was doing her PhD (page 2):

At that stage then I was a full-time academic, sort of drifting between being full-
time and being about 0.6 when I had babies … [Laughter] … I had babies in the
middle of both higher degrees … and I don’t actually see that as a problem
really at all. [Laughter] … And my kids don’t see it as a problem, I think … but
it was just something about how our life is.

Ebony found ways to balance study, work and family responsibilities. She talked at

length about she managed this with support from her family, especially her husband.

For her this was not a difficult process (page 7):

I don’t see … anything particularly unusual about having had children in the
middle of my research degrees. Neither of my children were planned [Laughter]
so … I can’t say that we deliberately meant to have kids in the middle of my
research degrees but it hasn’t actually stopped anything very much … I’ve had
healthy, happy, normal, well-adjusted children. I haven’t had the … problems
that some new parents have. My children didn’t have colic, they both slept quite
well, they didn’t have major illnesses of any kind. So I’ve been able to get on
with things.

Ebony didn’t see children as impeding progress on her research degree. This was due in

a large part to her husband being prepared to share the parenting (page 7):

I have a partner who’s worth his weight in gold and who … certainly sees
parenting as a shared task, and good family support. So all of those things help
…. my mother died before my PhD began but my sisters too have been quite
supportive and helpful so for a … for a time there my … one of my sisters and I
would alternate looking after each other’s children in order to give each other
freedom to work. And my mother-in-law has just been fantastic … I don’t tell
mother-in-law jokes on the grounds that [she] doesn’t live up to them … but for
my kids of course, they’ve never known a time when Mum, and Dad too, weren’t
studying.

A supportive partner together with sharing child minding with a sister enabled Ebony to

balance family and study.

184
The PhD as personal
Ebony made the interesting point that a PhD is about you and what is important to you,

it’s personal (page 3):

The process of doing the PhD was, in retrospect, a lot of fun … I was talking
with [academic colleague] … [I: Not many people say that] yeah, I did, I really
enjoyed it. I was talking with [academic colleague] earlier and she said, “Well,
you know, they’re about studying yourself really.” And I think she’s right, that
my PhD was about me … and things that were important to me. And [hers] was
about things that were important to her and I remember talking with [another
academic colleague] who’s in the same position. Parts of it were really difficult
… but … it was also a lot of fun.

For Ebony this was particularly true. She later talked about her mother’s struggle with

arthritis, acknowledging that her PhD was partly an attempt to make sense of what had

happened to her mother (page 5):

She died while I was in the pilot … stage that … while I was on [leave] in that …
project that informed the development of my doctorate … so in lots of ways
going into my PhD was about trying to make sense of what happened to Mum.

Since she was fifteen, Ebony had known her mother would die, although at the time the

family did not know the nature of the illness, which was finally diagnosed as a form of

arthritis. Ebony also talked about her own development of arthritic symptoms in the

early stages of her PhD (page 5):

But then I was … it must have been first year of my doctorate I’d had some
arthritic symptoms myself on and off, and I’d also as an undergrad, been off to
my doctor and had some investigations and been told that … although I had
symptoms, I didn’t fit the diagnostic criteria for arthritic diseases at this stage
… but in the first year of my PhD I did and I had a flare and went off to see my
doctor and suddenly I fitted the diagnostic profile and again, that’s consistent
with lots of people’s experiences, that their symptoms build slowly and in the
beginning, don’t fit the diagnostic criteria, but after a while you do. And so my
PhD went from being something making sense of Mum to something making
sense of what was happening to me … so it was a really personal experience in
lots of ways.

For Ebony, the PhD was a very personal experience. Her project centred on

interventions for people with arthritis; thus she was dealing daily with a topic very close

185
to her. When one of the early studies in her research had to be stopped, this could have

led to Ebony’s PhD stalling, but she persisted. She reflected that part of this was

because she had anticipated her participants would respond as she would in certain

situations (page 9):

And so there I am imposing on my research, attributes that are actually more

about me than they are necessarily about the population I’m trying to study. You
know, that … I’m a pretty bloody-minded sort of person sometimes [Laughter]
so when I say I’m going to do something, I damn well do it. But that doesn’t
mean that everybody who has rheumatoid arthritis responds like that … and yet,
I think I was expecting them to, so that’s just one of the ways in which, you
know, the project is … quite subtly, about me rather than about the participants.

Ebony’s experience here highlights her determination and persistence, but also her

awareness of herself in the PhD process.

Overcoming obstacles
In one of Ebony’s clinical trials the work had to be stopped, as the condition of the

participants was deteriorating. This problem led to fears that the PhD might fall apart

(page 6):

We couldn’t be certain that the therapy wasn’t actually the thing that was
making them worse and so we ceased recruitment at that point and had to
change the project … and then had to tackle some of these issues about what
happens when people get worse and therapies don’t work … and that was …
that was difficult. Emotionally that was hard … I was losing what I’d invested in
that particular trial. I guess there was a fear that my PhD might fall apart at this
point … it didn’t [Laughter] but I think there was … probably some concern that
it might.

However Ebony realised that the negative results were worth reporting and so turned the

aborted study into both a thesis chapter and a journal article (page 6):

I wrote a paper about that chapter. So there’s a whole chapter in my thesis

about that study and what … went wrong but then I wrote a paper out of it that
is basically about what it does to you as the researcher when your research falls
over. It took me two years post-doc to get that paper published. It finally went to
proofs this year but it got … lots of rejections. People … it was “we don’t want
to know.”

186
Ebony said that this is her most popular academic article – how to cope when research

doesn’t work. It is interesting that researchers generally focus on the neat, tidy,

successful research results – we don’t see the struggle or the failures. This is a good

example of Ebony’s resilience in turning a negative into a learning experience that may

help others.

Finding time
Ebony was awarded a Faculty scholarship that provided paid leave from teaching to

write up her PhD (page 3):

The last six months was full-time. I got a Faculty scholarship to write-up. And
that was really good … it was a brave step, I think, on the part of the Faculty
because I’m not sure that everybody that they gave them to … finished. But I
finished and I’m not sure that I would have finished without it, or it would have
taken me a lot … longer. I’m working on a big project at the moment that is a
comparable sort of size and it just keeps dragging on. And I can’t get a clear
block of time to finish it, so that six months was invaluable. I had … everything.
I had all my data collection done and it was just writing … but it was … I
needed that time.

This time-release scholarship enabled her to quarantine a block of time for writing up

the thesis. She compared this experience to a current project where she was having

trouble finishing because of a lack of time. The importance of this financial support

from the University cannot be underestimated. Nevertheless, she had difficulty

negotiating with her School for time release, and the process required considerable

resilience (page 3):

My School weren’t all that thrilled … the Faculty were very supportive and …
my PhD I was actually enrolled in this School but I was working in another
School. And it was the School I was working in that weren’t all that thrilled
because the terms of the Faculty scholarship were that you got … they got
twelve thousand dollars to buy sessionals to replace my teaching and my …
colleagues put a whole lot of conditions on that that in retrospect I should have
just told them to go jump, but I didn’t.

187
The challenge here was that the scholarship was awarded by the Faculty, but the School

in which she worked had to make arrangements for her to be replaced. Ebony was

prepared to compromise and agreed to teach one day a week (page 4):

That didn’t change the completion of my PhD but it’s another one of those
things that makes me think “Gee, you know, if I hadn’t had that period of time
away, the PhD might never have got done, because all these other things were
going on in my job…” How would I have managed? And look I don’t know that
I resent having picked up that teaching too much, either because it was a subject
that I … could teach well, had taught a lot before, enjoy teaching. And it was
timed so that I came in and taught on the Friday. So I’d write for four days of
the week. I’d actually be pretty, pretty tired and over writing and maybe having
a gap, having a break from that wasn’t such a bad thing.

Ebony found a way to make the arrangement work for her. She wrote for four days each

week and then came in to the university to teach on Friday, which she reported actually

gave her a break from the PhD. However the point should be made that the scholarship

was awarded to provide a complete break from her teaching responsibilities. While

Ebony demonstrated flexibility and made this situation work for her, for another female

academic this extra pressure could have made the difference between completing or not.

Persistence
She went on to talk about the strategies she developed to complete the thesis. Like a

number of the women in this study, she mentioned a history of being determined to

finish things that she starts (page 4):

So look the final write-up. I … [sighs] … I really need, you know when I set
goals I work to them and for the most part I make them … and so I set myself a
goal of actually finishing the writing during the period that I had as leave and I
didn’t quite make it actually … and then I discovered that … it was actually
quite legitimate as long as I submitted within … before the census date of the
next semester to say well I’d still completed within the semester and so that was
what I ended up doing. I sort of bought my extension on that deadline … but that
was pretty difficult for me. I’m not … someone who easily says, “Oh, I’m
running late. Help!” … to me the deadline was going to be the end of July. And
to be able to stretch it to … mid-August or end of August … felt like I was
pushing the friendship.

188
Ebony’s persistence in completing without asking for extra time showed great

resilience. She set herself a goal of using the study leave from the university to

complete her thesis. It should be noted that although the Faculty provided a scholarship

to write up the thesis, and she reported feeling that she took advantage by submitting a

few weeks later than anticipated, Ebony still completed her PhD in four years of part-

time enrolment. The standard duration is three years full time, so she was well within

the limits of timely completion.

Like most research students, Ebony at times found the PhD experience frustrating at

times (pages 8-9):

I don’t think there was time when I really resented … doing my PhD … there
have been with other big projects where I’ve got to the point of resenting even
taking it on … but with my doctorate because I think it is in lots of ways about
you, I don’t think I’ve ever really felt that. Certainly I’ve been tired and
frustrated with it at points but … [I: it never got to the point of thinking I just
want to chuck this] … no … no

She reported, however, that she never reached a point where she resented having started

it or of wanting to quit. This determination was evident here and at other points

throughout her narrative, as outlined above.

Negotiating support
In this section she talked about how she constantly renegotiated workloads at different

stages in the PhD (page 15):

I shifted between full and various forms of part-time and that’s one of the ways
that the University has been a really supportive employer that it does just let you
switch to part-time [laughs] and I did. I don’t remember exactly the frequency
now but when it … all started to get a bit overwhelming “Oh well, maybe next
semester I’ll go part-time.” [Seven lines deleted] And sure you take a cut in pay
for that but you also get a lot of breathing space.

189
Ebony built resilience through being extremely disciplined in her work life. For her, the

academic role she was in provided her with the flexibility to negotiate her workload to

balance her study and family. Central to this ability to be flexible was the strong

relationship with her partner (page 15):

And look too … I have a partner who’s worth his weight in gold. Not only
because we do genuinely share household duties and childcare, but also because
… he returned to study too … initially part-time while working. And then … in
2003, four, five. He was … full-time studying so … for that part of my doctorate
for 2003 and 2004 I was [working] full-time or close to full-time because … we
needed the income. He was always, and still is always happy to just sort of
adjust the budget and we all pulled our belts in to make ends meet … so you
know the sacrifices were as much his as they were mine. I think it would have
been harder to balance work and this type of study if I wasn’t an academic, if I
wasn’t working for a university.

Although working less hours resulted in less money, Ebony and her husband negotiated

to ensure that they could both balance study and work. She reflected that an academic

career afforded her greater flexibility than other job. Together with this negotiation,

Ebony’s decision to prioritise research over other aspects of her life also gave her time

to complete her thesis (page 16):

But I certainly got to a point where I had to start making decisions about what
would give and so I … really prioritised very carefully the things in my life and
deliberately chose to give certain things up. I remember consciously giving up
reading junk mail. And it probably doesn’t seem like a big thing but it gave me
time, you know? [three lines deleted] … and that’s more time that I have to do
other things … and I consciously gave up watching television of any type and I
actually don’t miss it. [Laughter] I very occasionally watch the news now but …
I actually stopped altogether [three lines deleted] I have completely got out of
the habit of turning the TV on … in my PhD that was a deliberate choice to say
“I just won’t turn that on. I won’t watch it.” I don’t think I’ve ever been a really
big TV watcher but that … deliberate choice to not even go there … they’re
some of the ways that I … made the juggle.

Thus while Ebony continued to work and share home and childcare responsibilities,

other aspects of her life were not seen as priorities. She was aware that this may not

work for everyone, and commented that other women were surprised at her process of

negotiation with her partner (page 17):

190
 Every semester we’d renegotiate housework … lots of other women seem …
shocked when I tell them that I even have these conversations with my husband.
But we do … every semester when my timetable changes and now the nature of
his work is that is has sort of seasonal emphases as well … we divide the
household duties up.

Central to Ebony’s narrative is the balance of work, PhD and home life, which she

managed through ongoing negotiation with both her employer and her husband. Her

resilience in deft and ongoing negotiation enabled her to remain focused on the thesis.

Ebony’s resilience was facilitated through the support of her partner and ability to

negotiate with her employer. She, like Andrea, didn’t see having children as an obstacle

to completing her doctoral studies. Strong self-discipline enabled her to focus only on

research when she was not at work or with her family. This is contrasted with Tasha’s

story below, where she reported that time away from the thesis was a necessary

component of her wellbeing.

Case Study Eight: Tasha

Tasha’s journey has been a long and arduous one that she described as an “odyssey”.

She had multiple bouts of serious illness (both physical and mental), which disrupted

her research. She also experienced considerable difficulty within the School in which

she was enrolled. Nevertheless, she talked about the determination to finish, strong peer

support and organisational ability as being key factors in her resilience. Tasha’s was the

only interview where there was noticeable lowering of the volume of her voice when

talking about difficult subjects, and these sections are noted in her narrative.

An odyssey
She began by talking about the PhD as a journey or “odyssey” and used the word

several times. She also used strong words such as “arduous” (page 1):

191
 Since you’ve used the word “journey” [Laughter] I’ll start with that because I
was talking about this the other day with a colleague at University because she
was talking about her PhD journey. I said, “I don’t call mine a journey, I call
mine an odyssey.” [Laughter] because it’s been an odyssey, because mine … I
started my PhD in 1998 and it’s now 2008 … I call it an odyssey because it’s
just been such an arduous journey with … a lot of illness and a lot of hiccups.

When I interviewed Tasha she was within two months of completing her PhD which

had taken almost ten years to complete. She had to deal with several episodes of

incapacitating illness and in addition had a range of other issues to address.

Lack of support
Early in her narrative, Tasha talked about the lack of support from the School when she

had experienced life-threatening illness when she developed pneumonia (pages 1-2):

I’m going to call it bullying that I got in the School of Nursing … there are
people I think deliberately made it hard for me, the lack of support. There also
were deliberate hindrances that were put in my way, the lack of support and
understanding that I got when I was ill. And … I’m just trying to think of the
lack of understanding kind of thing was like somebody said “oh … you’ve said
you were sick but that was quite a while ago and we haven’t seen any writing
from you recently.” I’d actually been in intensive care dying of pneumonia and
I’d just been out of hospital about three weeks and they were questioning why I
hadn’t produced any work. I was barely walking [Laughter] and … things like
that so it was really a very, very unsupportive environment.

She is not explicit here about who in the School made the statement, as her principal

supervisor is located in a different School. Her illness meant that Tasha had to change to

part-time enrolment, which brought further issues (page 2):

I had to change to part-time because I’d been ill and I asked “Do I need to clear
out my office?” and they said, “Oh no, no, no, it’ll be fine. And you can leave
your stuff there. Sort it out when you’re better.” And then suddenly I get a phone
call one day saying, “We need the office cleared this afternoon, come and get
your gear. Get your data off the computer … and … now.”

The traumatic experience of nearly dying from pneumonia that Tasha described was

here juxtaposed with a distinct lack of concern or consideration by the staff of the

192
university. This resulted in Tasha reporting that the School she was enrolled in was a

very unsupportive environment.

Dealing with illness

As discussed above, Tasha experienced a life-threatening bout of pneumonia and was

hospitalised. However she also experienced other health problems which were ongoing

throughout her candidature (page 2):

So lots of difficulties just presented and made it harder than it had to be … I call
it my odyssey because … there’s the like multiple health problems and [they]
made it … pretty difficult …Yes, lots of those, lots and lots of hospital
admissions, long and short and all sorts of things … so I call it an odyssey.

Tasha talked about how these illnesses disrupted the “connection” to her research and

her enthusiasm. Yet the narrative demonstrates her resilience, despite the disruption.

Even though she was passionate about her research topic, at the time of the interview

she was in her words “over it” (pages 2-3):

A lot of them have been quite long and that … two of the illnesses have actually
necessitated a whole year off and because of that I felt like I’ve actually gone
away from it and had to come back and start over and it’s almost like starting
again. So that’s been really, really hard. I really … I really literally felt like I
was starting from the beginning on those two occasions. And other times I’ve
had shorter periods of time, about seven months off, two or three months off, and
even on those occasions I feel like I’ve had to start over again and re-immerse in
the project … I found that really, really difficult.

Tasha’s recurring illness caused varying lengths of time away from her research project.

She had progressed well in her first year, despite various bouts of minor illness, until

she became seriously ill (page 5):

I went pretty well for the first year until I got sick. One year full-time … in that
year I had a couple of minor operations and a bit of minor illness but that was
pretty good for me.

193
The illnesses became more frequent and in several instances much more severe. This

meant that she had to continually go through the process of reconnecting with her

research when she returned from periods of leave.

Persistence
When Tasha discussed this loss of connection, she also noted that she would lose her

enthusiasm as well. As with other women in this project such as Eve and Ebony, Tasha

reported a need to “finish it because I’d started it” (page 3):

And not just a connection but also the enthusiasm as well … “I’m over it.” … I
just don’t like it. Even though I was really passionate about the topic I … don’t
think I enjoyed it anymore. After a while it just was something that was there in
my life and I had to do …I had to finish it because I’d started it and I didn’t
want to let it go. It was kind of possessing me in this way that was illogical and
… I began so I had to finish it [said softly].

She expressed a strong compulsion to finish the project. She continued here to explain

that she could see the point in the research but that her mood would shift day by day as

she was nearing the end of her candidature (page 3):

And even now I think, “What was the point in all this?” But … when I was
writing the conclusion I thought, “Oh, this is why I did that, I remember now.”
Like, this actually does have a point for [nursing] and it does have a point for
the profession. There is some sense in this. If I get this published and out there
and [nurses] read it, this is really good. I remember, this was about ethics, this
is why I did that. This is really good. And then I’ll have a day when … I’m really
over it like, “Oh, was it worth it?” You have those … sort of fluctuating moods I
suppose where it’s just all too hard.

Tasha could still see the usefulness of her project for her profession which helped her to

persist with her thesis. It was not surprising that she felt overwhelmed, as she was

working long hours at the time of interview, in order to finish. Although she noted how

“challenging” this experience had been, she was determined to finish (page 3):

The odyssey thing like, Pilgrim’s Progress or something, where you’re walking
on and on and on and it just seems to never end and because I’m having
fourteen hour days I’m at uni at two o’clock in the morning trying to … I’m

194
 often in at two o’clock in the morning because I’m a night person and you’re
sitting there typing away and “what am I doing this to myself for?” [four lines
deleted] … or you remember what your participants gave to you … something
that’s going to be very relevant to the practice and then I’m reminded of why
and that’s really good. But other times, it’s just a drag [laughs] so it can be
really, really challenging.

Later in her narrative, Tasha came back to this idea of persistence and “finishing what

you start” (pages 20-21):

For me that plodding on, that … persistence … completing … all those times
when I thought “I have to do this because I started it and I’m going to finish it,
no matter what.” Even though many times I didn’t want to anymore. I’m just
going to keep going … and just to get to the end … sometimes just because I
started it and I’m damned if I’m not going to finish it. [Laughter] … I have a bit
of tendency not to let things beat me … so I’m a bit determined that if I start
something I’m … going to finish it. And if I … start something I’m going to
finish it well. I get frustrated with my PhD because I know I have not done as
well as I could have, had circumstances been different. I … have done as well as
I could in the circumstances I had. I’ve tried very hard to make it the very best
PhD I could because of the circumstances I had that I could have done a much
better PhD if my circumstances had been different.

