Umeå University's logo

The aim of this workshop is to leverage participants’ expertise and creativity to collaboratively develop (a) a better understanding of the diverse roles that material artifacts can play in positioning processes and (b) new methods for analyzing these roles empirically. Positioning researchers have recently begun to explore how people use artifacts to position themselves and others. In this workshop, we will draw on post-humanist theories to explore how artifacts become intertwined with human action and communication and positioned together, as human-material entanglements. As a concrete example, we will analyze a short video sequence in which five engineering students engage in small group learning while one of the students eats from glass bowl. We will explore how the student-bowl entanglement is positioned and how it, in turn, positions other students and artifacts. Based on the concrete experiences of analyzing the student-bowl positioning, we will then address three more general methodological challenges: (1) How can we analyze positioning processes involving human-material entanglements? (2)What implications arise for positioning theory more broadly and definitions of central analytic concepts? (3) How can we develop multimodal transcriptions of video data for analyzing and representing positioning processes that involve human-material entanglements?

This workshop uses Holland et al.’s (1998) theory of figured worlds and Lönngren and Berge’s (in print) theory of emotional positioning. We explore figured emotional worlds operating in engineering classrooms and imagine possible futures.  

Framing concepts: Figured worlds (FW) are historical, social, and cultural interpretations of practices that constrain actions and interactions and distribute individuals in social roles across landscapes of action. Used as a lens, FWs let us explore past and current practices and imagine possible futures. In this workshop, we transgress disciplinary and theoretical silos and imagine possible FWs of intersecting and transcending spaces where engineering, education, and social justice meet. Importantly, play is a central avenue through which individuals negotiate with, re-imagine, and change FWs. We actualize play through the concept of playful learning (Nørgård, Toft-Nielsen & Whitton 2017). 

Emotional positioning: Positioning describes the process of assigning rights and duties to individuals. Emotional positioning centers 1) using emotions to position self and others and 2) positioning self and others in terms of emotions (Lönngren and Berge in print). 

Workshop Structure: We illustrate framing concepts with examples from our research before using magazine cutouts to construct collages representing current emotional positioning within engineering classrooms and desired future emotional positioning participants wish to create. In groups, we discuss our collages, synthesize ideas, and close by collectively imagining ways moving from the present into possible future. 

Holland, D., Lachicotte, W. J., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press.  

Lönngren, J., & Berge, J. (in print). Positioning, Emotions, and Emotional Positioning. In M. McVee et al. (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Positioning Theory (pp. 1–17). Routledge. 

Nørgård, R. T., Toft-Nielsen, C., & Whitton, N. (2017). Playful learning in higher education: developing a signature pedagogy. International Journal of Play, 6(3), 272-282.

"We deliver academic excellence by pursuing knowledge,inspiring creativity, supporting our diverse community andadvancing social justice and positive change in the world.”(October 2023)

This is the current mission statement of a minority serving higher education institution onthe West Coast of the United States. A social justice oriented reading highlights the qualityof teaching and learning to be characterized by a diverse learning environment. In this sense,diversity, creativity, and community are understood to be at the core of socially just andexcellent academic education. Despite a US-wide shift towards mission statements andpolicy changes explicitly including dimensions of equity and social justice, changingacademic biology teaching towards creating more equitable and socially just learning spaceshas proven to be an ambitious goal and shown to be more easily put into writing thanpractice (Author, 2012).

The institution’s biology department has implemented a variety of interventions to worktowards the goal of providing excellent, effective, and inclusive education to its diversestudent body. At the core of this program is the professional pedagogical development ofbiology instructors, supporting them to collaboratively develop and implementevidence-based and inclusive teaching methods (Author, 2018). One intervention is aweek-long Teaching Institute which includes activities that explicitly conceptualized scientificteaching as based on active learning, assessment, equity, and diversity, and the collection ofclassroom evidence to iteratively improve biology teaching and learning. Starting in 2013,only four years later, nearly 90% of the university’s biology instructors had participated inthe professional pedagogical development interventions. This makes this department arather unique context to explore the effects of interventions. Here, we explore instructors’self-reports on how their conceptualizations of effective and inclusive teaching havechanged over time and if and how these changes were prompted by interventions.

