This conceptually informed narrative literature review, guided by affordance theory and the Community of Inquiry framework, examines the affordances and constraints of synchronous and asynchronous formats within doctoral writing groups, comparing how each format supports or challenges collaborative writing. The review finds that synchronous interactions can enhance collaboration by providing immediate feedback and fostering a strong sense of community, while also noting the potential scheduling difficulties associated with real-time engagement. Conversely, asynchronous interactions enable more thoughtful reflection and allow for greater reflexivity, though they may lack the immediacy and interpersonal connection of synchronous sessions. By analysing these dimensions, the review illuminates how each format shapes the dynamics of collaborative learning, reflective practice, and knowledge construction within doctoral writing groups. Drawing on a model of instructional design, this paper extends existing discussion on how digital technologies shape collaboration, knowledge construction, and academic writing development in doctoral education. Furthermore, it highlights how these writing groups function as knowledge-building communities where doctoral students do not merely exchange drafts but actively co-construct ideas through iterative discussion and feedback. Ultimately, it suggests that a hybrid approach that combines the immediacy and social connection of synchronous interactions with the flexibility and reflective depth of asynchronous methods may provide the most balanced and effective support for doctoral students’ writing development.

Generative AI (GenAI) provides distinct affordances that contribute meaningfully to learning. However, there are also several challenges, most notably ethical considerations. While much of the current research on GenAI in academia focuses on technical capabilities or ethical concerns, few studies have examined how GenAI can be leveraged to promote equity and inclusivity, particularly in academic communication. In this study, we adopt the theoretical lens of Ubuntu, a Southern African philosophy that emphasises interconnectedness and community, to reconceptualise GenAI as a democratising force. Five international PhD students in Education and their PhD supervisor (all multilingual users of English) explored their experiences of using GenAI. We used a collaborative autoethnographic approach, incorporating reflective prompting, individual writing, group sharing and refining, and group-based writing. We demonstrate that GenAI reshaped power dynamics and challenged academic hierarchies by providing real-time language support and improving academic writing clarity. This empowered us to participate in academic discourse, disrupting traditional gatekeeping mechanisms. By automating routine tasks, GenAI also shifted our academic focus from technical skills to intellectual contributions, fostering inclusivity and equity. This study highlights the potential of GenAI in terms of knowledge creation and academic discourse, particularly for doctoral scholars navigating linguistic and cultural barriers. Academia is predominantly Anglophone-centric, marginalising non-English-speaking scholars by imposing additional barriers to participation and recognition, perpetuating inequities in knowledge creation and dissemination. We argue that embracing GenAI can help to decolonise these academic practices, thereby promoting epistemic justice and creating a more equitable scholarly environment for all.

The increasing presence of generative AI in research presents both opportunities and challenges for qualitative data analysis. While generative AI tools such as ChatGPT can assist with pattern recognition, text classification, and summarisation, their role in in-depth, interpretive qualitative analysis remains under-theorised. This article draws on Actor-Network Theory to examine the integration of ChatGPT as a non-human (and arguably more-than-human) actor within a socio-material assemblage of qualitative data analysis. Using a researcher - participant - ChatGPT triadic model, we explore how analytic insight develops through processes of translation, reflexivity, and relational engagement. Our findings suggest that ChatGPT participates in the co-construction of meaning, prompting theoretical reflection, unsettling researcher assumptions, and contributing to distributed agency within the research network. Rather than streamlining analysis, ChatGPT reconfigures it, offering a new mode of participatory research in which power, interpretation, and knowledge are dynamically negotiated across human and non-human actors.