Tasha reiterated several times here that she was someone who finished tasks that they

started, and finished them well. The frustration was intensified by her particular

circumstances which she felt had impacted on the quality of her PhD. Tasha’s

persistence is even more remarkable when you realise at one time she was suicidal

(page 21):

But there have been a number of times with the PhD where I nearly chucked it in
… but there have been a number of points during this PhD where I nearly
chucked in life too … because of probably severe depression and I just thought
that being dead would be a whole lot easier. And when you want to be dead,
what’s a PhD? … I seriously used to just wanna be dead so … nothing really
was very important at that stage and that was during the … I took a year off. I
wasn’t doing the PhD at the time.

Tasha discussed how she developed clinical depression following a life-threatening bout

of pneumonia that resulted in her being in intensive care. She completely lost interest in

her PhD and in life (pages 21-22):

195
 I spent nine months in a psych unit so I was pretty sick. That was after I had
pneumonia. I suffered from severe post-traumatic stress disorder, major, major,
major depression and … it was … pretty bleak. [22 lines deleted] But … during
that time my PhD was just … I used to pretend I was interested in dealing with it
… perhaps to fool the psychiatrist … I went to bed every night hoping I wouldn’t
wake up the next morning. Wake up every morning wishing I hadn’t. Doing a
PhD was really … not something that meant anything.

It is a testament to Tasha’s remarkable resilience that she came through this experience

and returned to her PhD after a long and difficult absence. This was clearly an

extremely difficult time in Tasha’s life. She talked about the vital support she received

from friends when she was hospitalised with depression.

Peer support
Tasha’s friends demonstrated extraordinary kindness and persistence in meeting with

her towards the end of her hospitalisation (page 22):

Interestingly though, one of things that motivated me back towards my PhD was
two amazing friends that started their PhDs with me … now they’re doctors for
quite a long time. They … came … to the hospital where I was and they said,
“What can we do to help you get back to your PhD?” This was towards the end
when I was starting to get a bit better and they were just such … have always
been and are still, just such wonderful friends and motivators and … helpers
with my PhD.

As Tasha began to recover her friends worked to re-engage her with the research by

reading articles and discussing them. This kept her connected in some tangible sense

with the PhD (page 22):

You know, they can’t do my PhD for me, of course but … they said, “What can
we do? How can we help you? What would you like us to do?” And do you
know, they read articles for me. They brought three copies of articles that were
relevant to my PhD and … they both read them and they came back to me and I
read them and they read them, and they said, “Well, what did you make of this?
And what did you think of that? And why did you choose this article? And how
do you think this is relevant to your PhD? And this is what we thought and did
you pick up on this? And did you…?” And so we worked through a few articles.
We’d meet for coffee and work through a few articles at a pace that I could
handle. And just gently tried to keep some interest for me in my topic.

196
This gentle encouragement and support, even in the face of Tasha’s apparent resistance

or lack of interest at times, kept her connected and she re-emphasised its importance

(pages 22-23):

And I must have driven them around the twist and back again but gently … they
just kept prodding me gently. And every time I had some little victory “Oh you
wrote a paragraph this week. That’s fantastic! Great! What chapter was it in?”
“I don’t know if it will even go in a chapter.” But they were just … there. And I
guess things like … kept me going. And without those little helpers that … that
year, maybe I would have not kept going. I think fellow PhD students are … as I
said already, I’ve got a fantastic supervisor but fellow PhD students … I think
the support and encouragement that they give, especially when you find some
special ones like that. They keep you … in sight of the goal and genuinely
around for me have just been … brilliant.

Tasha recognised that without this support she may not have continued with her PhD.

She also emphasised the importance of peer support in a PhD student’s life, as noted by

several researchers (Leonard, 2001; Phillips and Pugh, 2005; Vale, 2004).

Supportive and collegial environment

Tasha described her School as a very supportive and collegial environment, something

that Andrea also mentioned as important in developing a research culture and

supporting research students. The Head of School and postgraduate coordinator keep in

touch with the students (page 23):

Where I am studying now in the School of Humanities, or was the School of

Humanities, there was a very, very supportive collegial environment unlike my
previous experiences with academia. [Two lines deleted] ... But of the ones that
come in regularly, we’re sort of checking up on each other and “how’s the study
going? And how’s life outside of here as well?” And we all have quite a few
things going on outside of uni that challenge us to keep up the study. But I think
… that we can use each other as sounding boards … really helps us to keep
going. [Nine lines deleted] And we all … lunch at the same time. There’s a big
group of the PhD students and four of the academics that lunch regularly
together. We have very lively conversations.

197
This developing research culture in Tasha’s School helped her to feel supported and

connected, not only with her fellow students but also with the academic staff and even

the Head of School (page 23):

But they’re also interested in all of our projects and I don’t know how they keep
everything in their minds. And often they must talk to each other about … who
each other’s supervising and stuff. One of them said to me the other day, I met
him in the corridor, “Oh [Tasha] I hear your project’s going really well. Almost
finished, that’s fantastic. And [your supervisor] said this and that and…” And
he went “Oh that’s really nice. It’s such good news. I always knew you’d make
it.” So those … support networks are there so that’s really nice and … even our
Head of School knows us all by name. There’s sixty-four PhD students in this
program and he knows us all by name. I think that’s pretty impressive.

The importance of a research culture within a School cannot be underestimated. Tasha

reported here that she had not only a group of students that she regularly interacted

with, but also a number of academics who joined them for lunch and took a genuine

interest in what they were doing.

Working independently
Tasha commented early in her narrative that the key to success in a PhD is self-

motivation and discipline, which can be challenging after the structure of an Honours

degree (page 6):

I think working independently is really hard … getting into the pattern of study
being work all the time and even though I’d done the Honours degree, there was
more structure in the Honours degree. [11 lines removed] You really need to be
consistent and … if you don’t have a plan for every day, you know, one day gets
messed up, the next day gets messed up, the next … a whole week’s gone by, two
weeks have gone … and it can even be messed up just by little things like
doctor’s appointments or having be at physio … and one fifteen minute
appointment can use up half a day. And it’s very, very easy to lose a couple of
days out of the week and your whole timeframe’s just gone.

Tasha understood that she needed to get into a routine, work independently and

consistently. It is very easy for a full-time student to have their time nibbled away by

198
little things, in Tasha’s case it was doctor’s appointments, thinking that they can catch

up later. This pushes the timeline out further.

Survival strategies
Tasha talked about being so close to finishing and the strategies that built her resilience

or what she called survival strategies. She discussed what worked best for her, including

being able to turn to friends for support and encouragement (page 31):

Persistence … persistence … Turning to friends … it’s really great when you

can email a friend or SMS a friend and just say “Help, it’s driving me crazy.”
Or “I’m just going totally out of my brain.” And you don’t have to say anything.
And they send you back an encouraging email. There’s been a couple of times
when I’ve done that, “I can’t stand this anymore.” And of course it needs to be a
friend who’s doing a PhD because otherwise they have no idea what you’re
going through and … they can send back emails that say, “It’s okay. We’ve all
been there. You’ll get through it.”

She highlighted here that peer support is most effective when it comes from friends who

have also been, or are going through, the same experience and who can understand what

you are going through (pages 31-32):

And sometimes it’s, “You really need to take a day off. Just go and go
completely away from your PhD. Don’t take anything home with you. Go and
take a day off.” Go for a walk … go to the beach. Go and watch a movie, have a
coffee and … I think having the freedom to contact people who really know what
you’re going through. That’s a really good survival strategy. I think that taking
a day off completely sometimes even at this really late stage, sometimes that’s a
really, really good idea. [26 lines deleted] It was the best thing and the
following day I had the best day working on my PhD. It must be the first day in a
month that I’ve had the whole day off and actually socialised. At this late stage I
have not allowed myself to take … time off … hardly at all but having that whole
day away from the study and then actually doing something fun … Oh it was just
fantastic and it was so refreshing and it really boosted my ability to work and I
thought, “Mmmm … that’s actually a really good idea. Maybe I need to do that
every week.” Because I’ve been at uni seven days a week, even on the days I’ve
worked, I usually go to uni after work and put in five or six hours work after a
day’s work and … I … think that perhaps … I should be making an effort to take
a day off. Having a clean break every … just once a week because it was really
a good thing to do.

Tasha noted that she had to be reminded that taking days off was important. This

balance between writing and then relaxing and re-energising, was critical.

199
She talked again in this part of the narrative about the importance of persistence,

organisation and self-motivation as factors in successfully completing a PhD (page 34):

But of the other stuff I think the greatest thing of all is just sheer persistence. I
actually think doing your PhD is about five percent intelligence. And I do
believe you probably have to have above average intelligence. I don’t believe
you have to be super, super bright. I don’t think you have to be … you know a
Rhodes scholar or a … Mensa … bright person. I think you have to have above
average intelligence but not brilliant. So it’s probably five per cent intelligence
and ninety-five per cent persistence. I wouldn’t say … ninety per cent
persistence and five per cent organisation. It probably helps a bit [laughs]
probably helps more than we know … if all of us made it twenty per cent
organisation we’d do a lot better at completing on time [laughs]

These aspects of persistence in her approach can be seen as the practical application of

resilience.

Tasha’s described her PhD experience as an “odyssey” and central to this were her

frequent bouts of illness which involved frequent hospitalisation. One devastating visit

to intensive care led to Tasha developing post-traumatic stress disorder and being

hospitalised with severe depression. Nevertheless, through the support of friends Tasha

stayed connected in with her research; and also found friends to be a good support at

other times. Tasha’s resilience was built through her experience of these illnesses and

through her determination to finish what she starts. She talks about the need for

persistence and perseverance, to just keep going one hour at a time.

Summary

All the women in this research faced challenges throughout their PhDs. Only Laura

spoke about the challenges as solely intellectual. For the other women illness played a

major role, either their own illness as in Tasha’s case, or that of a partner, family

member or supervisor. It would not have been surprising if, in the face of these

difficulties, the PhD was relinquished or postponed until a later time. However, in all

but one case the women persisted with their research despite the challenges.

200
This research suggests that resilience is developed through childhood experiences,

overcoming major obstacles and self determination to finish what has been started.

Mechanisms for building or enhancing resilience include peer support networks for

overcoming isolation; family support; understanding that you have to do this yourself;

and role models and mentors. The one woman who lacked resilience reported negative

childhood/family influences affecting her ability to cope with the pressures of the PhD.

While she began to build her confidence and start to develop networks within the

department once she started teaching, this confidence did not successfully transfer to her

PhD experience.

Several women mentioned that they finish tasks that they start, suggesting a trait of

perseverance that was already well developed. Understanding the way in which you best

work was also discussed, with several women noting that they had to work out for

themselves how to do this. For Karen, it was not listening to other people’s opinions and

establishing a clear workspace at home. In Andrea’s case, she needed to develop the

discipline to keep writing every day and work out her own routine, as well as a certain

amount of pressure to keep her focused. Eve had to often work through exhaustion to

focus on her research, but mentioned that the PhD gave her another focus at the time her

partner was given only weeks to live. Tasha also mentioned the need for persistence to

keep working on the research one hour at a time.

The research also suggests that child bearing and child rearing is not an impediment to

undertaking and completing a PhD. Three of the women in this research had, or were

having, children. This is not uncommon as many women students are in their thirties

when undertaking a doctoral degree. Contrary to the literature, both Andrea and Ebony

didn’t report that having children negatively impacted on their progress. In Andrea’s

case, utilising childcare worked well in order to provide clear time for her research.

201
Ebony negotiated with her husband and her employer in order to have time to focus on

the PhD. Her ability to negotiate and renegotiate as circumstances changed enabled her

to maintain focus on her studies. In Jane’s case the full impact of having a child during

her PhD was yet to be seen. She acknowledged that this was a choice that she had made

with her husband, knowing that it was likely to impact on her PhD and future career

options. The juggling of caring duties and PhD is, however, a highly gendered issue.

For Elena, the other woman interviewed in this research, her experience was very

different. Her narrative described how she eventually withdrew from her research

degree. As her experience contrasted sharply y with the other participants, her story is

analysed separately in the chapter which follows.

202
 Chapter Seven — Elena

Only one of the women who participated in this research did not complete her PhD.

Elena withdrew after being enrolled for approximately three years. During this time she

did not submit a candidature proposal which is a requirement of the university after six

months full-time enrolment. Elena also changed supervisors. I thought it would be

helpful to examine Elena’s case as a separate chapter in order to investigate why she did

not manage to complete her degree. She appeared to be on an academic career path

more typical of young men than women. She was a high achieving Honours student

who was encouraged by her Department to apply for scholarships to undertake

postgraduate research. Her initial motivation for enrolling in a PhD was to become an

academic. However as will be evident in this chapter as her story unfolds, her

motivation was affected by difficult departmental politics and an extremely negative

experience with her first supervisor.

The elements in Elena’s story need to be teased out to understand the triggers that can

turn a high flying young woman PhD candidate into a hugely unconfident and confused

individual. It is also worth exploring to what extent gender was a factor in Elena’s

negative experience. This chapter follows the structure of the previous analysis chapters

– Elena’s motivation is analysed, then her supervisory relationships and lastly evidence

of resilience.

Motivation

Elena’s motivations for doing a PhD were largely extrinsic in nature. Her narrative

conveyed early thoughts of an academic career that would enable her to become a

university lecturer; and the encouragement and pressure from both her family and

academic staff in the Department in which she undertook her Honours year. As will be

203
demonstrated, her experience within the Department, both with her supervisor and

dealing with departmental politics, adversely affected her motivation for an academic

career.

Motivation to commence
With Elena there was always an expectation from her family, primarily her mother that

she would go to university (page 2):

So there was always an expectation for me to go to uni, and to follow through.

But my Mum really was the one that was pushing me to do something really
whizz bang like being a doctor or a lawyer and things like that and my heart just
wasn’t in that stuff but I really went to university not knowing what I wanted to
do.

Elena’s first mention of motivation highlighted the extrinsic family pressure to succeed

academically. While a high-flyer at school she was relieved to find the university into

which she had been accepted didn’t offer law. Pressure from her mother to succeed

academically was a strong thread in Elena’s narrative.

Directly following this section, Elena first mentioned another of her strong extrinsic

motivations to commence her research degree – to embark on an academic career (page

3):

I thought I wanted to be an English teacher and I wanted to be a lecturer … my

Mum did take me to a lot of Open Days at universities and things so I sort of had
a fair idea of what was going to be needed to become a university lecturer so I
kind of knew that that’s where I was …

She started her undergraduate career then with the idea that she would like to pursue an

academic career.

204
The pressure from home to succeed continued throughout her Bachelor of Arts and into

her Honours year. In this excerpt Elena explains the push to go into Honours as it was

considered the more “prestigious” option (page 4):

I went through my Bachelor of Arts and again, like it was a logical progression
because there was that pressure from home to keep going. You know “this is
what you’ve gotta [sic] do, you’ve gotta [sic] go the whole way and then you’ve
got to go out there and get a job and then eventually you’re going to get
married,” so there was, everything was mapped out so of course I applied for
my Honours and my Graduate Diplomas and I did get accepted for a Graduate
Diploma in Psychology in Counselling Theories, but I ended up going the
Honours because it was more prestigious and obviously again you know there
was that pressure at home to take the most prestigious option rather than the
option that maybe would have suited me better.

This excerpt indicates the way in which Elena’s choices were shaped by family

pressures in the lead-up to her Honours year. It is perhaps not surprising then that she

was vulnerable to pressure from the Department to continue her studies into a PhD, as

discussed in the excerpts below.

Elena achieved high academic results in her Honours year and gained considerable

support from academic staff in the Department (page 5):

Honours year finished and again you know one of the top two in the class so it
really set me up and there were lots of people in the department backing me,
saying, “she’s brilliant, she’s gonna [sic] go places, let’s give her a
scholarship” so … it was almost like … I was on a bit of a rollercoaster. It was
like “I’m gonna [sic] ride this and see where it goes.”

Elena’s success and the academic staff support also incorporated an expectation that she

would continue to a PhD. As she went on to explain in the continuation of this excerpt

this brought with it additional pressure to succeed (page 5):

I think looking back that there was a lot of pressure on me, not only from home
but from uni at that stage because I had achieved so much to actually keep
going. And there was the message of “this’d be a shame if you threw this away”
and … it was an underlying message, it was never said and it was all, also stuff
like, “we’ve given you a scholarship and this is really amazing that someone as

205
 young as you has been given a scholarship” and that was said. And that was a
lot of pressure to keep going.

The pressure that Elena reports could be construed as a negative motivation. Her

mother’s expectations that she succeed academically, along with Elena’s academic

abilities, now combined with a push from the Department to continue her studies by

undertaking a research degree.

Elena then discussed her success in gaining a scholarship, initially in terms of the

prestige associated with being awarded an Australian Postgraduate Award and being

allowed to enrol directly from Honours into a PhD (page 5):

So when I was granted a scholarship I applied for it, I was granted a

scholarship to do, it was an Australian Postgraduate Award as well, so that was
even more prestigious … that was to do postgraduate research and initially my
application was for a Masters, but because I’d achieved the scores that I’d
achieved, the university also agreed to let me go straight into [a] PhD.

This excerpt contrasts with some of the other women in this research, where the first

mention of the scholarship was in relation to the financial support necessary to

undertake a research degree. Although Elena did mention later in her narrative the

financial support provided by the scholarship, at the outset her focus is on the academic

prestige associated with the awarded. In continuing her narrative Elena re-emphasised

this pressure from the University that being awarded a highly sought after scholarship

brought with it (page 5):

And yet again, unbeknownst to the University that was incredible that … level of
pressure was huge … [6 lines deleted] … [sighs] then I guess the other thing
that happened around my PhD, so here we are we’ve got all this stuff, you know
“you’ve gotta [sic] do it” you know all these messages about “you’ve really
gotta [sic] do it, this is an opportunity too good to miss, nobody’s been given
this opportunity before and here you are in this position, it’s a fabulous position
to be in and we’ve recognised your skills and we’re going to give you a
scholarship and we’re going to let you go straight to your PhD.”

206
The external messages Elena reported were a strong influence on her decision to

undertake a PhD.

Lastly, in relation to motivation to commence the PhD, Elena talked about her

understanding that she needed a PhD to be a lecturer. As mentioned at the beginning of

the narrative, she identified early in her undergraduate degree that she initially wanted

to be a lecturer. I later drew her back to this point (page 17):

Yes definitely. I was told very clearly [10 lines deleted] I could see it, and I
could see that every academic now had a PhD. So it wasn’t just something that
I’d been told, it was something that I could see was going to happen … so I
definitely … if that’s where I wanted to be, that’s what I had to do.

In looking at Elena’s motivations to commence a PhD we can therefore see strong

extrinsic motivation with encouragement from family and academic staff, and wanting a

PhD in order to develop an academic career as a lecturer.

Motivation to continue
There was negative motivation to continue with her PhD in order to become an

academic. Elena’s image of “an academic” and her subsequent experiences while

undertaking her PhD were incongruent, and this impacted on her motivation to

continue. She became disillusioned with what she saw as the politics and pressure in the

Department. Her motivation to get a PhD in order to become a lecturer underwent

significant change as she experienced politics within the Department (page 16):

I became disillusioned as well when I found all this out because I thought …
surely after two students have spoken to you about the same issues [a difficult
supervisor], independently, you would do something about it but nothing was
done about it. And that was really, that sort of started the downhill slope for me.
I sort of started to go “Oh my God … what I am doing in this field? And this
isn’t the kind of dynamics I want to be involved in.” It just, all those starry-eyed
ideas about what it was going to be like to be a lecturer and things were gone. I
just lost … lost its glitter.