Theoretically rooted in sociocultural understandings of learning, we consider learning to beintertwined with processes of identity negotiations and situated in the environment thatparticipants find themselves in (Holland and Lachicotte, 2007; Lave and Wenger, 1991). This also applies to instructors’ process of learning to teach in a given environment, constitutinga process of becoming, influenced by and influencing instructors’ identity work.

Key objectives

To better understand barriers and affordances of departmental pedagogical change and development opportunities, we ask, 1) How do biology instructors at SFSU conceptualizeeffective and inclusive teaching, 2) How have their self-reported conceptualizations abouteffective and inclusive teaching changed over time, and 3) How have theseconceptualizations been influenced by professional development interventions?

Research design and methodology

Addressing these key objectives, we designed a semi-structured interview study (Husband, 2020), conducting two interviews with 22 biology instructors. The first interview was eitheronline or in person (if requested) and covered objectives one and two discussing howinstructors define effective and inclusive teaching, how they translate thoseconceptualizations into their classrooms, as well as how their conceptualizations andteaching have changed over time. We allowed for reflections on the instructors’ personalbackgrounds if they were brought up during the interviews, and how instructors describedthem as influential to their professional practices and perspectives on learning and teaching.

For the second interview, we invited instructors to meet the interviewer in a space of their choice which had an impact on their perspective on inclusive and effective teaching. During interviews we discussed the impact of the respective spaces, what changes the spacesprompted or inhibited. Furthermore, we explicitly addressed objective three discussing ifand how professional interventions have shaped instructors’ teaching perspectives andpractices. Depending on how the conversations evolved, some questions were coveredearlier or later during interviews.

The majority of the interviewees participated in the first two Teaching Institutes facilitated at SFSU (20 instructors, 91%), 7 (32%) identify as women and gender non-binary, 15 (78%) asmen. Furthermore, about half of the interviewees self-identify as people of color while theother half self-identifies as white. In order to protect participants’ anonymity, we refrainfrom disclosing more detailed demographic information. All interviews were transcribedusing a transcription service and analyzed using the analysis software NVivo.

To get an overview over the data, we first conducted a thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke,2012) with an epistemological sensitivity towards how teaching conceptualizations intersectwith participants’ identity negotiations. We here built on Carlone and Johnson’s (2007) pillars of science identity, namely competence, performance, and recognition. While wehere present preliminary findings, we will further refine our analysis in a reiterative processand present final results at the conference.

Preliminary findings

A first analysis indicates a variety of ways in which instructors conceptualize effective andinclusive teaching. One approach is 1) content-centered and effectiveness and inclusivitybased on if predefined content was communicated effectively and made available toeveryone. A 2) relevance-centered approach makes content relevant and thereby accessibleto students, as well as to actively include students in the development of the teaching andclassroom activities.Motivations for these approaches are in line with what Author (2012) described, namelythat a lack of training, time, and incentives are central to prohibiting pedagogical change.

However, the epistemological sensitivity for identity made visible that these understandingsare deeply interwoven with instructors’ identity work. Instructors who are content-centeredtend to display a strong research identity and see this identity to be challenged when theteaching focus shifts to pedagogies. When drawing on a relevance-centered approach,instructors show a tendency to share about their experiences feeling marginalized duringtheir educational career as well as feeling reassured that they are valued for the teachingthey do and that their perspectives matter. Furthermore, they report that the professionaltraining interventions provided them with language for strategies they already were familiarwith, which reassured them in their science teaching identity.

In the conference talk, we will further expand on these findings as well as contextualizethem in the broader landscape through interactive discussions.

Today’s performance pressures in universities that push for quantity over quality exacerbate existing problems of equity in research as well as in teaching practice. In field-intensive disciplines such as biology and geology, this fast-paced culture impacts teaching quality and the production of knowledge, and reduces time and resources needed to eTectively implement inclusive, equitable practices. Fast-paced fieldwork thereby becomes an exclusionary environment reproducing fieldwork cultures that systematically exclude already marginalized students along axes of oppression of for instance ability, ethnicity, and gender. Beyond physical challenges, mental challenges such as isolation and fear have potential to be enhanced in a field setting, traditionally constructed as harsh, white, and male. This paper proposes a slow science framework for field-based disciplines to foster a more diverse, healthy and collaborative academic culture, allowing for hesitation, exploration, failure, and connection. Slow science calls for curiosity-driven as opposed to research-driven explorations by performance targets in order to create “knowledges that are worth being cultivated“ (Stengers, 2018, p. 82). Slow science furthermore inspires us to create liveable, sustainable, and creative ways of being in academia (Dionne, 2020). Ideally, fieldwork can be a space that leaves no one behind or outside of the 21relationality, where we are together-apart (Barad, 2007) in learning and living. We argue that a slow field-based framework can create a shift in perspectives needed for humanizing the field sciences allowing students and instructors to be seen as humans who need time, space, and safe communities in order to learn and thrive in the field.