In qualitative research, using pseudonyms for participants is a common practice. This paper examines how inviting participants to choose their pseudonyms contributes to epistemic justice in the research process. We highlight the transformative potential of participant agency in the research journey by exploring data derived from a large qualitative study of 40 participants from diverse cultural identities who shared their experiences of their doctoral journeys at Western universities (predominantly in Australia). Participants were invited to choose pseudonyms for themselves and their institutions. Employing a narrative inquiry research methodology, data were analyzed via a three-stage iterative process, focusing on participants' pseudonym selection and the contextual explanations provided for their choices. Our findings reveal that when participants choose their pseudonyms, they are able to present their narratives with greater authenticity, capturing the richness of their lived experiences and cultural contexts, thereby advancing epistemic justice. This practice not only created a space of empowerment for participants but also fostered trust and collaboration between researchers and participants. Thus, we argue that recognizing and inviting the agency of participants in terms of naming can be considered a critical method, shifting traditional power dynamics in research by recognizing participants as experts on their own experiences.

There is an increasing focus on collecting more diverse demographic data from research participants but standard methodological approaches still hinder such efforts. This paper addresses the need for methodological improvements by advocating for the inclusion of self-written diversity statements in demographic surveys as a form of epistemic justice. Using examples from a large qualitative research study, I demonstrate the depth and richness of data that can be obtained through self-written diversity statements. In particular, I highlight the benefits of combining open-ended demographic questions and self-written diversity statements into holistic introductory stories to help capture the complexity of participants' intersectional identities. Therefore, I argue that using such an approach gives participants the agency to choose how they are represented in research.

This paper explores the power of collaborative peer feedback within doctoral writing groups by examining the effects of the feedback process that was implemented as part of a book project. Using communities of practice as a guiding theoretical framework, we identify that participants discovered how working together helped them foster collegiality, trust, and collective learning. Furthermore, writing group members felt that collaborative peer feedback helped them develop a shared repertoire and understanding of academic writing and publishing. Participants perceived collaborative peer feedback as a way to improve academic writing proficiency, build self-esteem, and foster confidence. Importantly, participants saw the experiential learning process applied in this book project as a way to discover previously tacit understandings or obscure practices in academia. Consequently, the findings of this study demonstrate that collaborative peer feedback within a safe space can foster learning-focused feedback when students are active and reflexive agents in the feedback process.

A sound understanding of research paradigms is crucial for developing coherent and philosophically grounded research designs, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. This paper offers an accessible overview of the most common research paradigms: positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, social constructionism, interpretivism, pragmatism, and critical realism. These paradigms differ in their approaches to ontology (the nature of reality), epistemology (the nature of knowledge), and axiology (the role of values in research). The paper also discusses the methodological and ethical implications of these paradigms. Reflexivity and ethical responsibility are emphasised, where researchers must account for how their own biases and values influence their work. By exploring these paradigms and their philosophical foundations, this paper aims to help researchers identify the paradigm that best aligns with their views about the world, ultimately enabling them to coherently design studies that are methodologically sound, ethically informed, and practically relevant. This article contributes to academic discourse by offering a clear and practical guide to research paradigms, fostering a deeper understanding of the philosophical underpinnings that shape research practices across disciplines.

This paper provides the reflections of an educator regarding the pedagogical use of generative artificial intelligence and the need for students to develop artificial intelligence literacy. It starts by providing an overview of generative artificial intelligence and the controversy that surrounds the technology in the contemporary higher education context. This is followed by an argument highlighting that the controversy in the field ignores the pedagogical applications of generative artificial intelligence. Finally, this paper demonstrates an example of how generative artificial intelligence has been used as part of a teaching strategy to help research students develop their artificial intelligence literacy. The paper argues that explicit modelling by educators can help students develop an understanding of generative artificial intelligence as a tool to improve their learning.