207
Although Elena acknowledged above that her understanding of being a lecturer was

“starry-eyed”, she explicitly stated that she did not want to be involved in these kinds of

“dynamics.” She went on to describe her initial image of how she thought an academic

behaved. This incorporated sharing knowledge and empowering students (page 16):

Yeah and the image for me was about, it was someone in a very prestigious, very
powerful role who had, didn’t abuse that power. Someone who was very
professional, who used that power in order to share knowledge to students, to
empower students and make them feel that they were capable to do anything
they wanted to do. And I realised that that wasn’t what it was going to be about.

However, this image was not borne out by her experiences. She continued in the

following excerpt to explain how she came to realise that academic careers were highly

competitive in nature (page 16):

And that … it was almost a dog eat dog type of mentality. It’s who can step over
who to get the funding to get the research up and running and the more
publications you had, and really [first supervisor] had that down pat. He had it
organised, he knew what he needed to do to churn out the research. He knew
how to get the funding, he knew how to use the system; he knew how to use his
students to access the funding that he normally wouldn’t have access to. And
that was disappointing.

This new perspective changed Elena’s motivation for an academic career, as she

observed that her first supervisor’s single-minded focus on his own career advancement

included using his postgraduate students to access funding. Even her change in

supervision couldn’t ameliorate the negative impact of the behaviour of her first

principal supervisor (page 16):

And although I had this person on one side who was doing everything so wrong,
I had this other supervisor who I picked up later, [second supervisor], who was
so above board and he just did everything right. He just got … I just couldn’t get
over that I was going to have to work with people like [first supervisor]. [I:
Okay, so that whole experience of what it can be like in the department as an
academic…] Yeah, yeah it really frightened me. That’s not what I want to be
working in amongst. I want a positive working environment, I want to know that
I’m going to be with people who are going to share their knowledge and aren’t
going to be frightened of each other, you know, each other’s expertise or feel

208
 threatened by it. And I really, I still to this day don’t see why you need to be
threatened.

She understood now that undertaking an academic career would mean cooperating with

other academics whose working practices may be like those of her initial supervisor.

This was not a working environment to which she aspired.

The scholarship provided financial motivation to continue as a major source of income.

Elena had now moved out of home and was supporting herself (page 13):

I think what I did, if I remember rightly is I took holiday leave or something,

because I must have had to … the income I was relying on at the time was the
scholarship income and also the tutoring income so I can’t remember exactly
how I did it, but I must have taken some sort of holiday leave which must have
been paid. And once that had run out that’s when I panicked. [Nervous laugh]
And I just realised that I couldn’t go on like that and that I was doing myself and
other students an injustice by hanging in there when I didn’t really want to be
there. And the more it wasn’t the right place for me to be at that time.

Elena’s motivation to continue partly centred on this financial support. Remaining

enrolled allowed her to receive scholarship income as well as income from sessional

teaching.

Elena’s motivation was multi-layered and the four factors she discussed were all

extrinsic in nature. She was encouraged by her family to go to university and performed

well in her undergraduate degree. The strong grades enabled her to gain a prestigious

scholarship, giving her the financial motivation to enrol and continue in postgraduate

research. Although Elena noted elsewhere in her story that the scholarship was one

factor that kept her tied to the PhD when she experienced difficulties with her

supervisor, as an initial motivation the scholarship was predominantly linked to a sense

of prestige and achievement. Elena noted that she perceived, with hindsight, an intense

pressure to continue and succeed. Her motivation was clearly linked to her desire to

209
become an academic and her understanding that universities were putting pressure on

lecturing staff to have a PhD qualification. However an academic career as a motivating

factor “lost its glitter” as she experienced difficult politics within the Department.

Supervision

Much of this chapter focuses on unravelling the complexity of the relationship between

student and supervisor. The literature considers this is central to a rewarding experience

as a PhD student. When the relationship does not work the risks for both parties, and

potentially for the university, are great. By focusing on what went wrong lessons can be

learnt for all parties.

Elena’s experience of supervision was vastly different from that of other women in this

study. She had a male supervisor, as did several other women. However for Elena this

supervisory arrangement soon became dysfunctional. The second supervisor she

approached, after 18 months enrolment, was also male. There were some similarities

between Elena’s and Jane’s experiences, in that Jane’s supervisor pushed her for more

and more experiments. By contrast, Jane had some negotiation strategies which helped

her deal with this situation. Much of Elena’s narrative centred on her first principal

supervisor and the destructive nature of their relationship. Her language is very strong

and negative in tone when she discusses him, and she often repeats words. It was clear

during the interview that she had difficult talking about this supervisory experience

even several years after she had withdrawn from her PhD.

210
Beginning of supervisory relationship
Elena chose her supervisor based on what she thought she knew of him from her

undergraduate classes, but she did not mention any discussion at the outset about their

mutual expectations of the supervisory relationship (page 6):

What had happened to me is I had a lecturer that I really, really admired

throughout my uni years and I just thought this lecturer was just so above board
and on the … ball and very professional and I approached him to be my
supervisor and he agreed. So on top of that I had this highly sought after
supervisor who unfortunately didn’t nurture me and really, really broke me
down, and at the end of it, for me, that’s, that’s really, really what caused [she
stutters here a bit, repeats really, what and caused] me to back out of my PhD,
just that initial experience …

Elena appears to have fallen for the flattery of being accepted by this “highly sought

after” supervisor without any prior interaction, other than in a classroom. Leonard

(2001) pointed out that this is a common problem for many women students. An initial

discussion regarding meetings, feedback and support would have given Elena an

indication of the incongruent expectations she encountered. Elena wanted someone to

nurture and support her, but her supervisor appears to have expected her to be very

independent (page 6):

But what I really needed at that time to get through was somebody who was
really nurturing and supportive and was pretty much saying to me stuff like what
I was listing before “you’ve got what it takes and you can do this,” where what I
had in contrast to that, in reality was a supervisor that was saying to me, “I did
my degree in another country. In that country you weren’t given any support.
You should be able to do this on your own. Go away, do the work and come back
and show me. And I don’t really want to see you for the next three or four
months until you’ve achieved this task.”

Elena’s principal supervisor had a markedly different supervisory style from the one she

purported to require, especially in regard to regular meetings and support. Elena

reported that he told her to go away and write the candidature proposal and come back

in a few months’ time.

211
Regular meetings
As outlined above, there was a lack of initial understanding between student and

supervisor regarding their respective roles. Elena indicated she needed someone to

whom she could ask questions at supervision meetings, but the reported interaction

above indicated her supervisor offered little guidance and expected few or no meetings

in the first four months. This excerpt follows directly from the previous one (page 6):

Where for me it was a question … which I would actually go to supervision

thinking, “I’ve got so many questions to ask and I’m afraid to ask them …
because I should know this.” And that message was given to me really, really
clearly [I: and if you don’t know it you have to find it out for yourself] exactly,
and that’s … what devastated me. It was just the worst, worst experience and oh,
how do I say it? I was really disappointed in myself, because I realised I’d made
the wrong decision when it was too late.

Elena realised in her first few months of enrolment that she had made an error in the

choice of supervisor. She reported a very traumatic experience with her first supervisor

and the match between student and supervisor was not good. The negative language she

uses to express herself, in particular the repetition of words, only serves to emphasis her

distress, even though this experience happened several years prior to the interview.

Support and encouragement

It is interesting that Elena knew that she had made the wrong decision, as indicated in

the last two lines of the extract above, but says that she realised “too late.” She outlined

in the narrative her awareness of the type of support and encouragement she required,

and explained in this excerpt that there was another person who would have been a

more supportive supervisor (page 6):

Because I had another supervisor who was willing to back me but he wasn’t in
my field and he was incredibly supportive and he was the one that helped me
through the scholarship phase and really gave me the confidence to do all that
stuff and I just let him go because he wasn’t in my field of expertise, and I just
thought, “I can’t do a thesis in an area I’m not interested in.” But in looking
back things would have been totally different if I’d gone with that supervisor.

212
She did have an alternative supervisor in mind who was very supportive and “gave her

the confidence” to apply for the scholarship but he was not in her area of research. This

seems to support the argument that even if the supervisor’s expertise does not closely

align with the student’s research topic but can provide the type of support required, the

relationship may be successful (Leonard, 2001; Phillips & Pugh, 2005; Vale, 2004).

Elena went on to discuss the behaviour of her supervisor in terms that strongly suggest

bullying. Again the language she used was very strong. When Elena approached her

supervisor for advice in one of the early supervision sessions, she reported that he told

her she should know this, which did little for her fragile confidence, and he did not

suggest any useful strategies such as referring her to the library staff or suggesting she

undertake some training sessions (page 6):

But unfortunately I didn’t, I got this other supervisor who was … became very
arrogant and very domineering and really put me down a lot and I just totally
lost my confidence. I crumbled and as the months went past and I wasn’t able to
do the really basic things, and I knew that I should know, but I just didn’t know,
I didn’t have anyone to talk to and I was too ashamed to go and ask for help …
[four lines deleted] … I remember you know, having a supervision session
where that was my top question and, “how do I do this?” And the response
being, “Well, you should know this and if you don’t know this, you shouldn’t be
doing this.” And that was one of my first supervisions and that’s what I went
away with, feeling absolutely incompetent and stupid and wondering like, “How
could I have gone from being a First Class Honours scholarship student to
somebody who was so dumb and so stupid and really didn’t deserve to be in this
position?”

The lack of support and encouragement from her supervisor in the early stages of

candidature appears to have exacerbated Elena’s underlying insecurities regarding her

own abilities. Elena continued in this excerpt to explain (page 7):

So it actually brought out the insecurities that I had about myself. And it was
that stuff about feeling like I was a bit of a fraud. Like how did I ever get here …
maybe I’ve just tricked everyone into believing I’m smart. Do you know what I
mean? So those little niggly insecurities that I had about myself, this supervisor
managed to bring out and he brought them out very, very quickly.

213
As well as needing a supervisor who was more supportive and “nurturing”, Elena also

looking for someone who would help her to set goals and boundaries. While she had

been a First Class Honours student, Elena was very young when commencing the PhD

and appears to have succeeded as an undergraduate by knowing and meeting defined

tasks. Contrast this experience of knowing what is expected and how to excel, with a

research project which is independent, (largely undefined until you define it for

yourself), and self-motivated. She was likely to have a more productive working

relationship with a supervisor who was prepared to work closely with her and encourage

her to become a more independent researcher. Her sense of incompetence and fear were

internalised and escalated as time passed and the lack of support from her supervisor

continued (page7):

And it wasn’t supportive and it just progressed to a point where, you know my
candidature was due to be handed in, six months rolled around, that didn’t
happen. Seven months, eight months, and the more that time went past and the
more I struggled, the more incompetent I felt and it got to about a year when I
cracked. [eight lines deleted] … having a supervisor that wasn’t going to
support me through doing the very basic stuff, it just impacted on it as well, just
sort of the fear … so about a year passed before anything happened in terms of
me like I, initially I internalised it all and thought I really am stupid, I shouldn’t
have this opportunity, this opportunity would have been better given to another
student … going through all that guilt, not being able to go home and have
anyone to talk to about it. Not being able to admit to my Mum that I was
struggling for fear of her, you know, sort of perceiving me as a failure.

The above excerpt highlights Elena’s sense of failure, isolation and the lack of support

she perceived from her supervisor. She used the word “cracked”, a strong and very

evocative word, to describe reaching the point at which she decided to take action.

Negotiating supervision
After twelve months, Elena tried to get help by talking to a visiting female research

professor in the Department and then, on her advice, the Head of Department. However,

the Head of Department strongly backed the supervisor and sent her back to work out

214
the differences with him. This form of negotiation with the Department didn’t work for

Elena (pages 8-9):

She was such an admirable woman, she was the one that supported my
application for a scholarship … and I went to her and she was tied at that stage
too … later on I started to realise that there were dynamics in the department as
well at that stage. She could see that things weren’t right but she was tired of
fighting as well and she really didn’t have the energy to go through with another
complaint or another, I guess, disappointment for her. And, I remember going
from [visiting professor’s] office and [her] sort of saying to me something like
maybe you need to talk to [head of department] about it and then me going in to
[the head of department] and [she] brushing it totally aside and pretty much
making me feel like I was making things up and that it wasn’t really happening
the way that it was, and that I should just go back and try and deal with it one
on one with my supervisor.

Literature on managing supervisory relationships mentions utilising a third party, such

as the postgraduate coordinator or Head of Department (Leonard, 2001; Phillips &

Pugh, 2005). But in Elena’s case this strategy was not successful. Her Head of

Department did not offer to sit with both student and supervisor to help negotiate the

difficulties Elena reported, nor did she suggest a third person who could intervene in

order to resolve the situation. I probed Elena to elaborate (page 9):

It’s the feeling that I got but she said things like, “I don’t think that that’s going
to happen.” And, “He’s a very good lecturer and I think you could go and talk
to him about it” and I was saying “Well, I don’t feel I can” because by that
stage all of … I’d placed this supervisor on such a pedestal and it had crumbled.
It just crashed down, because I thought he was just somebody who was very
intellectual, had lots of insight in his own process, was able to nurture, but I
found that he was totally opposite to all that ... [12 lines deleted] … and it got
more and more to the point where I didn’t want to be under him, but also I was
really frightened of him because he was sat on the committees that were going to
review my project, and so I let it go and let it go and it just got to 18 months and
it was critical. I was just … this is not good, I mean I’m halfway through my
PhD, I haven’t even finished my candidature.

The advice Elena received was to go and talk with her supervisor about the issues that

she had raised. However she reported here that she felt unable to do this. Again the

language she used, particularly at the end of this extract, was evocative. She talked

about putting the supervisor on a pedestal, which then “crumbled” and “crashed down.”

215
While unable to negotiate with him, Elena’s candidature time continued to tick away

with no tangible progress.

Elena once more tried to reassess her situation at the midpoint of her candidature and

seek support elsewhere. She approached another supervisor who agreed to take over the

supervision and was willing to support her in talking to her current supervisor (pages 9-

10):

Luckily by that stage I overcame my humiliation and I actually approached the

initial supervisor who I should have gone with, and said to him, “This and this
has been going on, this is the feedback I’ve been getting in my supervision, I’m
really struggling, I don’t know is this the right thing for me.” And he was
mortified … at what had been happening. And he also was afraid … not afraid,
he was mortified as to the lack of confidence I had in myself. And he was
sensational because he said to me, “Look,” he goes, “everything is water under
the bridge now, don’t worry.” He goes, “What do you want to do?” And I said,
“I don’t want him as my supervisor anymore. I’m frightened of him” and he said
to me, “Well you need to think about that pretty much because who’s going to be
your supervisor?” and I said to him, “well, I should have always gone with
you.”

This second supervisor had been her Honours supervisor and she noted that he was

“mortified as to the lack of confidence she had in herself.” He offered her a high level of

support, but Elena made the decision to approach her current supervisor on her own

(page 10):

What he said to me was, “I will support you, don’t think this is going to be easy
because it’s not. I know this isn’t going to be easy. I don’t want you to be going
through that because you’ve got a brilliant career ahead of you. I will support
you through this. I will be your supervisor, even if this isn’t my area of expertise.
We’ll try and work around it. I will supervise you. Do you want me to go into a
meeting with him, and you tell him that you don’t want to be supervised by him
anymore?” So he really supported me … And I just said to, you know, my
saviour, and I know I can say here that he was my saviour. I said, “Look I really
feel like there’s a level of responsibility from me in that I need to do this on my
own.”

Elena’s second supervisor can be seen in the excerpt above to offer her support and

encouragement both to continue with her degree and resolve her supervisory problems.

216
But her decision to approach the first supervisor to discuss their working relationship

was disastrous. She claimed that he bullied her and resorted to emotional blackmail

(page 10):

But that was a big, big mistake because when I went in to do that on my own I
was specifically told, “Oh really, you want to do this? Don’t forget,” he goes
“about who you’re dealing with. Be careful what you say because I am on the
committees that review your candidature and ethics”. [I: So it implied threat?]
Yeah, and he said, “you be careful what you say” and he made it very clear and
that was the end of that session. He made it very, very clear that should I step
out of line he was going to make it very difficult for me.

We must be careful in interpreting Elena’s narrative as the other person is not able to

provide their side of the story. We are relying on the “reported speech” from Elena and

after some time has elapsed, this reporting may not be accurate (Riessman, 2007).

However she clearly had had a traumatic experience which still had an emotional

impact on her. The words she chose to convey her story were strong and she reported in

detail several instances of her initial supervisor’s behaviour. In the excerpt above, he

doesn’t refuse her request to change supervisor. What is implied is that she should not

discuss her experience with him in a negative way. If she did, he would make life

difficult for her within the Department and with confirmation of her candidature.

Elena, later in her narrative, mentioned that when she talked to her first supervisor about

changing supervisors, she tried to soften the blow by saying it was about her and the

style of supervision she needed (pages 18-19):

I said to him that I didn’t want to be supervised with him anymore and that I
think I would be better off with another supervisor. I felt that our styles clashed
and just that it wasn’t working for me. And I really tried to take the
responsibility for that, to try and sort of lessen the blow … and it just wasn’t
working, and I’m so behind and there’s [sic] reasons for it.

However, this approach did not elicit a supportive response from her initial supervisor.

217
While Elena started working with her new supervisor who by contrast was supportive,

she stated that she never fully recovered (page 11):

And I ended up going back … to [new supervisor] and saying, I was really
traumatised and I said this, this and this, and [new supervisor] was just blown
away again. Because [new supervisor] is really above board in his practice,
he’s so transparent, he’s so professional, so above board. He couldn’t believe it
almost, but he did believe it because I found out later that he also had
knowledge of … how [initial supervisor] practised in other areas … [six lines
deleted] … but you know seeing also what had happened with the other student
and her feedback to me, I started to realise you know that this isn’t just about
me, this was really about the bad supervisor, unprofessional supervisor. And it
was a really, really hard time. I think [my new supervisor] would have … been
given a lot of grief but he never, ever told me about it. He always said to me,
“Don’t worry about it. Whatever happens don’t you worry about it. It’s not your
problem. It’s my decision to take you on. I know the risks. Don’t worry.” And
that was it, I think I spent the next 18 months with [new supervisor], but I never,
ever recovered.

Elena resolved her unsatisfactory supervisory relationship by finding a new supervisor

with whom she was able to discuss her concerns. She indicated above that although she

was certain her new supervisor may have experienced some difficulties within the

Department, he never discussed the matter. In her first 18 months she made little

progress. Even when she changed supervisors, the new arrangement did not help her

rebuild confidence.

This destructive initial supervisory relationship, coupled with a lack of emotional

support following the move out of home, was something from which Elena never

recovered (using her own words). Now at three years of full-time candidature and no

thesis proposal let alone a completed thesis, she reassessed her situation and decided to

take a break (page 12):

I took leave … I suspended it for a bit, for as much as I was allowed to. I think I
got another extension on leave, and then that brought me up to the maximum
allowable before I’d have to come back. And it was around the time that I’d
have to come back that I started to panic and that’s when I did even more
thinking and I’m like, “Nope [sic], I have to give this up”, and as hard as it is

218
 and I had to go to my supervisor and tell him, [new supervisor’s name], and that
was really hard because he’d invested a lot in me. But he was really good about
it because he just said, “Well, this is what’s right for you, and it’s okay and
don’t worry. And just go off and do what you need to do.”

Once she had used all her leave, Elena had to make a decision about what to do. She

decided to withdraw from the degree and advised her new supervisor. She recounted

that although disappointed, he supported her decision to do what was best for her at this

point in time. Interestingly when I probed further about her new supervisor’s reaction,

she admitted that he was not happy that she was giving up the PhD, but he was

nevertheless supportive (page 13):

I guess you could hear the silence [Laughter] but deep down he knew it was the
right thing for me, he knew I was struggling; he knew I’d never recovered from
what had happened. And that I … he really supported me. Yeah, so that was
what I needed. He didn’t make me feel like I was a failure.