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.

Dionne, É. (2020). Slowing down with non-human matter: The contribution of feminist new materialism to slow scholarship. In Posthuman and political care ethics for reconfiguring higher education pedagogies (pp. 91-106). Routledge.

Stengers, I. (2018). Another science is possible: A manifesto for slow science. John Wiley & Sons.

This conceptual paper contributes to emerging conversations on the meaning of materiality and embodiment in positioning processes. We demonstrate how the positioning of an artifact, a banana, can become analytically inseparable from students’ positioning during small-group interactions.Methodologically grounded in multi-modal analyses of socio-material positioning processes, we empirically root this study in 23 seconds of video data, displaying a group of five engineering students in a project-based sustainability course. We ask (1) how artifacts become positioned with people as sociomaterial entanglements and (2) how artifactual positioning contributes to transforming abstract concepts into concrete understanding. Our analysis follows an artifact’s entanglement with students’ positioning in learning situations in processes of first- to second-, and third-order positioning. More concretely, drawing on the artifactual materiality of the banana, students move from an abstract level of understanding the concept of ‘social pressure’ in the context of Swedish fika to a concrete and embodied example of how social pressure operates for everyone and themselves. Mapping this process empirically and theoretically, we visualize how artifactual positioning facilitates learning, and we suggest multimodality as a methodological tool for further theory development and empirical research.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, distance learning became the predominant teaching method at most universities, exposing students and teachers alike to novel and unexpected challenges and learning opportunities. Our study is situated in the context of higher physics education at a large Swedish university and adopts a mixed-methods approach to explore how students perceive shifts to distance learning. Quantitative student survey responses comparing distance learning during the pandemic with previous in-person learning are analyzed with k-means cluster analysis and with a random-intercept multilevel linear model. Combined analyses produce a consistent picture of students who report having experienced the greatest challenges. They are on average younger, report being less autonomous in their learning, and find it harder than peers to ask questions to the instructor. They are also less likely to have access to a place where they can study without interruptions. Variation across courses is small with students being largely subjected to the same set of challenges. Qualitative data from semi-structured focus group interviews and open-ended questions supports these findings, provides a deeper understanding of the struggles, and reveals possibilities for future interventions. Students report an overall collapse of structure in their learning that takes place along multiple dimensions. Our findings highlight a fundamental role played by informal peer-to-peer and student-instructor interactions, and by the exchange of what we refer to as “structural information.” We discuss implications for teachers and institutions regarding the possibility of providing support structures, such as study spaces, as well as fostering student autonomy.

Globalizations of higher education has led to increasingly diverse student bodies, bringing forth unique opportunities and challenges in academic supervision (Kidman et al., 2017; Pinto, 2020). While formal supervision and academic guidance play pivotal roles in shaping academic trajectories and skill development, research points towards supervision as a site of power imbalances, contributing to feelings of unbelonging and shown to be affected by gender biases, racial stereotypes, and cultural misunderstandings, rooted in, among others, academic, subject, and geographic socio-cultural (mis)understandings (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2018; Wisker & Fossland, 2023). Sweden is a particularly interesting site for critical explorations of academic practices as it is (rather falsely) perceived to be one of the most gender-equal countries (Martinsson et al., 2016) that has (supposedly) transgressed racism (Hübinette & Lundström, 2014) and where celebrated academic discourses are strongly built on the goal of internationalization (Silander & Pietliä, 2023). 

Recognizing multifaceted encounters in doctoral journeys, our research focuses on juxtaposing formal supervision and informal network support in conjunction with culture and intersecting identity axes such as gender, class, and ethnicity. In this pilot study, we delve into the nuanced experiences of two distinct cohorts of current and former international women biology doctoral candidates. We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with all participants, capturing their lived experiences, challenges, and perceptions of supervision. Subsequently, a focus group interview was conducted with each group in which participants collectively made sense of shared and diverging experiences. Paying attention to participants’ narratives and experiences, our analysis nuances how intersecting identity productions and cultural dimensions are understood to contribute to shaping these experiences. 