Background Conducting doctoral research is a challenging endeavour, a challenge which as the growing literature on the subject has shown, the COVD-19 pandemic has made even more so. For some doctoral researchers, however, the pandemic has also been accompanied by political unrest and military conflict, putting them and their networks at risk and making their research especially difficult to sustain. Methods We have used a collaborative auto-ethnography, and we, a group of seven doctoral researchers based in Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sudan and UK have written our experiences. Results Drawing upon the results of a collaborative auto-ethnography (CAE), this article records and discusses the experiences of a group of doctoral researchers who with the support of their organisation, the Social Science for Severe Stigmatised Skin Diseases (5S) Foundation, have been attempting to cope with both the pandemic and internal instability and strife. After firstly setting the context, the article explains why for the purposes of this paper CAE was adopted as our method, and then documents and discusses the experiences of seven doctoral researchers based in Ethiopia, Sudan, Rwanda, and the UK, doing so in terms of four different themes: New Ways of Working and Its Impact, Change and Delay, Mental Health and Well-Being Impact, and Qualities and Capacities. Conclusion What these experiences tell us is that this group of doctoral researchers have found themselves in extremely challenging situations, which have placed exceptionally high demands on them and their support networks, and this has had an impact on their health and well-being although also been the catalyst for some more positive development. Given their lived experiences, the article finishes with a series of recommendations for future research projects of this kind.

Despite the increasing quantitative evidence that there is a mental health crisis in doctoral education, there is a lack of qualitative research that highlights the voices of individuals experiencing mental illness. This study highlights the experiences of a second-year PhD student as she discovers that she is mentally unwell. The participant’s experiences are interwoven with the reflections and experiences of the researcher, a doctoral educator. Through the use of narrative ethnography, this study highlights the need for doctoral educators to build an environment that fosters students’ psychological capital by helping them develop efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience. In this way, doctoral education environments can become more welcoming, compassionate, inclusive, and growth-focused. This study also demonstrates the benefits for educators of employing narrative ethnography as a methodology to improve their own pedagogical practices by better understanding their own lived experiences as well as those of their students.

This section of the book synthesises authors' contributions by reflecting on the key themes identified in the various stories told within the chapters. It briefly describes the impact that marginalisation, parenthood, mental health, and virtual participation had on the formation of academic identity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The section ends with the editors' thoughts on what was achieved in this volume, in addition to the challenges that lie ahead.

Aim/Purpose: It is increasingly recognized that doctoral education programs should better support doctoral students. In particular, it has been noted that students experience significant isolation during their PhD, which negatively affects their educational experiences and their personal wellbeing. Doctoral writing groups are collaborative learning communities that have in recent years received increasing attention to address this issue. This collaborative autoethnography explores the affective benefits (i.e., benefits associated with emotions and feelings) of these doctoral writing groups, particularly focused on the pastorally supportive nature of these learning communities. Background: Writing groups have been shown to promote academic writing skills and build reflective practice, personal epistemology, and academic identity. We have found that a much more significant benefit of our writing groups has been the pastoral care we have experienced, particularly in relation to the turbulent emotions often associated with academic writing. This should, perhaps, not be surprising since it is clear that academic writing is a form of identity work. There is, therefore, a clear need to better support doctoral students, particularly with regard to the more affective components of academic writing. This prompted us to write this collaborative autoethnography to showcase what we consider to be the primary role of doctoral writing groups: pastoral care. Methodology: We employ a collaborative autoethnographic methodology to integrate our personal reflections into the existing literature in the field. Contribution: We argue that doctoral writing groups are vehicles of pastoral care as they promote wellbeing, foster resilience, provide academic care, and build social capital. Findings: We demonstrate that doctoral writing groups foster students’ sense of belonging through self-reflection and the sharing of experiences in a safe space, which builds perceived self-efficacy and self-awareness. Furthermore, through the self-reflection and discussion that is inherent in doctoral writing groups, students also develop a better understanding of themselves and their place within the academy. Recommendations for Practitioners: Our research highlights that writing groups may be designed to teach academic communication skills, but they provide an affective benefit that cannot yet be quantified and which should not be underestimated. Incorporating writing groups into doctoral education programs can, therefore, have a positive influence on the educational experiences of PhD students and improve their overall wellbeing. This paper concludes by providing practical suggestions to help practitioners implement writing groups into doctoral education programs, particularly focused on how these groups can be made more pastorally supportive. Recommendation for Researchers: This paper also extends the theoretical understanding of pastoral care by providing a framework for pastoral care within the doctoral writing group environment. We show how pastoral care can be conceptualized as the promotion of self-awareness, self-efficacy, reflection, and empowerment of doctoral students through nurturing communities where all members are valued, encouraged, guided, and supported. Our experiences, which we have integrated throughout this paper, also highlight the importance of relationship-building within the educational community, particularly when these relationships are characterized by mutual respect and shared responsibility. Impact on Society: The poor well-being of doctoral students has now been well-established across the world, but strategies to improve the academic environment for these students are still lacking. This paper provides evidence that implementing writing groups as a strategy to embed pastoral care in a doctoral education environment helps doctoral students flourish. Ultimately, this can lead to an improved academic research culture into the future. Future Research: Future research should explore other methods of better integrating pastoral care interventions into doctoral education programs in order to reduce isolation and promote student wellbeing.