Elena’s decision to withdraw from the PhD was a difficult one. The new supervisor

appears to have put Elena’s needs and wellbeing first in supporting her decision to

withdraw. She commented here that she still felt supported by him, even at the point she

made such a difficult decision.

Monitoring supervisor’s behaviour

Given Elena’s difficulties, this raises the question of who monitors supervisors and what

happens when difficulties are raised by students (or supervisors)? Elena, as previously

mentioned, raised her concerns with two senior women within the Department. She was

referred by one to the Head of Department, who suggested discussing her concerns with

the supervisor. Later in the narrative Elena discussed how she discovered that she was

not the only student who had concerns with this supervisor. It is interesting to note that

the three students mentioned in the excerpt below (Elena, the student she talks to, and a

further student referred to in passing) were all women (page 15):

219
 I’m not sure if it was [student name] that approached me or I approached her,
but anyway we started to talk about our experiences of being supervised, and
this was a little bit after also I had told [visiting professor] and [head of
department] as to what was going on ... I said to her, “Look I can’t believe that
these women aren’t doing anything to help me.” And it opened up the
communication channels and she said to me, “well that’s probably related to the
fact that I’ve actually made formal complaints about [this supervisor’s] practice
with me as a student. I’ve found him to be highly unprofessional, he puts me
down. I’ve gotten to a point where I almost want to give it in.”

As Elena started to discuss her supervisory experience with the first supervisor, and the

frustration at her perceived lack of departmental support, she found another female

student who had difficulties with the same supervisor. Even though this woman had

made formal complaints, Elena still had difficulty raising her concerns within the

department. She went on to elaborate that there was a third reported student who had

also experienced problems (page 15):

She said to me as well was that there was another student who had been
supervised by [first supervisor] who’d also, their PhD had stretched out for
years and years and years, and she was struggling for similar reasons … so
[sighs] that’s the stuff that was going on at the time. So obviously what had
happened as well, from what [student’s name] was saying to me was that [first
supervisor], being on so many committees, was pretty well respected and it
wasn’t difficult for me and her to understand why it was that he sort of
mesmerised a lot of people. He made everybody believe, he made me believe,
that he was so above board and so professional. You know he really came
across that way and it wasn’t hard for me to understand why other people on
committees and things were able to, were seeing that side and weren’t seeing
that controlling person.

In comparing her experiences with another student, Elena came to understand that their

supervisor had a strong professional reputation within the department. His image was

one of integrity and he was well-respected (page 15):

So there was all that going on, I mean … he was also very strong … strongly
liked by [head of department], which I didn’t know at the time. So he was a bit
of a charmer, to say the least and that became more apparent to me as time went
by and it helped me understand why nobody took any action. Because I mean the
big picture is that he was pretty powerful and what’s one student or two students
next to that kind of power.

220
The fact that he was well-respected in the Department apparently made it difficult for

other people within the department to acknowledge the problems that these students

encountered in their doctoral supervision. Elena said that she started to understand the

power differential that was at work. She continued to reiterate that she had raised these

issues with the Head of Department but considered that her problems weren’t taken

seriously (page 15):

He had so many people behind him and … what can you do when the
department manager or I’m not sure, I’ve forgot what they’re called, but you
know [the head of department] didn’t want to see it, she didn’t want to address
it, she didn’t want to acknowledge that it was a problem so what more could I
do? [I: Yep, when the head of department won’t do anything about it …]. Yeah,
what can you do about it? And I’ve gone there, and I’ve been honest and I’ve
put myself on the line. And I’ve been told to back and address it myself and they
can’t see what’s happening … and it was only later on that I actually found out
that it wasn’t only a problem for me, it was a problem for other women who’d
been supervised by him as well.

Although Elena and other female students had raised concerns, the Department

supported this supervisor and his reputation remained intact. Elena also pointed out in

her narrative that these concerns were noted by her new supervisor, but not by others in

the Department who had the ability – and responsibility – to do address the matter (page

18):

It didn’t need to be acknowledged by [second supervisor], it needed to be

acknowledged by the people who had the power to do something to change it …
it needed to be, not even addressed but just acknowledged that this had actually
happened, and this was fact. And that this man’s capable of doing this and we
need to watch him, we need to be careful … [I: yep, so no one was monitoring
the supervisors?] … No, yeah and not only that, the person who was probably
monitoring the supervisors was the person who was doing the abusing. He was
the one on the committees, on the research committee, on the ethics committee.

Part of the problem for Elena was that while the University purported to be monitoring

supervisors, the supervisor causing her so much difficulty was one of the people doing

the monitoring, as a member of postgraduate research committees.

221
Elena had difficulty relating her story, even after several years. Her language was very

negative when she spoke of her initial supervisor and the difficulties she encountered.

Her narrative highlighted the importance of negotiation in a student-supervisor

relationship, as well as the benefit of having an additional supervisor who could provide

additional support that she needed. It also emphasised that these negotiation should

begin prior to entering into a supervisory relationship. If a student can openly discuss

the expectations of a supervisor before deciding to enrol, they will have a better

understanding of the future relationship. Elena’s narrative also underlined the need for a

student to have someone to turn to within the Department, or even externally, such as a

postgraduate research office, to discuss concerns particularly when the student feels that

they are not being taken seriously by the Head of Department. While the Department

had research and ethics committees in place which purportedly monitor some student-

supervisor issues, what happens when the supervisor in question is a member of those

committees? Who polices the police?

Resilience

Elena’s story is important in terms of persistence and resilience, because of the eight

women who participated in this research she was the only one who didn’t finish her

degree and the factors that affected her resilience were all negative. They included: an

unsupportive supervisor as discussed in detail above; lack of confidence in her ability;

fear; internalising the guilt of taking a scholarship opportunity that could have been

given to another student; feeling unable to discuss this with family; the strong influence

of her mother; and lack of peer support and friends.

222
Family background
Elena mentioned the fear and internalised guilt that developed in the first year of

candidature when she was not making progress. She was afraid of being perceived as a

failure, particularly by her mother, and thus was unable to admit that she was struggling

(page 7):

Not being able to go home and have anyone to talk to about it. Not being able to
admit to my Mum that I was struggling … for fear of her … perceiving me as a
failure. [I: so you were in a way going home and covering up the fact that you
weren’t…] That’s definitely it. Like my Mum wouldn’t have even had a clue as
to the turmoil that I was in at the time. And I just wouldn’t have been able to talk
to her about it.

Elena internalised these feelings and did not believe she could explain what was going

on to her mother. She was afraid of being considered “as a failure”. Elena’s discussion

of her upbringing highlighted the pressures from her mother to succeed. She specifically

mentioned maternal control during her school years and how this resulted in few friends

to whom she could turn (page 7):

And there was really no one else for me, because I didn’t really have many
friends, I didn’t have the opportunity to establish you know friendship networks
and … it was hard.

This strict and inflexible family environment meant that Elena now had little in the way

of peer support or other people to turn to for help or guidance. Her mother’s influence,

according to Elena’s reporting, was strong, critical and manipulative. Elena later

disclosed that she moved out of home within the first year after enrolling in her PhD to

escape this negative maternal influence (page 11):

At that stage I still, I’ve sort of missed a bit of my history but in the first year of
me getting [into] my PhD I moved out of home, because my Mum became even
more controlling and more obsessive and more critical.

As mentioned earlier, Elena’s scholarship provided the important financial

independence needed to move out from home. She reported in her narrative that her

223
mother had expected her to find a job when she finished her first degree. Elena’s

decision to continue on to a research degree, even with the scholarship, appeared to only

increase the tension at home and hence her need to move out.

Elena reflected later in her narrative that this opportunity to undertake a PhD on a

prestigious scholarship might have turned out differently for someone who had a

different childhood, indicating some degree of self-awareness of the barriers created by

what she perceived as a controlling mother (pages 19 -20):

I think that if they’d provided that opportunity to another student at my age at

that time, who didn’t have such a controlling childhood or controlled childhood
that person could have taken off with that, who had a more supportive home
environment. But I wasn’t that person. I had it tough at home and that … I think
that that in, my experience of home life was that I was the submissive person
that really needed to take instructions and that carried on to the way I
communicated when I did my PhD and it meant that I couldn’t advocate for
myself, I couldn’t acknowledge … my emotions, I couldn’t talk to my supervisor,
couldn’t be assertive with him, couldn’t follow the right channels for making
formal complaints. I didn’t feel empowered enough to do that. So that had a
huge impact … on the way that I functioned when I was at uni.

Elena considered that learned submissiveness early on meant she couldn’t be assertive

and she waited for other people to tell her what to do. As evident in the previous

chapter, this was an unfortunate legacy, especially when faced with a supervisor who

expected his postgraduate students to be independent. Importantly, on reflection Elena

was insightful about the link between her childhood and the bullying experienced at the

hands of her supervisor, but she seemed to be powerless to confront the behaviour –

either at home (she simply moves out) or at university (she stays enrolled until the

scholarship runs out and then withdraws from candidature).

Fear and guilt

Elena mentioned the fear and internalised guilt that arose in the first year of candidature

when she was not making progress (page 7):

224
 Having a supervisor that wasn’t going to support me through doing the very
basic stuff, it just impacted on it as well, just … the fear ... so about a year
passed before anything happened in terms of me … initially I internalised it all
and thought I really am stupid, I shouldn’t have this opportunity, this
opportunity would have been better given to another student … going through
all that guilt.

Self confidence
Elena reported excelling as a sessional tutor and research assistant, and thriving on it,

but this confidence was not transferred to her PhD. In a sense, Elena was seeking

diversions from the PhD that could restore her flagging confidence. Again she uses

strong language at the end of this excerpt, referring to the PhD experience as “misery”

(page 7):

And I actually took on some sessional teaching and I really buried myself in that
teaching. I loved it. I thrived off it. That was what kept me in my PhD for the full
three years … ’cause [sic] it was just the teaching, the stimulation, the contact
with the students, it was where I wanted to be at the time and also I was doing
some research assistant work and, and managing some projects which … it was
funny how my confidence was split. Where I could walk into a classroom and I
was really, really confident about my ability and I’d get the message across to
students and I’d get great feedback, yet there was this PhD that I was struggling
through and … it was misery.

The misery described coincided with the misery of her family situation, where her

mother became increasingly controlling. Perhaps the combination of this pressure was

overwhelming. While she made a decision to escape her mother’s influence by moving

out of home, she seemed powerless to escape her bullying supervisor.

But Elena’s confidence was restored through teaching. This enabled her to eventually

look at the PhD and what was going wrong. She identified the factors at play in her

psychological make-up that were impacting on her experience – namely wanting to be

liked, being taught to be submissive and not being openly critical – and the realisation

that she had to do something about it. As discussed above, Elena did seek help from two

225
senior staff in her Department, both women, but the Head of Department denied that

there was any issue and told her to go back to the supervisor and sort it out herself (page 8):

And one year comes around and that’s at the point where I thought, hang on a
minute, how can I be achieving … I’ve started to sort of ground myself again.
Like when I built up my confidence in other areas I started to … look at the
bigger picture and say well, “something’s not right here.” And I’ve also been
taught to be very submissive and to not be openly critical and I have also this
thing about wanting to be liked so I didn’t want to rock the boat but I got to a
point where I was like, “something’s not right here” and I’ve got to go and talk
to someone about it.

She talked about reassessing whether or not to with the PhD. This was made easier

because, by this stage, she had moved out of home (page 11):

And I just couldn’t cope with it and for me I think at that stage it was like, “I’m
going insane here.” So it was a bit easier for me to let the PhD go at that stage
because my Mum had absolutely no input into my future, and into my current
decision, so I just … sat down and I did a bit of an assessment and I said,
“Alright you know, you’ve learnt a lot, there’s a lot I still need to learn about
myself and the way, and how assertive I am in getting what I need.”

Realising that she had lost confidence in her ability to complete the PhD, and that she

could never make up the time already lost, Elena rationalised that she remained as a

postgraduate student in order to continue sessional teaching that she really enjoyed

(page 12):

I did the full three years of teaching; sessional teaching and I adored it. I loved
it and I realised that I was actually only in my PhD in order to maintain my
sessional tutor role within the department because otherwise I wouldn’t have
been able to be a sessional tutor. And I thought, “This is wrong. Am I doing my
PhD or am I doing this for teaching?” And it really was about teaching towards
the end and my PhD had been left for so long, I just felt like I could never catch
up all that work. And I just lost my confidence so much and by the end of it all I
just sort of started to think, “Well maybe you need to go out there and do
something outside of the University and sort of expand yourself in other ways, in
social ways and see what’s out in the bigger world before you come back to
this.”

This rationalisation of needing to be enrolled in a PhD in order to teach was possibly

misplaced, but it was her way of justifying why she continued to draw a PhD

226
scholarship while doing little if any work on the thesis. But the self-confidence Elena

developed through sessional teaching did not transfer to her PhD. In the excerpt above,

we can see the point at which she realised this and decided to get out of the University

system for a while. Elena decided to take a complete break, being was exhausted both

intellectually and emotionally (page 12):

And that’s what I did, and then … I had some good friends built up by then who
were really good supports for me and I talked it through. And of all the things I
decided to do was waitressing and just sort of give myself an intellectual break
’cause [sic] I think I was emotionally and intellectually exhausted.

As Elena’s confidence grew, aided by living away from home, she developed new

friendships. This support structure gave her colleagues with whom to discuss issues

during difficult times. Having been enrolled on a full-time scholarship for almost three

years, Elena finally took a break from the University.

Financial support
Although Elena reported not wanting to continue the PhD, she didn’t withdraw

immediately. This was due to both financial concerns and wanting to continue teaching.

After taking the annual leave provided by the scholarship she was running out of

options. A cynical interpretation could be that she used up the scholarship and when the

money ran out, a decision had to be made (page 13):

I think what I did, if I remember rightly is I took … holiday leave or something,

because I must have had to … the income I was relying on at the time was the
scholarship income and also the tutoring income so I can’t remember exactly
how I did it, but I must have taken some sort of holiday leave which must have
been paid. And once that had run out that’s when I panicked. [Nervous laugh]
And I just realised that I couldn’t go on like that and that I was doing myself and
other students an injustice by hanging in there when I didn’t really want to be
there. And the more it wasn’t the right place for me to be at that time.

Elena’s decision to take a break from the University at that time appears to be linked not

only to her growing confidence and recent reassessment of her situation, but also that

227
the scholarship would not continue indefinitely. She now had to support herself, but the

scholarship was drawing to a close. She also explained here that although the money

was running out, she was not being fair to other students by staying in the degree.

Breaking point
Elena’s evocative use of the word “cracked” earlier in her narrative indicated to me the

time that she reached breaking point. I drew Elena’s attention back to this word to

explore it further (page 14):

It was more about, “I can’t take this anymore, I can’t take being put down like
this anymore, I can’t take feeling like this anymore.” And it was just, “I’ve got
to do something about this because it’s getting too far down the track now; I’m
six months overdue. I just can’t take this anymore; I’m just drained ... so
drained.” And … that’s what it was about for me. It was just feeling like, “Oh
my god, this has just gone too far. I need to do something about this.” And it
was, I guess I say “cracked” because … I finally got to a point where I was
starting to think that this isn’t all my fault, and this is, you know I’m angry now.
Someone’s … screwed me over here. [Laughter] And I’ve been taking this all on
board as my own issues yet it’s not ... and that was like a huge turnaround for
me.

It is interesting that Elena is talking here about being six months past the deadline for

her candidature proposal. At the university where she was enrolled, the proposal is due

after the first six months of full time enrolment, meaning that Elena was now twelve

months into her enrolment. She is already referring to being at breaking point, and yet

she continued being enrolled for another two years until the scholarship was due to

expire before withdrawing. This could be due to not seeing any other options but to

continue and try to make up for lost time; it could also be due to needing the financial

support of the scholarship as she had now moved out of home. This reference to the

realisation that the entire fault did not lie with her, when taken in the context of the

whole narrative, is to some degree incongruent with Elena continuing her enrolment.

Did her reported family background and lack of self-confidence result in being unable

to resolve this situation? Did both of those factors also affect her resilience? Was Elena

228
thinking that she would be able to make up the time with a change in supervision? Elena

goes on in the excerpt below to acknowledge that she should have taken some leave at

this point in the candidature (page 17):

I should have taken time off, I should have time off right then and there and
come to grips with it and regained my confidence and then come back to do my
PhD, but I didn’t. Because it was like, “Oh my God, you’ve, you’ve fallen so
behind there’s no time to take any time off.” And that was a big mistake.

Elena’s decision not to take leave, which would have stopped her candidature clock

ticking, was due to a sense of being “so behind” already. She did not confide in others –

neither her new supervisor nor her friends – that she was not coping.

Asking for help

Elena elaborated on the fact that she didn’t indicate to anyone how she was feeling,

even though she had now changed to a more approachable supervisor (pages 17-18):

I don’t know that anyone thought of it, or that anyone identified because I think
also part of something that I keep … continue the work on … is that I can be
feeling like I’m going nuts inside, but I present this very relaxed and in control
on the outside and that wouldn’t have helped [second supervisor] in being able
to see that and say, “whoa, take the time out and then come back.”

By not revealing how she felt, Elena acknowledged that everyone probably assumed she

was coping. Thus they could not give her appropriate advice. Her lack of resilience

relates to an inability to take control of her situation and an inability learnt in childhood

not to express her emotions – “it was too dangerous” (page 18):

I wasn’t in touch with my own feelings enough. Because I was never as a child
able to express how I really felt. It was too dangerous … you were going to get
criticised if you expressed disappointment so I was never ever good at being
able to be in touch with my own feelings anyway. And my own processes, so that
was a huge learning curve for me in doing my PhD as well. Being able to
identify that, that niggly feeling inside, what is it and how does it need to be
addressed.

229
The passage reveals how Elena had learned not to express emotions, particularly

negative ones. This made it difficult for her to seek help and understand what she was

experiencing, and lack of self-awareness. Returning in the same excerpt to the question

of leave, she also explicitly stated that “nobody acknowledged that I’d actually been

through that” referring to her experience with her first supervisor (page 18):

I mean there was nobody there that could say what you’ve been through has
been hell, take the time off, because nobody acknowledged that I’d actually been
through that. Because it was all secretive and it was all … [first supervisor] …
the wonderful [first supervisor] … so how could I say that this … needed to be
addressed when nobody was acknowledging that that was a problem … [two
lines deleted] it needed to be acknowledged by the people who had the power to
do something to change it … it needed to be, not even addressed but just
acknowledged that this had actually happened, and this was fact. And that this
man’s capable of doing this and we need to watch him, we need to be careful.

Unable to express her emotions, Elena was unable to ask for the help she needed. This

was exacerbated by the point made here that people were not acknowledging that she

had had a difficult time. If they did not acknowledge it, how could they suggest ways

for her to move forward? It should also be noted that in her narrative, as discussed

above, Elena did seek assistance from two people within the Department as well as her

second supervisor, the people she refers to as having “the power to do something to

change it”, but her reported experience was not acknowledged or dealt with in a way

that enabled her continue.

Early childhood experiences therefore left her with little confidence and also left her as

a submissive person. One interesting aspect of the family story is the absence of her

father. Who taught her to be submissive? Her reporting of the influences on her

childhood indicates that it was her mother. Her cultural family experience is very

different from Laura whose family encouraged resilience. Although Elena’s resilience

began to build through the confidence she gained in teaching, and the development of

230
peer networks and new friendships, it was not sufficient to overcome the obstacles in

her PhD.

