Isolation in Globalizing Academic Fields: A Collaborative Autoethnography of Early Career Researchers

This study examines academic isolation – an involuntary perceived separation from the academic field to which one aspires to belong, associated with a perceived lack of agency in terms of one’s engagement with the field – as a key challenge for researchers in increasingly globalized academic careers. While prior research describes early career researchers’ isolation in their institutions, we theorize early career researchers’ isolation in their academic fields and reveal how they attempt to mitigate isolation to improve their career prospects. Using a collaborative autoethnographic approach, we generate and analyze a dataset focused on the experiences of ten early career researchers in a globalizing business academic field known as Consumer Culture Theory. We identify bricolage practices, polycentric governance practices, and integration mechanisms that work to enhance early career researchers’ perceptions of agency and consequently mitigate their academic isolation. Our findings extend discussions on isolation and its role in new academic careers. Early career researchers, in particular, can benefit from a deeper understanding of practices that can enable them to mitigate isolation and reclaim agency as they engage with global academic fields

Shifting positionalities across international locations: Embodied knowledge, time‐geography, and the polyvalence of privilege

Despite a robust body of scholarship on positionality, the practice of international Higher Education research often neglects engagement with the varied, fluid and complex positionalities of researchers across national boundaries. Through a series of vignettes, the authors argue for reflexivity that extends beyond rigid social identities and towards embodied knowledge, or self-understanding that is mutable and context responsive. For international mobile researchers especially, new affinities can evolve through propinquity and social custom, and gradually become incorporated into self-knowledge with the passing of time. Beyond mere cultural competency, this article raises the importance of symbolic competency that simultaneously negotiates the multiple dimensions of language, various forms of capital, as well as evolving social identities in conducting research in different contexts.12 month embargo; published online: 21 June 2019This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Doctoral Supervision with Colleagues

The doctoral supervision of an academic colleague when both are employed in the same university has attracted limited research. In contrast, there is a plethora of research on a range of aspects related to doctoral supervision including processes associated with doctoral supervision, guidance for the doctoral supervisor, and the relationship between the doctoral supervisor and candidate. The completion of a doctorate is a substantial investment by both the candidate and the university and is brought into even sharper focus if the candidate is also an employee at the same university. Though each of the parties is driven by different agendas, they share a common interest in the successful completion of the doctorate. This may place additional pressure on the candidate and supervisor, particularly in relation to their professional credibility and career trajectory. This chapter draws from previous research conducted by the authors’ into this complex relationship and presents a number of recommendations to inform best practice. These recommendations have been drawn from the research participants, literature, and the authors’ experiences as doctoral candidates and doctoral supervisors for colleagues. The first section discusses important issues related to the area of colleague doctoral supervision. The following section identifies a series of recommendations concerning colleague doctoral supervision for the various stakeholders. The final section offers a blueprint for those tasked with formalizing this potential complex relationship