An important component of PhD students' educational experiences is the understanding they develop of their academic identity. In this study, we explore PhD students' expectations and lived realities during their studies through the lens of Bourdieu's theory of practice. We show that doctoral students perceive the PhD as an all-consuming endeavor and, at the same time, a degree of competing demands. Importantly, several doctoral students' academic identities were laden with conceptions of marginalization, which evoked feelings of disempowerment and lead to a lack of agency. Therefore, this study advocates for a doctoral environment where different forms of human capital are valued and the voices of PhD students are respected within the academy. This will ensure that future scholars are able to enter the academy with a strong sense of who they are and where they fit within their field.

This conceptual review seeks to reframe the view of academic integrity as something to be enforced to an academic skill that needs to be developed. The authors highlight how practices within academia create an environment where feelings of inadequacy thrive, leading to behaviours of unintentional academic misconduct. Importantly, this review includes practical suggestions to help educators and higher education institutions support doctoral students’ academic integrity skills. In particular, the authors highlight the importance of explicit academic integrity instruction, support for the development of academic literacy skills, and changes in supervisory practices that encourage student and supervisor reflexivity. Therefore, this review argues that, through the use of these practical strategies, academia can become a space where a culture of academic integrity can flourish.

Objective While academic writing is considered a core competency in academia, academic writing anxiety is ubiquitous in doctoral student cohorts. Doctoral writing groups provide a space for participants to learn from each other's writing through the peer feedback process. In this conceptual review, we explore the dialogic nature of the peer feedback process in doctoral writing groups.Methods The findings in this study are based on thematic analyses of published peer-reviewed research using standard word processing, annotation, and referencing software.Results We focus on how the space of security and trust that is created in doctoral writing groups encourages participants to explore writing as a social practice. Through the relationships built in this type of interactive community, doctoral writing group participants discover and explore the discourses of scholarly communication. Furthermore, doctoral writing groups foster students' ability to navigate the often-times implicit narratives of academia, thereby building student agency.Conclusion We argue, therefore, that feedback in doctoral writing groups should be viewed as a space of academic social practice.Implications This study underscores the importance of embedding opportunities for peer-based learning into doctoral programmes not only in the fields of educational and developmental psychology, but also in other disciplines more broadly.

This book offers a range of personal and engaging stories that highlight the diverse voices of doctoral students as they explore their own learning journeys. Through these stories, doctoral students call for an academic environment in which the discipline-specific knowledge gained during their PhD is developed in concert with the skills needed to maintain personal wellbeing, purposely reflect on experiences, and build intercultural competence. In recent years, wellbeing has been increasingly recognised as an important aspect of doctoral education. Yet, few resources exist to help those who support doctoral students. Wellbeing in Doctoral Education provides a voice for doctoral students to advocate for improvements to their own educational environment. Both the struggles and the strategies for success highlighted by the students are, therefore, invaluable not only for the students themselves, but also their families, their social networks, and academia more broadly. Importantly, the doctoral students’ stories should be a clarion call for those in decision-making positions in academia. These narratives demonstrate that it is imperative that academic institutions invest in providing the skills and support that doctoral students need to succeed academically and flourish emotionally.