A key example of the impact of early life experience on resilience is illustrated in

comparing Elena and Laura’s stories. Both women are first generation Australians and

come from the same southern European background. Elena’s narrative outlines her

situation with a controlling mother and absent father. Her mother pushed her to succeed

in school, and stressed the importance of education, but within the narrow limitations of

her expectations. Elena initially had few friends and her self-confidence only grew

when she started taking tutorials in her department. In Elena’s case, earlier experiences

did not teach her how to cope with unfamiliar and difficult situations. She found her

supervisory experience to be emotionally fraught. Although she learnt some coping

mechanisms during her candidature, she was unable to complete her doctoral degree. In

contrast, Laura’s story is an example of supportive ways in which parents can raise

children to build strong self-esteem and resilience. Education was emphasised, with the

most important factor being that you must always do your best. Laura’s parents also

encouraged her to do things outside her comfort zone. Laura rarely mentions emotional

challenges in her PhD candidature and had a strategic, project management approach to

her degree.

Summary

Elena’s story is one of a high achieving young undergraduate woman who was

motivated to enrol in her PhD in order to become an academic. This extrinsic

motivation was also influenced by the encouragement from her Department to apply for

a scholarship. In her narrative Elena portrayed this encouragement as putting even

further pressure on her to succeed and reinforcing similar pressure for her family. Elena

also reported additional conflicting pressure from her mother to find a job and a

231
husband once she finished her Honours degree. She chose to cope with this conflict by

moving out of home in the first year of her PhD enrolment, which lessened the

influence of her mother.

Elena’s story is a good example of how one main external motivating factor, without the

intrinsic motivation of, for example, an intense interest in the topic can cause a

postgraduate student to falter when that motivation is challenged. Elena’s motivation to

become an academic changed dramatically when she experienced departmental politics.

The negative report of her first supervisor’s questionable behaviour in order to secure

funding was also a pivotal factor in her disillusionment with academia.

A key focus of Elena’s narrative was her difficult supervisory experience. There are a

number of lessons here. Her choice of supervisor was not based on a systematic

exploration of who would be a suitable supervisor and of what her requirements for

supervision might be. There were no preliminary meetings to investigate if the senior

academic she chose had a supervisory style compatible with her needs. She noted

clearly that she needed someone who would provide support, but given the time that had

elapsed between enrolment and the interview for this research, could her self-awareness

now be imposed on her experience at the time? Was she aware of her needs as a PhD

student? While it is clear that Elena may have avoided the destructive supervisory

relationship by interviewing prospective supervisors before committing to the

supervisory relationship (Leonard, 2001; Phillips & Pugh, 2005; Salmon, 1992; Vale,

2004), how likely is it that she had the knowledge and skills to do this at the time?

Elena’s case demonstrates the value of the recent move towards joint supervision at

most Australian universities. A designated second supervisor may have provided

another source of support and advice and, in particular, the experience and skills that

232
she didn’t report receiving from her principal supervisor. Although Elena eventually did

seek another supervisor, by the time she made this move it was too late. Her motivation,

confidence and energy were low. Moreover, this second supervisor could not heal the

rift between Elena and her initial supervisor which then deteriorated even further.

What was the role of the University, primarily the Department in this case? How was

Elena able complete three years of candidature without submitting the research proposal

which is due within six months enrolment? How could this lack of progress not be

picked up in the twice-yearly progress reports that all students are required to submit?

More worrying was the excerpt from Elena’s narrative where she reported that the

initial supervisor reminded, even warned, her that he held positions on several

committees that would oversee her work. The implied threat was that if she complained

about his supervision, he had the power to bring to the attention of the University her

unsatisfactory progress. She was therefore in a powerless position and saw few avenues

available to address the perceived injustice. Moreover, an approach to the Head of

Department led to untenable advice to talk to the supervisor with whom communication

had become severely strained. Why did the Head of Department fail to engage the

postgraduate research coordinator to mediate, or fail to suggest a range of other supports

available such as the postgraduate association or counselling services? It is clear that

Heads of Department have a duty of care when a postgraduate student approaches them

to report difficulties in a supervisory relationship to follow University procedures in

relation to resolving such matters. In this case the Head of Department clearly failed in

their responsibility to the student and in turn to the University.

Another lesson from Elena’s story is that resilience is, to a great extent, learned by

overcoming obstacles early in our lives. If we contrast Elena’s story with Laura’s we

see a good example of how experiences in childhood can affect resilience. Both young

233
women are first generation Australians from the same Southern European background

and both were raised in working class families. Laura’s case in the previous chapter

highlighted the way her parents encouraged her to problem solve and to persist when

she initially didn’t succeed. Laura used the persistence learnt early in life at several

difficult points in her candidature. She also reported being encouraged at school to do

her best, and not being judged if she was not top of the class.

Contrast this with Elena’s reported experiences of being pressured to succeed and

discouraged from making friends. She reported being initially isolated, but developed

some friendships in the Department when she undertook her research degree and started

sessional teaching. However when she encountered difficulties with her supervisor, she

did attempt to resolve the problem by speaking to two senior women, including her

Head of Department. Elena lacked the persistence to navigate her way through what

increasingly became an intractable supervisory situation. She came to internalize the

anger and confusion about what was occurring. Moreover she lacked strong peer

support networks that may have helped her deal with these difficulties.

What are the more general lessons for students, supervisors and universities from

Elena’s case? Firstly that students need to be aware of their own needs in relation to

supervision and not be afraid to “interview” potential supervisors to ensure that both

parties have similar working styles and expectations. Students also need to be aware of

their own motivation for undertaking the degree and how this might change. If Elena

had perhaps had a strong intrinsic motivation in her topic, might she have been

sufficiently engaged in her research to continue, even when her goal of becoming an

academic was affected by her experience with departmental politics?

234
Supervisors also need to be aware that students’ expectations and working styles may

contrast with their own. While in some cases strategies can be implemented to find a

way forward, both parties in the student-supervisor relationship must be willing to work

towards this goal. Supervisors may underestimate the influence that they can have on a

student’s motivation and confidence.

There are further lessons for universities. One is that university requirements for

reporting progress of candidature are there for a good reason. They allow progress to be

monitored and provide a mechanism for checking when lack of progress is identified. It

is also important that students know who they can turn to for advice and support in

difficult times, and for universities to ensure that students’ concerns are heard and

addressed.

The following chapter draws together the findings of the four analysis chapters and

provides links between the cases to highlight the importance of motivation, supervision

and resilience in these women’s experiences.

235
 Chapter Eight — Discussion

What do these women’s stories tell us in and of themselves? They provide very detailed

accounts of the years the eight women spent undertaking research and writing their

theses. While each woman shared a very personal and individual account of their PhD

journey, several common themes were examined within their narratives. Overarching

themes of motivation, supervision experiences and resilience have been analysed in

chapters four, five and six, while chapter seven provided a detailed case study of what

happens when supervision is unsatisfactory. This chapter analyses to what extent we can

generalise across cases; and what are the lessons from these experiences for women

current undertaking or considering PhD candidature, as well as for university policy

makers.

Motivation

The Dever et al.’s (2008) QUT study noted that female PhD graduates were

significantly more likely than male graduates to report that they pursued their PhD for

intrinsic motivation factors, such as interest in the discipline and thesis topic,

intellectual and academic development, and personal satisfaction. Extrinsic (or

instrumental) motivation includes career advancement, facilitating career change,

improving career prospects, acquiring specialist skills and improving pay. Dever et al

(2008) noted that extrinsic motivation has been linked to better career advancement

although perhaps this is “self-fulfilling”: if a student is in a field where a PhD will bring

advancement they are unlikely to advance further in their career without one. Students

would probably be attracted to such a field because it interested them; so there could be

some element of intrinsic motivation that was not analysed in the survey results.

236
The women in my research reported both types of motivation. The motivation in most

cases was complex and six participants reported a mix of both intrinsic and extrinsic

factors. Intrinsic factors were: personal interest in the discipline and topic; wanting to

prove oneself academically; enjoying learning for its own sake; gaining the title “Dr”;

and an interest in research generally. Extrinsic motivation included: wanting a PhD as a

prerequisite for an academic career; furthering or consolidating a career; improved job

prospects; gaining a scholarship; encouragement/influence from family and/or the

university; active encouragement from supervisor/s; wanting recognition from others;

and considering a PhD as a career option.

Does intrinsic or extrinsic motivation affect a candidate’s future career once they

complete a PhD? Dever et al (2008) and Western, Kubler, Western, Clague, Boreham,

Laffan & Lawson (2007) assert that motivation is one of the factors that may affect

women’s experiences post-PhD. The survey on which both these papers was based

found that, for female graduates, having strong intrinsic motivation such as an interest

in the discipline or topic area was linked to lower earnings post-PhD. This could be due,

as one woman in my study found, to a woman starting a family at the same time as

beginning a research career. Women may therefore be choosing part-time work in order

to balance work and family, or perhaps because not enough permanent part-time jobs

are available. Thus women are left only with the option of fixed-term or casual

appointments. But it may also be linked to women doing PhD’s in “feminised”

disciplines such as nursing and education that are considered low status and have low

post-PhD earning capacity.

Phillips and Pugh (2005) noted that wanting to undertake a PhD in order to gain the title

“Dr” could be a problematic motivation. For one woman in this study, getting the title

237
was an intensely personal motivation with elements of class interacting with poor

careers advice in secondary school.

Three of the women in this study highlighted the desire to pursue an academic career as

one of their motivating factors. For one, the seeds of that motivation were sown in her

Masters by coursework degree with her minor thesis supervisor encouraging her to

consider expanding the research to a PhD. This indicates how those with whom we

interact can positively or negatively affect motivation. As indicated in Chapter Five –

and discussed in further detail below – a supervisory experience of encouragement and

integration into academic life can position a student well for the next stage of their

academic career through induction into scholarly networks. This woman reported no

negative experience of departmental politics impacting on her decision to become an

academic. Instead, she was encouraged to take on sessional teaching and research

assistant work, as well as to present at conferences.

Her experience was in stark contrast to that of another woman who, as well as

experiencing serious supervisory difficulties, mentioned departmental politics as

negatively affecting on her decision to pursue an academic career. A third woman who

discussed an academic career as one of her motivations for undertaking a PhD, noted

the heavy teaching workload of academics within her department and consequently

talked about getting away from academia and back into the “real world” of work for a

while. But she had not discounted the idea of an academic career at a future point.

From this research we can discern effective and less effective motivation and their link

to positive PhD experiences. Motivation is multi-faceted and nuanced, and self-

awareness can enhance positive motivation. Getting the title “Dr” may be one

238
motivation to undertake a PhD. However it is unlikely to be strong enough to sustain the

intense efforts needed to complete a PhD. Positive experiences with potential

supervisors or academic staff in previous degrees can have a positive impact on

motivation. On the other hand negative departmental politics inhibit motivation,

particularly where motivation to undertake a PhD was strongly linked to wanting an

academic career.

The nuancing of motivation can blur the distinction between the different types of

motivation. Wanting the title “Dr” can be an intrinsic motivation which is also

influenced by other people’s expectations or advice. It is therefore important to be

aware that some factors in motivation can be blurred across both categories.

The table below outlines the effective and less effective motivational factors, both

intrinsic and extrinsic.

Table Eight: Effective and less effective motivation

Effective Less effective

Intrinsic Prove that you can achieve Wanting the title “Dr”
academically
Interest in the topic
Interest in the discipline
Interest in learning for its own
sake
Extrinsic Encouragement from supervisor Encouragement from School – can
– both to undertake and continue put pressure on the student to
the degree succeed
Financial support – can be an Wanting recognition – showing the
opportunistic motivation to world you can do more
undertake and continue the
degree
Wanting an academic career Impact of departmental politics on
wanting to become an academic
Role models – family, academic Financial support of a scholarship
can be a reason to stay enrolled
when a period of leave may be more
advisable and appropriate

239
Summary
All of the women in this research had more than one motivation for doing a PhD. In

some instances the motivations were complementary, such as a personal interest in the

topic and/or the discipline and wanting to begin or build an academic career. In some

cases they were incongruent – being awarded a prestigious scholarship was motivation

for one woman to start her degree, but the departmental pressure and expectations that

went along with it were de-motivating.

Supervision

Supervision is pivotal to the PhD experience and all the women talked at length about

their supervisors and the supervisory relationship, and frequently returned to this theme

throughout their narratives. This finding was in contrast to some literature that indicated

supervisory experiences were not always a key consideration (for example, Leonard et

al., 2005). In some cases it was the core of the narrative and in others it was a central

theme among others, such as peer support. A good supervisory relationship has a strong

link to successful completion. With these eight narratives what were the most successful

supervisory models? And what aspects of the student-supervisor relationships did these

women report as being most useful? Where there was more than one supervisor this

arrangement generally led to a good supervisory experience for students. But not all

supervisors were active to an equal extent and clear negotiation of different supervisory

roles by all parties was linked to more successful outcomes, as discussed below. Other

questions to be explored here include: does the way in which a supervisor was “chosen”

have an impact on success and satisfaction? How did the ability to negotiate with the

supervisor/s regarding boundaries and needs/expectations affect outcomes? And how

willing were the supervisor/s to participate in such negotiations? What role did support

240
during personal difficulties play? And did having a female supervisor have a positive

impact on the student’s candidature?

Contact with the supervisor prior to commencing the degree was positive in most cases

– the supervisor often encouraged the women to apply, in some instances helping with

scholarship applications. Early contact also appeared to help the women not only choose

a supervisor, but also negotiate the supervisory relationship. Successful supervision

arrangements included: support and encouragement from the supervisor, access to

networks and resources, encouragement to attend conferences and publish, availability,

and responding to draft chapters with timely critical feedback.

Supervisory models
Two of the eight women had a single supervisor. In both instances the student-

supervisor relationships were reported as difficult to negotiate and the students did not

have a second person to approach that could help to resolve differences. One of these

women eventually withdrew from her degree and the other was shortly to take maternity

leave. Although Heath (2002) reported no differences in levels of satisfaction between

students with a single supervisor and those with two or more supervisors, in both cases

in this research having a single supervisor was not conducive to either a positive

supervision experience or successful completion. A second supervisor was reported by

the remaining six women as someone who could be a sounding board, or could mediate

to help resolve conflict without having to circumvent the authority of the principal

supervisor, which can negatively impact on the supervisory relationship. The student

who withdrew from her degree did approach the Head of Department in attempting to

resolve her supervision problems. In itself this did not cause difficulty with the

supervisor, as the Head of Department encouraged her to go back and talk to her

241
supervisor in an attempt to sort out their differences. But in this circumstance, where the

supervisory relationship had clearly broken down, she was unable to negotiate with her

supervisor.

The remaining women in this study had two or more supervisors and the level of

interaction with co-supervisors varied. Only in one case did the two supervisors share

the supervision load equally, and this was done on the basis of six months with one

supervisor and six months with the other supervisor. Handover meetings took place half

yearly and in the final six months both of the supervisors were equally involved. More

commonly, for most women the principal supervisor undertook most of the supervision

responsibilities. The co-supervisor would generally only play a role when there was

written work to be reviewed or the principal supervisor was absent from the university.

A key example of an effective supervisory model was one in which the woman referred

to herself and her supervisors as a team. In this case the student worked primarily with

her principal supervisor, but regular meetings were scheduled with her co-supervisor at

key points in the candidature and to review written work. This participant spoke highly

of her supervisory team and noted that, in comparison with other research students at

the university, she knew she was “lucky” in her supervisory experience.

In another case, when a principal supervisor died, the student was able to arrange for

one of her co-supervisors to become her new principal supervisor. This resulted in less

disruption to her research than if she had had to negotiate with the Head of School for a

new supervisor. These examples demonstrate that although a co-supervisor may not

play a significant role under normal circumstances, their presence can be vital in

ensuring continuity of supervision where a student has a difference of opinion with the

principal supervisor or that person is absent from the university or simply cannot

242
continue to supervise. As discussed below, strong supervisory models included the

negotiation of the working relationship and its boundaries; encouragement and support

(particularly during difficult personal circumstances); availability; and assistance with

networking, publication and attending conferences, all of which help to establish or

build an academic career.

Encouragement and support

For at least two women in this research, supervisors were key people in encouraging

them to undertake the PhD in the first place. Both reported a positive experience –

despite one of them encountering personal trauma. Supervisors also played a key role

throughout the candidature in encouraging the student during periods of intellectual and

personal challenge. This was achieved in a number of ways. In one case the supervisors

set small, achievable tasks that kept the student connected with her research. Another

supervisor was supportive and encouraging when the viability of the student’s research

was seriously undermined as one of the linked studies “fell apart” and caused the

student to question what she was trying to do. A further supervisor advocated on his

student’s behalf when she considered she was disadvantaged due to her part-time status,

and was supportive during her ongoing periods of serious illness. Emotional support

was an important facet of the most effective supervisory relationships. An empathetic

supervisor could share the student’s personal difficulties and thereby give them space to

be sad or angry or depressed without judgement.

This encouragement and support is vital to ensuring students survive the rough patches

in their candidature. The role of supervisors in providing academic support and in

advocating for them to the postgraduate coordinator or Head of School is critical.

Without this encouragement and support the PhD experience can often be challenging

243
and unresolved issues can linger, often to be exacerbated with the next “rough patch”

the student experiences.

Negotiation of supervision
The women mostly reported successful negotiation of issues surrounding supervision.

Leonard (2001), Phillips and Pugh (2005) and Vale (2004) emphasised the need for

students to discuss the process of supervision at the beginning of the relationship, as

well as on an ongoing basis. One case in this research was a notable exception to

successful negotiation, and the inability to negotiate between student and supervisor

was a major factor in the student withdrawing from her PhD. In this instance, there was

no discussion regarding student or supervisor expectations prior to enrolling in the

degree and taking up a scholarship, and when it became clear that she was not provided

with the supervisory relationship that she had expected negotiations proved fruitless. If

she had undertaken due diligence prior to approaching this supervisor, for example

talking to some of his current students, a more informed decision could have been

made. This due diligence must however be underscored with an awareness of the clear

power differential between the student and supervisor. It is evident in this case that the

supervisor was in a powerful position within the Department, including his membership

on several committees that review candidature and ethics applications. The student

reported finding it difficult to initiate conversations and the difference in power between

the academic and postgraduate student appears to have made it difficult for her to

persist, particularly in light of the lack of support from other staff within the

Department. Notwithstanding the issue of power differentials, as emphasised by

Leonard (2001, p.85), there is an example here of a woman student who was “flattered”

that such a respected academic within her Department agreed to supervise her and

accepted his offer of supervision gladly. There are responsibilities for all parties –

244
student, supervisor and university – to be aware of these issues in negotiating

supervision.

In another case, when the supervisor was not providing the feedback expected, the

student sought out an additional co-supervisor who provided the intellectual feedback

that she required. This project was industry-funded with assigned supervisors, and it

would have been impossible for the student to change both supervisors without giving

up the scholarship. Nevertheless, the student was proactive in seeking out other

supervision.

One woman’s principal supervisor died and she then changed one of her co-supervisors

to the role of principal supervisor. She reported some difficulties in negotiating a

working relationship with the new principal supervisor, but at the time of interview she

had managed to adjust to the new supervisor’s different working style. The ability to

negotiate an effective supervisory relationship that works for all parties is clearly central

to a successful PhD experience.

Availability of the supervisor

Research on supervision stresses the importance of the availability of the supervisor (for

example, Leonard, 2001). Heath (2002) provided some evidence to support the view

that regular formal meetings between a student and supervisor(s) increased the

likelihood of completion and also increased the satisfaction that PhD candidates report

with their supervision. Where supervision worked well, participants reported being in

regular contact with their supervisor, even if the supervisor or student was away from

the university. In the two cases where the students only had a principal supervisor, there

were periods when little contact occurred. In one case the supervisor expected the

student to write a candidature proposal without any assistance or support. The student

245
consequently felt out of her depth and was unable to complete the task. This calls into

question both the supervisor’s responsibilities for ensuring that students meet the

necessary hurdle requirements, as well as the university’s responsibility for effectively

tracking progress. It seems extraordinary that this student was enrolled for three years

full-time on a scholarship, without completing a candidature proposal – the basic hurdle

requirement before data collection can commence. In the other case, the supervisor was

on leave and absent from the university and the student had difficulty getting equipment

repaired. A co-supervisor in this instance could have provided support in negotiating

with the technical staff for the required repairs.

A central component of the supervisor’s role is the provision of constructive criticism

and feedback on written work. Students need to be able to submit work and get useful

feedback in a timely manner. In several instances the women described issues regarding

consistency in and lack of feedback from supervisors. One noted that the feedback

differed from one meeting to the next and advice could be contradictory; there was little

feedback on the theory or methodology; and often she received only one or two

comments on a ten-page draft. This woman sought an additional co-supervisor to

provide constructive feedback that she considered was not forthcoming from her

principal supervisor. In another instance, one woman reported that she received

feedback overly focused on grammatical corrections, but accepted that her supervisor

was correct and it was not worth wasting time arguing about grammar and punctuation.

In a third instance, the co-supervisor had little knowledge of the methodology being

used and thus feedback that she provided could be problematic. Here the student and

principal supervisor discussed the issue and decided that the co-supervisor would be

utilised in later stages to review drafts of the thesis, rather than be involved in the design

and implementation of the research itself.

246
Leonard (2001) notes that availability can also relate to the student’s ability to talk

openly with their supervisor. In a number of the cases in this research, the women

reported open and honest communication with their supervisor/s, particularly during

stressful times including serious illness of the student or a family member, and during

difficult periods in their research.

Same gender student-supervisor relationships

The literature has been unclear about whether female students have more successful

supervisory experiences with female than male supervisors. Moses (1990) and Leonard

(2001) both argued that gender of the supervisor could have an impact on women’s

satisfaction with their supervisory relationships. Smeby (2000) noted that most

researchers advocate same-gender supervisors for female students. However he also

noted that the literature both supports and contradicts its importance for women.

Smeby’s (2000) research highlighted a tendency to same-gender relationships in

graduate supervision, particularly for women in the natural sciences. But his findings

were based on a survey of academics in one country and noted only the numbers of

male and female students that they were supervising. The findings are tentative at best,

as Smeby (2000) noted that they are not based on student and supervisor preferences

and assessments.

This research project does not confirm previous findings on the impact of gender on

student-supervisor relationships. In two cases participants had only female supervisors.

One in the Humanities worked particularly well with the student reporting that she felt

supported throughout her degree, especially during difficult times. Both of this student’s

supervisors were female and the boundaries of the student-supervisor relationship were

negotiated to include an element of friendship. In the other case, a woman in the

247
sciences had a single female supervisor. This relationship was reported to have a

number of difficulties, particularly with negotiation on how many experiments were still

to be completed. The student noted that she had approached her supervisor because she

saw her as a role model – a successful woman in a male-dominated discipline. She also

had prior knowledge of some of the difficulties that other students had had in working

with this supervisor and, believing that she had learned from their experiences, still

chose her as a supervisor. It is possible that she underestimated her ability to negotiate

where others had struggled, based on her respect for the supervisor and her previous

interactions with her as an undergraduate.

One explanation of why women who achieve professional success fail to support and

nurture other women coming up through the ranks, such as students, has been labeled

the “Queen Bee” syndrome (Ellemers et al., 2004; O’Leary & Mitchell, 1990). Despite

holding positions of power, these women do not offer support to other women. This

syndrome describes a situation where a female is in a supervisory or management role,

with female staff or students working under her. The woman in charge may interpret a

female student who is highly educated or skilled as a threat (Bune, 2008). However it is

unclear in this particular case whether or not the supervisor was deliberately holding her

back. Another plausible explanation is that the supervisor had to overcome numerous

obstacles to become a senior academic in a challenging discipline and was aware that

the student’s work might be scrutinised more intensely because of her gender. She was

therefore perhaps working to a very high standard, and demanding the same standard of

her student in order to achieve respect within her discipline. The student noted that it

must have been difficult for her supervisor to reach her current position. Nevertheless,

she still struggled to negotiate with her supervisor to finalise the experimental work,

send chapters for publication and finish the thesis.

248
In a third case, one woman started with two female supervisors. She reported that the

feedback she was receiving was not sufficiently critical, and varied from week to week.

In this instance, she sought an additional co-supervisor who was male.

Therefore the experience of women in this research suggests that gender of the

supervisor appears to have little impact on the student’s level of satisfaction with the

supervisory relationship. Other factors such as willingness to negotiate, availability,

providing critical feedback, and encouragement and support were more important to

successful completion of a PhD.

Support in building an academic career

Dever et al (2008) found that female students reported less support from supervisors in

areas such as networking, meeting visiting academics, publications and attending

conferences. All of these are key activities in building a successful academic career. In

one of the most successful supervisory relationships in this research, the student was

actively encouraged to attend conferences, meet visiting academics, build networks,

teach and publish. Her principal supervisor provided broad support and mentoring that

increased the likelihood of her successfully applying for an academic position. She

reported in her narrative that prior to her graduation ceremony she had secured an

academic job at a prestigious Australian university.

In another case, the supervisor had been reluctant to send articles out to journals for

review. This potentially harmed the student’s future career prospects. But as the student

was in the sciences, it also impacted on her thesis writing. In many science disciplines

chapters are submitted as journal articles in order to receive feedback. By holding back

on these journal articles, the student could miss out on opportunities for critical

249
feedback that would help to improve the thesis, as well as build a publication record.

Also in this case, the student did not discuss any support provided by the supervisor to

link into research networks outside the university.

Another science student in this study had informal contact with other postgraduate

students in her department. However she did most of her research at home. She did not

mention support from her principal supervisor for networking activities such as

attending conferences.

This research therefore mostly supports Dever et al.’s (2008) findings. It is clear then,

that some women are not supported in building an academic career and instead have to

build their own support networks. For some women in this study, the gendering of

academic careers began during PhD candidature, confirming Hatchell and Aveling’s

(2008) findings. Only one was strongly supported to forge an academic career while a

postgraduate. Mostly they did not receive adequate support from their departments.

Therefore by the time these women graduate, they are already experiencing less than

optimal treatment. In a sense, the PhD experience conditions them to expect different

treatment on the basis of their gender. This potential gender discrimination needs to be

acknowledged and addressed if women are to optimize career opportunities when they

complete their PhDs.

Supervisor as role model

One of the outcomes of PhD supervision is to build the next generation of PhD

supervisors, in part through the students’ experiences of their own supervision. How

else do we learn to become academics with all that that entails? Students who do

continue on to academic careers will learn from their own supervisory experiences.

250
Good supervision provides role modelling for the transition to becoming a supervisor.

One student specifically mentioned that her experience of supervision positively

affected her own supervisory capacity. Another mentioned that her supervision

experience would be a good basis for her own supervision of students as she

commenced an academic career.

Summary
What are the key elements of effective supervisory models that lead to an optimal

experience of the process and successful PhD outcomes for students? Several key

factors are suggested to be central to an effective supervisory model. These include:

• Due diligence by students when choosing a supervisor/s. This includes an

assessment of whether or not they can build a strong working relationship,

however the power differential between supervisor and student does need to be

taken into consideration;

• Two supervisors are highly recommended for effective supervision;

• A team approach to supervision can empower the student;

• Clear communication of expectations and boundaries by all parties;

• Encouragement and support, especially during rough patches;

• Availability and timely, consistent feedback from the supervisor are critical to

successful completion;

• Having a female supervisor does not necessarily produce a good supervisory

relationship for female students. The more important consideration is a good fit

between student and supervisor; and

• Good supervision, as evident in previous research, helps students to build their

academic careers and introduces them to scholarly networks.

251
Resilience

In looking at how the women in this research managed to survive their PhD candidature,

a strong theme of resilience was evident in all the narratives. How the women

developed – or didn’t develop in one case – their resilience and how this helped them

cope with the challenging events and experiences, was crucial to the outcome of their

PhDs.

What sustains women through long and difficult doctoral candidature? What gets them

through to the end of their PhD? Are they mainly internal factors? Most of the women

talked about persistence and also at least two of them mentioned always finishing what

they started. Vale (2004) and Phillips and Pugh (2005) note that one of the elements

required is a single-minded determination. Only one woman in this study didn’t mention

moments of doubt, of thinking that she couldn’t finish or wondered why she was doing

a PhD. There was little in her narrative that reflected emotional struggle. When

questioned about the “lowlights”, as she referred to them, she talked about the

difficulties in writing one of her early chapters and struggling with the different

definitions around her topic. She also outlined how she systematically dealt with this

issue – consulting with supervisors, and leaving the work for a couple of weeks and

then coming back to it with a fresh perspective. In this instance, the woman related a

childhood incident where her parents encouraged her to find out more about a hobby she

wished to pursue, teaching her to persist in following up when at first she encountered

difficulty in finding the information she needed.

Is resilience therefore a learned trait? In the case above, the woman’s family history

certainly seems to have taught her to be persistent. In another, where the woman

withdrew, the family history was quite different and seemed to have left her traumatised

252
and unable to navigate through subsequently difficult interpersonal relationships. Some

women had the ability to ask for, and/or accept, help when it was offered, in many

instances being proactive in seeking support where none appeared available.

Role models, family and peer support

Most of the women mentioned role models, family and peer networks as important

support structures in helping them get through the process. In one case the woman’s

older brothers and other women doing science-based PhDs were mentioned. In another,

the woman modelled her supervisory role with her own students on the relationship she

built with her supervisors. It is important that good supervision, as discussed above,

provides role modelling for the transition post-PhD to the supervisory role.

The importance of role models in these women’s doctoral experiences could bear closer

investigation. Does the person identified as a role model provide explicit support

through modelling appropriate behaviour? Or is the role model someone whom the

student admires but with whom they do not discuss their experiences?

A number of women sought out peer networks in varying forms for additional support,

although isolation from the university campus can impact on a student’s ability to do

this. One woman strategically approached two separate student networks where she

could discuss her work and relevant articles; in this instance it was the first step in

looking for additional support that she considered was not forthcoming from her

supervisor. She later added a co-supervisor for further support. Another woman reported

that isolation, through distance from her home campus, made it difficult to connect with

other students and attend many seminars and social events at the university. However

she overcame this in two ways: she connected with two fellow PhD students in her

253
department who kept in email and phone contact; and she joined an online network of

PhD students in her discipline that had been established through students meeting at

conferences and workshops. A further example of support networks came with one

woman’s hospitalisation and the persistence of several friends who frequently met with

her to read articles and discuss research. In the case of the student who withdrew from

her PhD, she reported having a very small social circle for emotional support. She

connected with another student who had the same supervisor and a similar negative

experience of his supervision. But at this point she was severely undermined and

support networks had little impact.

“Make or break” times

Some of the women in this study experienced moments, or extended periods of time,

that were “make or break” in their decision about whether or not to continue with the

PhD. They mostly successfully navigated their way through these times and

consequently this helped to increase their resilience. In one case, the student felt that life

was out of control following the death of her supervisor. Over the Christmas period she

took time out and then made a definite decision to get back on track. For another

woman, an extended period of hospitalisation led to a disconnection from her research;

but by accepting help from friends who worked through relevant articles and initiated

discussions, she reconnected with her research project.

One woman’s “make or break” time came within the first six months of her candidature

with a partner’s diagnosis of a life-threatening illness. She stayed connected with her

research – taking work to the hospital and engaging with her supervisors to complete

small, manageable tasks. In another instance, a student who was also an academic

254
gained a Faculty time-release scholarship to provide time-release from teaching and

time and space for writing up her thesis.

The role of peer support in aiding resilience is important. The link between the two

could be explored further. Do students who are resilient seek peer support as a way of

strengthening resilience? Or does peer support help them to build resilience? Or is it

both?

Summary
Resilience then is a key component in successfully navigating through PhD candidature.

While family encouragement to be persistent may help to build resilience as an adult,

role models within the university and internal and external peer support networks are

also vital. Students who demonstrated resilience were able to deal with “make or break”

experiences and remain focused on their research.

What are the aspects of resilience that helped these women through to successful

completion?

• Learned resilience in formative years;

• Strong self-knowledge and focus builds resilience;

• Women who understand their working style, support needs and also have a

strong internal drive to complete tasks that they commence are most successful;

• The resilience to overcome difficult events and stay connected with the research

is important.

• The ability to find peer support and connect can help to build resilience

• Role models, family support and an understanding, communicative supervisor

• Financial support was a strong underpinning

255
Two other issues emerging from this research were: models of academic careers and the

impact of childbearing on PhD completion.

Following the traditional “male” model of an academic career

There are two examples in this research where the women could be considered to

initially fit what has been described as the traditional male model of an academic career

trajectory. This male career model is one that is often followed by students who proceed

directly from school to university. One was a clear example of how well this can work

for all students who are given, and can take up, the opportunities offered such as

conference attendance, publication and teaching. This student, however, was living at

home with her parents and receiving a full-time scholarship. She did not have family

responsibilities, including children, to take into consideration. Several of the women in

this study were not in this situation. Instead, they had responsibilities such as family

commitments, trauma and/or illness with which to cope. While this woman is a good

example of the traditional male model working for a woman, it must be stressed that it

does not necessarily work for many women students.

For a second woman, the beginning of her narrative described what could be another

example of this traditional model of academic career trajectory. In both this and the

example mentioned above, wanting an academic career was reported as a prime

motivation for pursuing a PhD. In this case, the woman’s confidence in her ability, that

was clear in reports of her impressive undergraduate and Honours results, was destroyed

during her PhD experience, primarily through a negative supervisory relationship. The

lack of resilience also impacted on her decision to withdraw.

256
Given that most women’s careers do not follow a trajectory more typical of men’s

academic careers, greater flexibility in university policies and procedures is required to

open up opportunities, not only for women, but also for other groups of students,

including international students, part-time and non-scholarship students. For example,

care-giving or other responsibilities may make it difficult for women to take up critical

career development opportunities such as attending overseas conferences or teaching

classes that run in the evenings. Other ways in which flexibility is required include:

more resources for part-time students, such as access to desks and computers; more

part-time scholarships; and building peer support networks, both on-campus and online.

Universities also need to consider cultural differences that international students are

likely to experience and ensure that workshops and other sources of information are

available to assist them in their transition to a Western academic environment.

Balancing a PhD and family

Some literature refers to women having difficulty balancing family and a PhD/academic

career, due to the PhD/early research career timelines overlapping with the period when

they are most likely to be starting a family (Dever et al., 2008; Leonard, 2001). Three of

the women in this study had children during their PhD candidature. One of these also

had a child who was born while she undertook her Masters by research degree. Two of

the women did not see their family responsibilities as strongly impacting on their ability

to finish their degree. In both cases, childcare facilities were utilised and negotiations

took place with their husbands regarding sharing of housework and care of the children.

In the third case, the woman made a decision with her husband to start a family while

she was still working on her PhD because of the length of time that the PhD was taking

to complete. She saw this as a choice that she had to make.

257
This is one of the significant findings of this research. It is possible for women who are

mothers to successfully combine a PhD with a family. The limitation here is that all of

the women were either on full-time scholarships or had a flexible job and/or partners

who supported their research and were prepared to share and negotiate carer

responsibilities and housework. It should be acknowledged that these could be

considered optimal conditions under which to complete a PhD. Women, who are part-

time students without scholarships, or who work and study, are likely to have greater

restrictions on their time and flexibility. Nevertheless, women in this research were able

to combine research and having babies. The only barriers were the perceptions of others

– supervisors, departments and peers – that they may have difficulty balancing roles.

One woman highlighted that there were hidden assumptions from her female

supervisors when she had her baby:

“I wouldn’t say that necessarily it was related to gender that I had difficulties,

yet you could say there was, there’s a certain presumption how things will go.

And because they’ve been both mothers, you know how you will mother or any

of those kind of things …” (Andrea, p.7).

Caring responsibilities were not restricted to raising children. Four women in this study

reported other family responsibilities impacting on their research. One had a seriously

ill partner; another reported that her father had been ill. In a third case the after-effects

of her mother’s death prior to commencing the PhD, affected one woman’s experience.

Finally one student reported family problems with a sibling, and her parents’ need for

support at that time, as impacting on the time available for research and here emotional

well-being. Therefore for women both within and outside this project it must be

acknowledged that family commitments extend beyond childrearing to caring for

258
partners and aging or ill parents. The juggling of caring demands and a PhD is clearly a

highly gendered issue.

The flexibility and understanding of the university, particularly supervisors, in dealing

with a student who requires leave, or to change to part-time enrolment, in order to

balance research with outside pressures (children, or own or other’s illness) can provide

women with a sense that their circumstances are understood. In at least one case,

assistance from the postgraduate support staff was mentioned as crucial to the student

knowing that the university understood her circumstances.

A different experience?

While all except one of the women in this study completed their PhDs, what was the

impact of that experience on their future careers? It is clear that only one woman was

groomed by her supervisors to use the PhD candidature to set in place the building

blocks for a successful academic career. Six of the eight did not report discussions with

their supervisor of what their post-PhD experience might look like and how they might

be encouraged to put in place the building blocks for an academic career. This research

therefore further corroborates the findings of Dever [Link] (2008) and Hatchell and

Aveling (2008) that one of the differences between male and female PhD students is

that there is not necessarily an expectation from supervisors and the Department that

they are undertaking a PhD in order to become academics. It is important to note that

the women were not asked specific questions regarding their experiences, and therefore

this ‘non-reporting’ does not necessarily mean that discussions did not take place for at

least some of the women.

259
Several women in this study were disillusioned by departmental politics and

consequently decided not to pursue academic careers. We need to therefore question if

the culture of academic departments is unwelcoming or even overtly hostile to women

who are PhD students, as suggested by Hatchell and Aveling (2008).

Therefore, a key finding of this research is to suggest that the gendering of academic

careers begins during PhD candidature where some supervisors and Departments treat

women differently to their male PhD students. There is an assumption that women

students do not necessarily want to be academics, as Dever [Link]. (2008) identified, and

therefore women are not groomed for a future academic career. Is the different

treatment due to the PhD candidature often coinciding with women starting a family and

the assumption by supervisors that they have therefore chosen family over career,

resonating with the story of a young scientist in the most recent APESMA survey

(APESMA, 2010)?

Barinaga (1992) concluded her article with an important observation. Some women

argue that the pipeline “leaks” may never be completely patched and that to do so may

be undesirable. In part this is because some women will continue to step out of the

academic career path for personal reasons. It is not that we are aiming to make the

career paths of women mirror those of men, but more ideally to equalise opportunities

for women by broadening the system to accommodate different styles and alternative

routes through academia and other careers. Hatchell and Aveling (2008) agree with

Blickenstaff (2005) that diversity, equity and inclusivity are crucial in providing

improved workplaces and academic communities. Blickenstaff (2005) argues that in

terms of scientific disciplines, the continuing underrepresentation of women is a loss of

260
potential significant contributions; and that increasing diversity will lead to more

inclusive research.

This research, however, has shown that women continue to have less than optimal

experiences throughout their PhD which can affect their decisions about continuing to

academic careers. While at least one woman successfully combined parenting and an

academic career, she acknowledged that this took a great deal of negotiation and re-

negotiation both within her family and with the university. Other issues that affected

these women during their PhD candidature, such as family or personal illness, also

required negotiation and understanding from supervisors and their universities.

Improving the rate of women proceeding from their increased numbers at undergraduate

levels, through their PhDs, and retaining them into academic careers will continue to be

a struggle unless universities more closely examine their gendered culture and work

towards more inclusive and supportive systems, policies and practices which both

understand and respond to more diverse career path options than those typically

ascribed to men.

Limitations of this study

Several limitations of this study should be noted. All of the participants interviewed

were on scholarships for all or part of their candidature. Although one woman was

working as an academic, she received a Faculty scholarship which enabled her to get

time-release from (most) of her teaching obligations to concentrate on writing up her

PhD. There may be differences in the experiences of women who work part-time or

full-time while undertaking their PhDs. The amount of time they can devote to their

research may be more restrictive if they have other responsibilities.

261
All of the women were local students, no international students interviewed. While

there was some variation in cultural background, international students may have

additional issues relating to their cultural background, race and/or living away from the

support of family and close friends, and a familiar cultural context, as well as additional

financial pressures.

How does the story vary over time? Two women explicitly mentioned that the story told

would vary depending on when it was being told. One student said that the story she

told would have been different had I interviewed her shortly after she withdrew from

her degree. She acknowledged that she had had time to reflect on what part of the

experience related to her (for example, personality, experience, age) and how much was

due to her supervisor. In another case, at the start of the interview I asked for her to tell

her story in whatever way she wished to tell it. This woman responded that it “will vary

from day to day and minute to minute.” (Andrea, p.1)

Only eight women were interviewed in this research. However, they included a diversity

of disciplines and a wide age-range of participants – from their mid-twenties to late

forties. A limitation of this research was that no women over fifty were included, nor

any who had undertaken their entire candidature on a part-time basis. This limitation

needs to be acknowledged and addressed in future studies.

Future studies

Differences between male and female PhD student experiences could be further

explored through undertaking a comparative qualitative study, preferably longitudinally

and also to follow their post-PhD early career experiences. The QUT survey (Dever et

al, 2008) provided a good overview of the sector (albeit with only Group of Eight

262
universities). However, the survey in that research doesn’t provide qualitative data on

the depth of PhD experiences as discussed in previous chapters, nor does it help us to

unravel the nuanced and entwined ways that different factors, both internal and external,

can impact on women PhD students.

As there is only one woman in this study who withdrew and was able to discuss her

experience, further research into students who withdraw from their doctoral degrees is

needed. Analysis of these stories in relation to those of “completing” students could

help elucidate important factors which could then be used to inform university policy

and practice.

The Anglo-centric nature of the women who participated in this research is also

acknowledged. Further research into students from more diverse backgrounds, including

international students, could help to develop alternative models of success and expand

our knowledge of what it takes for all students to achieve academic success and how the

organisation can better respond to the changing needs of its students and its future

academic workforce.

This thesis has noted disciplinary differences in the experience of women undertaking

PhDs. Further research might explore in depth the specific disciplinary contexts and

compare, for example, the PhD experience of women in social sciences where female

representation in academia is high with that of women in engineering which has the

lowest representation of women academics.

263
Reflections on research informing practice at an individual level

At the beginning of this thesis I reflected on my journey and the resonances I had with

these women’s experiences. I have learned a great deal through this research not only at

a concrete level of providing advice to students, but also in developing the ability to

question the status quo and look beyond the individual student and supervisor to the

larger issues of university culture – how this may be gendered in almost invisible ways

and how this can continue to be addressed.

On a practical level, I have discussions almost daily with potential PhD applicants and

enrolled students both male and female. I advise those who haven’t yet begun to choose

their supervisor to try to find supervisors that have a similar working style. It is now

policy at Victoria University, along with other universities across Australia, for all

students to have at least two supervisors. This is borne out by these women’s stories

about having a co-supervisor to whom they can turn, either in difficult times or when

the principal supervisor is absent. I also encourage discussion about expectations,

motivation and factors of resilience and support. My own experience with peer support

and online support options has encouraged me to discuss the idea of developing online

forums, chat rooms and/or blog spaces for students within a new research portal being

developed within Victoria University. These can help students, even those off-campus

or part-time, to overcome issues of isolation and connect with other students.

On a broader scale I have seen the ways that women students juggle and balance their

personal lives while continuing their studies, particularly those who have children

during their candidature. While I can offer scholarship holders a short period of paid

maternity leave, students not on scholarship must use leave of absence to suspend their

candidature and spend time with their families. Current government and university

264
policy in Australia requires a PhD to be completed within four full-time or eight part-

time years to be considered a “timely completion.” Future government funding to

universities takes completions into account – money flows back to the university

according to a set formula – but not until two years after completion of the degree.

There may be ways in which departments, and universities, subtly or overtly try to

discourage students from enrolling part-time or taking leave. This would disadvantage

women students more than men due to women still undertaking more family

responsibilities such as childcare, thus needing more flexible study arrangements.

On a personal and professional level, I have seen the impact that stories of other

women’s experiences have when they resonate with students and staff. As Hatchell and

Aveling (2008) noted, this approach of telling stories allows individual experiences to

be told and heard by others, contributing to our understanding the phenomenon of

women leaving their academic careers. Given that the statistics on women’s

participation at PhD level and upwards through the academic ranks have not improved

greatly over the last ten years as I have undertaken the research, I believe we need to

continue to investigate the complex issues that need to be addressed. In this way we can

further understand the experiences of women at different levels from the PhD onwards,

and continue to challenge the dominant university culture to develop more diverse and

equitable institutions at all levels.

265
 Chapter Nine — Conclusion

This research examined eight women’s stories about their PhD experiences in order to

explore in detail their decisions to undertake a research degree; their lived experiences

of this journey and what factors increase the likelihood of successful completion. How

have these women’s stories added to what we know about the PhD experience? And

what are the implications of this for the development of university policy and practice?

This thesis utilised thematic narrative analysis to interrogate the stories of the women’s

experiences of their doctoral research degrees and focussed on what content the

narratives communicated. The analysis of the narratives was methodical, focused and

detailed, while still retaining a sense of the “whole” story.

The study found that motivation to do a PhD is multi-faceted. In some instances the

motivations were complementary, such as a personal interest in the topic and/or the

discipline and wanting to begin or build an academic career. In some cases they were

incongruent – being awarded a prestigious scholarship was motivation for one woman

to start her degree, but the departmental pressure and expectations that went along with

it were de-motivating. The research therefore concluded that the environment in which

students undertake their PhD can have a significant impact on motivation.

The second important finding was in relation to effective supervisory models. Several

key factors were found to be central to effective supervision. These include: due

diligence by students when choosing a supervisor/s; that two supervisors are

recommended for effective supervision; a team approach to supervision empowers the

student; clear communication of expectations and boundaries by all parties;

encouragement and support, especially during rough patches; availability and timely,

consistent feedback from the supervisor are critical to successful completion; having a

female supervisor does not necessarily produce a good supervisory relationship for

266
female students – the more important consideration is a good fit between student and

supervisor; and good supervision helps students to build their academic careers and

introduces them to scholarly networks.

A third important finding was that resilience is a key component in successfully

navigating through PhD candidature. Key factors in resilience include: learned

resilience in formative years; that strong self-knowledge and focus builds resilience;

women who understand their working style, support needs and also have a strong

internal drive to complete tasks that they commence are most successful; the ability to

overcome difficult events and stay connected with the research is important; the ability

to find peer support and connect can help to build resilience; role models, family

support and an understanding, communicative supervisor strengthen resilience; and

financial support was a strong underpinning to successful completion.

Two further issues emerging from this research were: models of academic careers and

the impact of childbearing on PhD completion. Given that most women’s careers do not

follow a trajectory more typical of men’s academic careers, greater flexibility in

university policies and procedures is required to open up opportunities for other groups

of students, including women, international students, part-time and non-scholarship

students. Another significant finding was that women in this research were able to

successfully combine research and having babies. The only barriers were the

perceptions of others – supervisors, departments and peers – that they may have

difficulty balancing roles.

Finally, this research suggests that the gendering of academic careers begins during PhD

candidature where some supervisors and Departments appear to treat women differently

to their male PhD students. There is an assumption that women students do not

necessarily want to be academics, as Dever [Link]. (2008) identified, and therefore

women may not be groomed for a future academic career.

267
These research findings have direct relevance to my role as a postgraduate scholarships

coordinator, especially in advising women about the importance of negotiating

supervision, being clear about expectations on all sides, and of ensuring they have at

least two supervisors.

The relevance of these findings to HE policy and practice is that Universities need to

ensure that all students have access to effective supervision, resources, funding to

present at conferences, and mentoring to link in to national and international academic

networks. Effective progress in the PhD candidature must be monitored in order that

any issues can be identified and resolved in a timely manner. This research has

demonstrated that joint supervision, now recommended in most Australian and UK

universities, helps to ensure that students are supported when their principal supervisor

is absent from the university and that another person is available to provide advice and

help their student negotiate difficult patches in their journey.

This research suggests that University policies and practices need to take into account

the different needs of diverse groups of PhD students. Part-time students should not be

disadvantaged in terms of access to resources or linking with academic networks.

Access to adequate childcare, financial support and to facilities such as desk space and

computers are particularly important for women doing PhDs. Support to present at

conferences needs to take into account the additional challenges this presents for women

with young children. Listening to the stories of these women, and others in the HE

sector, can help to inform future policy and practice which will lead to institutions

which are more equitable, diverse and inclusive.

268
 References

Allen, F. (1990). Academic Women in Australian Universities. Canberra, AGPS.

Allen, M. & Castleman, T. (2001). Fighting the Pipeline Fallacy. In A. Brooks & A.

McKinnon (Eds). Gender and the Restructured University. The Society for

Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.

Anderson, E. (2010). Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. The Stanford

Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition). Edward. N. Zalta (Ed.), URL

= <[Link]

Andrews, M., Squire, M & Tamboukou, M. (2008). What is narrative research? In M.

Andrews, C. Squire & M. Tamboukou (Eds). Doing Narrative Research. Sage

Publications, London.

APESMA. (2010). APESMA 2009-10 Women in the Professions Survey Report.

[Link]

[Link] Accessed 1 September 2010.

Asmar, C. (1999). Is there a gendered agenda in academia? The research experience of

female and male PhD graduates in Australian universities. Higher Education,

Vol. 18, pp. 255-273.

Bagilhole, B. (2007). Challenging Women in the Male Academy: Thinking about

draining the swamp. In P. Cotterill, S. Jackson & G. Wetherby (Eds.),

Challenges and Negotiations for Women in Higher Education, Kluwer.

269
Bagilhole, B. & Goode, J. (2001). The Contradiction of the Myth of Individual Merit,

and the Reality of a Patriarchal Support System in Academic Careers: A

Feminist Investigation. European Journal of Women’s Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.

161-180.

Bagilhole, B., Riordan, S. & White, K. (2009). The Gender(ed) Shaping of University

Leadership Positions. Paper presented to 6th European Conference on Gender

Equality in Higher Education, Stockholm. Sweden.

Bagilhole, B & White, K. (2003). Created in Their Image: An Analysis of Male Cultural

Hegemony in Higher Education in Australia and the United Kingdom. In

Groombridge, B. & Mackie, V. (Eds.). Re-Searching Research Agendas:

Women, Research and Publication in Higher Education: Proceedings of the

Australian Technology Network – Women’s Executive Development (ATN-

WEXDEV) 2003 Research Conference. Perth, WA: Learning Support Network,

Curtin University of Technology.

Bagilhole, B. & White, K. (2008). Towards a gendered skills analysis of senior

management positions in UK and Australian Universities. Tertiary Education

and Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Barinaga, M. (1992). The Pipeline Is Leaking. Science, Vol. 255, pp. 1366 – 1367.

Bell, S. E. (1988). Becoming a political woman: The reconstruction and interpretation

of experience through stories. In Todd, A. D. & Fisher, S. (Eds.), Gender and

discourse: The power of talk. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

270
Bell, S. (2009) Women in Science in Australia: Maximising Productivity, Diversity and

Innovation. Report prepared for the Federation of Australian Scientific and

Technological Societies (FASTS).

Birch, L. (2000). Implementing Strategies to Improve Participation Rates of Women in

Higher Research Degrees, paper delivered at the Quality in Postgraduate

Research: Making Ends Meet Conference, Adelaide, April 13-14.

Blackmore, J. & Sachs, J. (2001). Women Leaders in the Restructured University. In A.

Brooks & A. McKinnon (Eds). Gender and the Restructured University. The

Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press,

Buckingham, UK.

Blackmore, J. & Sachs, J. (2007). Performing and Reforming Leaders: Gender,

Educational Restructuring, and Organizational Change. State University of

New York Press, Albany.

Blickenstaff, J.C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?

Gender and Education, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 369-386.

Bonanno, G.A., (2004). Loss, Trauma and Human Resilience: Have we Underestimated

the Human Capacity to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events? American

Psychologist, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 20-28.

Britton, C. & Baxter, A. (1999). Becoming a Mature Student: Gendered narratives of

the self. Gender and Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 179-193.

271
Bune, K. (2008). Queen Bee Syndrome Produces Stinging Victimization: Women vs.

women in the workplace. [Link], [Link]

and-articles/columns/Bune/queen_bee.html. Accessed on 16 November 2009.

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. [Link] Accessed

15 July 2009.

Carvalho, T. & Machado, M. (2010). Gender and shifts in higher education

management regimes. Australian Universities Review, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 33-42.

Chesterman, C. (2003). Management/research: challenges for women academics. In

Groombridge, B. & Mackie, V. (Eds.). Re-Searching Research Agendas:

Women, Research and Publication in Higher Education: Proceedings of the

Australian Technology Network – Women’s Executive Development (ATN-

WEXDEV) 2003 Research Conference. Perth, WA: Learning Support Network,

Curtin University of Technology.

Clance, P. R. & Imes, S. A. (1978). The impostor phenomenon in high achieving

women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory,

Research and Practice, 15 (3), 241-247.

Clandinin, D.J. & Connelly, F.M., (1990). Stories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry.

Educational Researcher, June-July 1990, pp. 2-14.

Clandinin, D.J. & Connelly, F.M., (2000). Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in

Qualitative Research. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

272
Conrad, L. & Phillips, E. (1995). From Isolation to Collaboration: A Positive Change

for Postgraduate Women? Frameworks for Postgraduate Education, Southern

Cross University, New South Wales, pp.73-85.

Conti, J., Hewson, D., & Isben, J. (2001). Power, Voice and Connection. In A. Bartlett

& G. Mercer. (Eds). Postgraduate Research Supervision: Transforming

(R)Elations, Peter Lang, N.Y.

Currie, J. & Thiele, B. (2001). Globalization and Gendered Work Cultures in

Universities. In A. Brooks & A. McKinnon (Eds). Gender and the Restructured

University. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University

Press, Buckingham, UK.

Daiute, C. & Lightfoot, C. (Eds.) (2004). Narrative Analysis: Studying the Development

of Individuals in Society. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.

DEEWR (2009). 2007 Full year summary – Student Statistics.

[Link]

ns/Pages/[Link] Accessed on 15 July 2009.

Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. & Parry, O. (2004). Supervising the doctorate: A guide to

success. (2nd ed.), Maidenhead: Open University Press.

273
Department of Education, Science & Training. (2005). Students 2004 (Full) Selected

Higher Education Statistics.

[Link]

s/publications_higher_eduction_statistics_collections.htm#studpubs Viewed on

3 July 2005.

DeVault, M. (1990). Talking and Listening from Women’s Standpoint: Feminist

Strategies for Interviewing and Analysis. Social Problems, Vol. 37, No. 1,

February, 1990.

Dever, M., Morrison, Z., Dalton, B & Tayton, S. (2006). When Research Works for

Women. Project Report: Monash University. Downloaded from

[Link]

[Link]

Dever, M., Boreham, P., Haynes, M., Kubler, M., Laffan, W., Behrens, K. & Western,

M. (2008). Gender Differences in Early Post-PhD Employment in Australian

Universities: The influence of the PhD Experience on Women’s Academic

Careers. Final Report, University of Queensland Social Research Centre

(UQSRC) August 2008.

Deveson, A. (2003). Resilience. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Dux, M. (2006). Quitting has its own rewards. The Australian. April 12, 2006.

274
Ellemers, N., van den Heuvel, H., de Gilder, D., Maass, A. & Bonvini, A. (2004). The

underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen

bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 315-338.

Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Uzzi, B., & Neushatz, M. (2000). Athena Unbound: The

Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Eveline, J. (2000). Now you see her, now you don’t: A Case of Gender and Authority in

Australian University Leadership, The Second European Conference on Gender

Equality in Higher Education, Zurich, September 2000.

Federation of Australian University Staff Associations (1979). Report on research in

universities. Melbourne: Federation of University Staff Associations.

Ferreira, M. M. (2003). Gender issues related to graduate student attrition in two science

departments. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp.

969–989.

Fosha, D. (2002). Trauma reveals the roots of resilience. Constructivism in the Human

Sciences, 6 (1 & 2), pp. 7-15.

Frank, A.W. (1995). The Wounded Storyteller. The University of Chicago Press:

Chicago, London.

275
Gale, F. & Lindemann, S. (1989). Women in the academic search for excellence.

Australian Universities’ Review, No. 2, pp. 2-5.

Giles, M., Ski, C & Vrdoljak, D. (2009). Career pathways of science, engineering and

technology research postgraduates. Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 53,

No. 1, pp. 69-86.

Gill, J., (1999). Still the half open door! Women and research degrees in education.

[Link] cited on 1 September 2009.

Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction.

Longman, White Plains.

Goldstein, E. (2009). 5 Factors of Resilience to Engage Today!

[Link]

Cited 11 October 2009.

Gurr, G. M. (2001). Negotiating the “Rackety Bridge” – a Dynamic Model for Aligning

Supervisory Style with Research Student Development. Higher Education

Research & Development, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 81 – 92.

Harman, G. (1999). New Directions in Graduate Study, Campus Review Weekly, Vol.9,

No.6, February 10-16.

Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University

Press.

276
Harding, S. (1991). Situated Knowledges. In Symians, Cyborgs and Women, New York:

Routledge.

Harding, S. (1998). Is Science Multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms and

Epistemologies. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Harman, G. (1999). Science and technology academics and university-industry research

links in Australian universities. Higher Education, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 83-103.

Hartsock, N.C.M. (1983). The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the ground for a

specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding & M.B. Hintikka

(Eds.). Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology,

Metaphysics, methodology and Philosophy of Science. Holland: D. Reidel

Publishing Company.

Hartsock, N.C.M. (1997). Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and Method”: Truth or

Justice”, Signs, Vol. 22, pp. 367 – 373.

Hatchell, H. & Aveling, N. (2008). Gendered disappearing acts: Women’s doctoral

experiences in the science workplace. Australian Association for Research in

Education Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 30 November – 4 December 2008.

Hearn, J. (2001). Academia, Management and Men: Making the Connections, Exploring

the Implications. In A. Brooks & A. McKinnon (Eds). Gender and the

Restructured University. The Society for Research into Higher Education &

Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.

277
Hearn, J. (2004). Gendering men and masculinities in research and scientific

evaluations. In Gender and Excellence in the Making, European Commission

Report. (available at:

[Link]

type=pdf#page=59)

Heath, T. (2002). A Quantitative Analysis of PhD Students’ Views of Supervision.

Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 41 – 53.

Hinds, H., Phoenix, A. & Stacey, J. (1992). Introduction. In H. Hinds, A. Phoenix & J.

Stacey (Eds). Working Out: New directions for women’s studies. The Falmer

Press, London, pp. 1-10.

Hood, B. & Sharples, J. (1995). Barriers for Women in Postgraduate Study. Equity and

Social Justice Project, Victoria University of Technology.

Husu, L. (2000). Gender Discrimination in the Promised Land of Gender Equality.

Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 221 – 228.

Husu, L. (2001). Sexism, Support and Survival in Academia. Academic Women and

Hidden Discrimination in Finland. Helsinki, University of Helsinki.

Husu, L. (2004). Gate-keeping, gender equality and scientific excellence. In Gender and

Excellence in the Making, European Commission Report. (available at:

[Link]

type=pdf#page=71)

278
Husu, L. & Morley, L. (2000). Higher Education in Europe – special edition on

Academe and Gender: What Has and Has Not Changed? Vol. 25, No. 2,

Bucharest: UNESCO.

Jeffries, A. & Palermo, J. (2003). Feminism’s marginal problem: Women in

management. In Groombridge, B. & Mackie, V. (Eds.). Re-Searching Research

Agendas: Women, Research and Publication in Higher Education: Proceedings

of the Australian Technology Network – Women’s Executive Development (ATN-

WEXDEV) 2003 Research Conference. Perth, WA: Learning Support Network,

Curtin University of Technology.

Jones, J. & Castle, J. (1989). Women in higher education – Changes in the ’80s?

Australian Universities’ Review, No. 2, pp. 6-8.

Kaplan, G. T. (1985). Coming up with bright ideas: Women in academia. Vestes, No.2,

pp. 19-22.

Kiley, M. (2009). [Link] Australian National

University. Accessed on 7 September 2009.

Knights, D. & Richards, W. (2003). Sex discrimination in UK academia. Gender, Work

and Organization, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 213-238.

Lang, K.R. (1999). MIT Concedes Bias. The Tech. Vol. 119, No. 15, [Link]

[Link]/V119/N15/[Link].

279
Leathwood, C. & Read, B. (2009). Gender and the changing face of higher education. A

feminized future?, Berkshire, Society for Research into Higher Education and

Open University Press.

Leonard, D. (2001). A Woman’s Guide to Doctoral Studies. Open University Press,

Buckingham.

Leonard, D., Becker, R. & Coate, K. (2005). To prove myself at the highest level: the

benefits of doctoral study. Higher Education Research and Development, Vol.

24, No.2, pp.135-149.

Lorber, J. (2000). Going Way Beyond The Binaries: Multiplicities and Complexities in

Feminist Research and Politics. The Second European Conference on Gender

Equality in Higher Education, Zurich, September 2000.

Lyons, N. & Kubler LaBoskey, V. (2002). Why Narrative Inquiry or Exemplars for a

Scholarship of Teaching? In N. Lyons & V. Kubler LaBoskey (Eds) Narrative

Inquiry in Practice: Advancing the Knowledge of Teaching. Teachers College

Press, New York.

McCormack, C. (2009). Stories return personal narrative ways of knowing to the

professional development of doctoral supervisors. Studies in Continuing

Education, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 141-156.

280
McKay, G. (1996). Review of the Research Postgraduate Experience, Frameworks for

Postgraduate Education, Southern Cross University, New South Wales, pp.126-

146.

Machado-Taylor, M., Carvalho, M.T. & White, K. (2008). Women and HE leadership

in Portugal and Australia. Paper presented at SRHE Conference, Liverpool UK.

Marshall, K., Kearns, H., Banytis, F. & Gardiner, M. (2006). The PhD Experience:

What they didn’t tell you at Induction. In Kiley, M. & Mullins, G. (Eds.),

Quality in postgraduate research: Knowledge creation in testing times.

CEDAM, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M., (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. Sage Publications, London.

Mishler, E.G. (1986) Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Harvard

University Press, Cambridge.

Mishler, E.G. (1996). Missing persons: Recovering developmental stories/histories. In

R. Jessor, A. Colby & R. A. Shweder (Eds.) Ethnography and Human

Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry. University of Chicago,

Chicago.

Monash University. (2003). Modelling Quality Experiences for Women in Research

Higher Degrees: recruitment, retention and completions. Summary Report.

Monash University Postgraduate Association.

281
Morley, L. (1999). Organising Feminisms: The Micropolitics of the Academy. New

York, [Link]’s Press.

Morley, L. (2003). Quality and Power in Higher Education. SRHE and Open

University Press, Maidenhead.

Morley, L. & Walsh, V. (1995). Introduction. In Morley, L. & Walsh, V. (Eds.).

Feminist Academics: Creative Agents for Change. London, Taylor & Francis.

Moses, I. (1990). Barriers to Women’s Participation as Postgraduate Students, AGPS.

National Postgraduate Committee. (2002). National survey of Postgraduate Funding

and Priorities. Troon: The National Postgraduate Committee of the UK

(available at: [Link]

Neale, J. & White, K. (2004). Almost there: A Comparative Case Study of Senior

Academic Women in Australia and New Zealand. Conference Proceedings,

NACEW, [Link]

O’Connor, P. (2008). The Elephant in the Corner: Gender and Policies Related to

Higher Education. Administration, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 85-110.

O’Leary, V.E. & Mitchell, J.M. (1990). Women Connecting with Women: Networks

and Mentors. In. S. Stiver Lie & V. E. O’Leary (Eds.) Storming The Tower:

Women in the academic world. Kogan Page Ltd, London.

282
Ozkanli, O. & White, K. (2008). Leadership and strategic choices: female professors in

Australia and Turkey. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management.

Vol. 30, No. 1, February 2008, pp. 53-63.

Park, S. M. (1996). Research, Teaching, and Service. Why Shouldn’t Women’s Work

Count? Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 46-84.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. (2nd ed.). Sage

Publications, London.

Phillips, E.M. & Pugh, D.S. (2005). How To Get A PhD: A handbook for students and

their supervisors. (4th ed.). Open University Press, Berkshire.

Povey, H., Angier, C. & Clarke, M. (2006). Storying Joanne, an undergraduate

mathematician. Gender and Education, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 459-471.

Powles, M. (1984). The Roles of Postgraduates in Australian Research. Council of

Australian Postgraduate Associations, Melbourne.

Powles, M. (1989). How’s the thesis going? University of Melbourne: Centre for the

Study of Higher Education.

Priola, V. (2007). Being female doing gender. Narratives of women in education

management. Gender and Education, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 21-40.

283
Probert, B. (2005). ‘I Just Couldn’t Fit It In’: Gender and Unequal Outcomes in

Academic Careers. Gender, Work and Organizations, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 50-72.

Reilly, S. (1985). Equal Opportunity at the University of Melbourne. Final Report to

Council of the Research Fellow, Equal Opportunity. University of Melbourne.

Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford University Press,

New York.

Riessman, C. K. (1990). Divorce Talk: Women and men make sense of personal

relationships. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Riessman, C. K. (1994). Making Sense of Marital Violence: One Woman’s Narrative.

In C. K. Riessman (Ed). Qualitative Studies in Social Work Research. Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Riessman, C. K. (2002a). Narrative Analysis. Qualitative Research Methods, Volume

30. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Riessman, C. K. (2002b). Narrative Analysis. In A.M. Huberman & M.B. Miles (Eds.).

The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Riessman, C.K. (2007). Personal conversation. Melbourne, Australia.

Riessman, C. K. (2008a). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks.

284
Riessman, C. K. (2008b). Concluding Comments. In M. Andrews, C. Squire & M.

Tamboukou (Eds). Doing Narrative Research. Sage Publications, London.

Salmon, P. (1992). Achieving a PhD – ten students’ experience. Oakhill: Trentham

Books Limited.

Sampson, S. (2009). Here and Even Further…The Lund Leaky Pipe Project. Paper

presented at 6th Conference on Gender Equality in Higher Education,

Stockholm, Sweden.

Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References

Committee, (27 September 2001). Universities in Crisis. Commonwealth of

Australia.

Smeby, J-C. (2000). Same-Gender Relationships in Graduate Supervision. Higher

Education. Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 53 – 67.

Stage, F.K. & Maple, S.A. (1996). Incompatible Goals: Narratives of Graduate Women

in the Mathematics Pipeline. American Educational Research Journal, Spring

1996, Vol.33, No. 1, pp. 23-51.

Stivers, C., (1993). Reflections on the Role of Personal Narrative in Social Science.

Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 408-425.

285
Stanley, L., (1990). Feminist praxis and the academic mode of production: An editorial

introduction. In L. Stanley (Ed.). Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and

Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. Routledge, London.

Stanley, L., & Wise, S., (1990). Method, methodology and epistemology in feminist

research processes. In L. Stanley (Ed.). Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and

Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. Routledge, London.

Vale, C. (2004). Rejecting old recipes: Improving the experiences of women in

postgraduate research. [Link] (accessed 11

October 2009).

Van den Brink, M. (2009). Behind the scenes of science: Gender practices in the

recruitment and selection of professors in the Netherlands. Unpublished PhD.

Radboud University Nijmegen.

Ward, B. (2000). The Female Professor: A Rare Australian Species – The Who and the

How. The Second European Conference on Gender Equality in Higher

Education. Zurich, September, 2000.

Webster, L. & Mertova, P. (2007). Using Narrative Inquiry as a Research Method: An

introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on teaching

and learning. Routledge, Abingdon.

286
Western, M., Kubler, M., Western, J., Clague, D., Boreham, P., Laffan, W & Lawson,

A. (2007). PhD Graduates 5 to 7 Years Out: Employment Outcomes, Job

Attributes and Quality of Research Training. Final Report (Revised). Prepared

for Department of Education, Science and Training.

White, K. (1996). Improving Women’s Participation Rates in Research Higher

Degrees, Monash Postgraduate Association – Equity Project, Monash

University.

White, K. (1997). Women and research at Monash University. Clayton, Victoria,

Monash University Equal Opportunity Unit.

White, K. (2001). Women in the Professoriate in Australia. International Journal of

Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 64-76.

White, K. (2004). The Leaking Pipeline: women postgraduate and early career

researchers in Australia. Tertiary Education and Management. Vol. 10, No. 4,

pp. 227-241.

White, K. & Birch, L. (1999). The Leaking Pipeline: Strategies to Increase Research

Output of Women in Higher Education, paper delivered to the Australian

Women’s Organisation Research Committee, Deakin University.

White, K., Birch, L. & Nix, H. (2000). Implementing Strategies to Improve

Participation Rates of Women in Research Higher Degrees. Victoria University.

287
White, K., Carvalho, T. & Riordan, S. (2010). Gender, power and managerialism in

universities. Paper presented to GWO Conference, 23 June 2010, Keele

University, UK.

White, K., Riordan, S., Ozkanli, O., Neale, J. & Husu, L. (2008). Cross Cultural

Perspectives of Women in HE Senior Management. Paper presented to

Engendering Leadership Conference, Perth, Australia.

Wicks, R. (2009). Have a Life! Psychology Today.

[Link] 2 September 2009. (Cited on 11

October 2009).

288
 Appendix A — Consent Form

Victoria University of Technology

Consent Form for Participants Involved in Research

INFORMATION TO PARTICIPANTS:

We would like to invite you to be a part of a study into ‘Women’s decisions to

undertake higher research degrees: A Narrative Approach.’ Please see the
attached Plain Language Statement outlining the aims and methods of this
research project.

CERTIFICATION BY PARTICIPANT

I,
of

certify that I am at least 18 years old* and that I am voluntarily giving my consent to participate in the
research project entitled:

Women’s Decisions to Undertake Higher Research Degrees: A Narrative Approach

being conducted at Victoria University of Technology by:

Ms Lesley Birch, PhD Candidate

I certify that the objectives of the research project, together with any risks to me associated with the
procedures listed hereunder to be carried out in the research project, have been fully explained to me by
Ms Lesley Birch, and that I freely consent to participation involving the use on me of these procedures.

Procedures:

In-depth unstructured interview/s

I certify that I have had the opportunity to have any questions answered and that I understand that I can
withdraw from this research project at any time and that this withdrawal will not jeopardise me in any
way.

I have been informed that the information I provide will be kept confidential.

Signed: ................................................. }

Witness other than the experimenter: } Date: ....................

................................................................}

Any queries about your participation in this project may be directed to the researcher (Name: Ms Lesley
Birch ph. 9688 4659). If you have any queries or complaints about the way you have been treated, you
may contact the Secretary, University Human Research Ethics Committee, Victoria University of
Technology, PO Box 14428 MC, Melbourne, 8001 (telephone no: 03-9688 4710).

[*please note: where the participant/s is aged under 18, separate parental consent is required;
where the participant is unable to answer for themselves due to mental illness or disability, parental
or guardian consent may be required.]

289
 Appendix B — Plain Language Statement

Women’s Decisions to Undertake Higher Research Degrees: A Narrative Study

This project is designed to investigate women’s lived experiences as they relate to

decisions concerning the undertaking of postgraduate research degrees. The general
aims of this research are threefold: to provide a more in-depth understanding of
women’s decisions to participate in postgraduate education; to contribute to the
theorising of postgraduate research education, by providing a means for studying
women which has potential for transferability to other areas of equity in postgraduate
education; and to further develop the methodology of narrative inquiry in the area of
higher education.

More specifically, this research aims to identify and evaluate strategies used by women
who undertake postgraduate research degrees; to develop those strategies to assist
women who might not otherwise continue in higher education to make a more effective
evaluation of their options; and to use narrative inquiry to enable the breadth and depth
of women’s lived experiences, as they relate to postgraduate research degrees, to be
more fully understood.

Participants will be asked to talk about their experiences in higher education, in

particular whether or not they decided to proceed to postgraduate research degrees and
why. Participation will be sought from approximately 10 women from diverse
backgrounds from a number of universities. These will initially be in the Melbourne
area, but there may be some extension to interstate universities.

All interviews will be tape-recorded with the permission of the interviewee, and notes
will be taken of non-verbal interactions and other field observations. Tapes will be
transcribed by the researcher (this is an integral part of the qualitative research process).
Each participant’s transcript will be made available to them after transcription and
discussed in order to ensure that they are happy with the way in which the information
is presented and its accuracy.

Each participant will be given a code name in order to maintain confidentiality. The
only people to have access to confidential information are the three researchers. This
confidential information will be stored in a locked filing cabinet at the Postgraduate
Research Unit, Victoria University, where the PhD candidate is employed.

All participants have the right to withdraw their consent at any time. This includes their
consent to be interviewed and/or for the transcripts to be used.

290
 Appendix C — Example of Initial Transcription

This is an example of the raw data transcribed directly from Eve’s interview. [E=Eve,
I=Interviewer]. The original transcript was 39 pages, single spaced.

E: Role models I think are important, and I must, I mean I mustn’t leave my sister out of
this...my older sister. I saw her return to study, after she had raised three small children,
and she, and she returned to do her mature age entry into university and she actually
dux-ed the class, she dux-ed the lot of them, she had been a librarian by training and
trade before she got married and she returned, ended up returning firstly to be a librarian
at the Canberra CAE, and then ended up at ANU as a librarian. Um and she only retired
a few years ago, but her kids and her partner could not see, they were all dumbfounded
and they could not understand why she wanted to return to study.

I: uh huh

E: And in fact the lot of them were, ah, were not very supportive actually except
perhaps for my niece. So she’s got two boys and a girl, and the girl was supportive. The
men could not understand why Mum was going back to study, and I think I watched all
of that unfold too, and that made me even more determined. I thought “If she can do it, I
can do it”

I: Yep

The discussion goes to a topic that the participant wanted to be off the record. This bit
has therefore not been transcribed. It lasted about three or four sentences.

I: So she was very supportive of what you wanted to do?

E: yes she was, I think she’d been, she’d seen herself go through it, and uh, had
acknowledged at the beginning the lack of support from her own family members, and
she didn’t want to see that happen to me. So I think that she was a role model, and she
still is a role model, in you know, in terms of acceptance of, of life, of my choice of
lifestyle, my wanting to return to study, wanting to do a lot of different things I think
that sort of have been going in the opposite direction, and it’s not the logical step to take
at this time in your life when you should be consolidating and is what in fact I was
trying to do with my study. But I believe I’m into the next step or stages of, still, as a
single independent woman, trying to consolidate financial security in my life.

291
 Appendix D — Example of Second Version of Transcript

This is a sample of the second version of the transcript which had all my non-lexical
utterances removed, as well as identifying information regarding the State where the
participant’s sister resides. In doing this, the transcript was shortened from 39 pages to
27 pages. Note that I have left in my question in the middle, as I wanted to ensure that I
captured the interaction that occurred between researcher and participant – the co-
construction of the narrative. In this segment I identified that Eve related to her sister as
a role model.

E: Role models I think are important, and I must, I mean I mustn’t leave my sister out of
this…my older sister. I saw her return to study, after she had raised three small children,
and she, and she returned to do her mature age entry into university and she actually
dux-ed the class, she dux-ed the lot of them, she had been a librarian by training and
trade before she got married and she returned, ended up returning firstly to be a librarian
at the [interstate] CAE, and then ended up at [interstate university] as a librarian. Um
and she only retired a few years ago, but her kids and her partner could not see, they
were all dumbfounded and they could not understand why she wanted to return to study.
And in fact the lot of them were, ah, were not very supportive actually except perhaps
for my niece. So she’s got two boys and a girl, and the girl was supportive. The men
could not understand why Mum was going back to study, and I think I watched all of
that unfold too, and that made me even more determined. I thought “If she can do it, I
can do it”

I: So she was very supportive of what you wanted to do?

E: yes she was, I think she’d been, she’d seen herself go through it, and uh, had
acknowledged at the beginning the lack of support from her own family members, and
she didn’t want to see that happen to me. So I think that she was a role model, and she
still is a role model, in you know, in terms of acceptance of, of life, of my choice of
lifestyle, my wanting to return to study, wanting to do a lot of different things I think
that sort of have been going in the opposite direction, and it’s not the logical step to take
at this time in your life when you should be consolidating and is what in fact I was
trying to do with my study. But I believe I’m into the next step or stages of, still, as a
single independent woman, trying to consolidate financial security in my life. And I’m
still not there yet.

292
 Appendix E — Example of Extract of Transcript

Used in Analysis Chapter

Here is the transcript above and the work done to remove unnecessary description and
focus the excerpt to Eve’s salient points around her identification of her sister as a role
model. In the extract below, the italicised segments were removed and replaced with a
note in square brackets identifying how many lines were removed. The actual excerpt
used in Chapter Four is shown underneath.

E: Role models I think are important, and I must, I mean I mustn’t leave my sister out of
this…my older sister. I saw her return to study, after she had raised three small children,
and she, and she returned to do her mature age entry into university and she actually
dux-ed the class, she dux-ed the lot of them, she had been a librarian by training and
trade before she got married and she returned, ended up returning firstly to be a
librarian at the [interstate] CAE, and then ended up at [interstate university] as a
librarian. Um and she only retired a few years ago, but her kids and her partner could
not see, they were all dumbfounded and they could not understand why she wanted to
return to study. And in fact the lot of them were, ah, were not very supportive actually
except perhaps for my niece. So she’s got two boys and a girl, and the girl was
supportive. The men could not understand why Mum was going back to study, and I
think I watched all of that unfold too, and that made me even more determined. I
thought “If she can do it, I can do it”

I: So she was very supportive of what you wanted to do?

E: yes she was, I think she’d been, she’d seen herself go through it, and uh, had
acknowledged at the beginning the lack of support from her own family members, and
she didn’t want to see that happen to me. So I think that she was a role model, and she
still is a role model, in you know, in terms of acceptance of, of life, of my choice of
lifestyle, my wanting to return to study, wanting to do a lot of different things I think
that sort of have been going in the opposite direction, and it’s not the logical step to
take at this time in your life when you should be consolidating and is what in fact I was
trying to do with my study. But I believe I’m into the next step or stages of, still, as a
single independent woman, trying to consolidate financial security in my life. And I’m
still not there yet.

Actual Extract used in Chapter Four:

Role models I think are important, and I must, I mean I mustn’t leave my sister out of
this ... my older sister. I saw her return to study, after she had raised three small
children … [five lines deleted] … but her kids and her partner could not see, they were
all dumbfounded and they could not understand why she wanted to return to study. And
in fact the lot of them were not very supportive actually except for my niece ... [two lines
deleted] … and I think I watched all of that unfold too, and that made me even more
determined. I thought, “If she can do it, I can do it.”… [four lines deleted] … So I think
that she was a role model, and she still is a role model in, you know, in terms of
acceptance of life, of my choice of lifestyle, my wanting to return to study.
293