Using a Foucauldian discourse analytical framework, we identified multiple culturally-informed tensions in formal supervision and informal network support as a crucial factor for perseverance. Participants highlighted among others the significance of peer mentorship, community building, and emotional support in navigating the complexities of academic life abroad. Informal networks often served as a buffer against systemic challenges, offering safe spaces for sharing experiences, strategies, and resources.

Juxtaposing formal and informal support mechanisms across various identity axes, this study highlights the need for more holistic approaches to supervision that acknowledges and addresses intersecting challenges faced by diverse doctoral candidates and points towards a need for alternative ways of training supervisors. As the global academic community continues to evolve, understanding these dynamics becomes imperative for fostering inclusive, supportive, and empowering supervisory environments conducive to the success and well-being of all doctoral candidates.

References

Elliot, D. L., & Kobayashi, S. (2018). How can PhD supervisors play a role in bridging academic cultures?. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1517305

Hübinette, T., & Lundström, C. (2014). Three phases of hegemonic whiteness: Understanding racial temporalities in Sweden. Social identities, 20(6), 423-437. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2015.1004827

Kidman, J., Manathunga, C., & Cornforth, S. (2017). Intercultural PhD supervision: exploring the hidden curriculum in a social science faculty doctoral programme. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(6), 1208-1221. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1303457

Martinsson, L., Griffin, G., & Nygren, K. G. (Eds.). (2016). Challenging the myth of gender equality in Sweden. Bristol: Policy Press.

Pinto, S. (2020). Encounters of cultures in doctoral supervision: productive or problematic?. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 48(48). https://doi.org/10.24140/issn.1645-7250.rle48.10 

Silander, C., & Pietliä, M. (2023). Teaching and research staff at Swedish universities–A view through the lens of internationalization and diversity. Högre utbildning, 13(2), 72-87. https://doi.org/10.23865/hu.v13.5226 

Wisker, G., & Fossland, T. (2023). Tackling Gender Inequality In Doctoral Supervision-An Intersectional Toolkit Involving Hearts, Minds, Policies, And Practices. Journal for New Generation Sciences, 21(1), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.10520/ejc-newgen-v21-n1-a10 

Rationale and theoretical background

Higher education biology is often imagined, perceived, and described as having reached genderequality in terms of who gets to participate in disciplinary practices, and thereby as more accessible and also easier than other natural science disciplines (Wong et al., 2022). Biology is thereby constructed to be the most inclusionary university natural science field, within which gendered processes of exclusion are absent and equality along the axis of gender has been reached. In contrastto for instance physics, a male dominated natural science discipline that is given extensive attention in science education research, qualitative explorations of higher education biology are rather scarce and marginalized. This marginalization has been critically discussed to be a consequence of theassumption that equality can be measured quantitatively, based on female biased undergraduate enrolment (Grunspan et al., 2016). Women and other minoritized groups are, however, still strongly underrepresented in natural science landscapes (UNESCO, 2021) in general and greatly outnumbered by men among biology faculty in, for instance, Sweden (SCB, 2020) and the United States (Sheltzer & Smith, 2014). Biology is consequently not excepted from common patterns of a decrease of women’s participation in the natural sciences along the academic career ladder and finds itself in a disciplinary STEM hierarchy (Wong et al., 2022). Amongst other systemic processes, and understanding learning as a sociocultural process, reproductions of exclusionary norms of being in and doing science have been described as contributing to making a sense of belonging to science practice accessible for some, but less so for others along intersecting axes of power (Avraamidou, 2020).

We build our theoretical framework on the understanding of all social productions to happen in discursive social and cultural constructed figured worlds “in which particular characters and actors are recognized, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others” (Holland et al, 1998, p. 52). These worlds, like higher biology and science education, as contexts of meaning or cultural realms, are peopled by collective imaginaries and thereby “take shape within and grant shape to the coproduction of activities, discourse, performances, andartifacts” (Holland et al., 1998, p. 51). Gee (2014) describes figured worlds as simplified imaginaries and “typical stories” that vary between people with different social and cultural backgrounds (Gee,2014, pp. 174–175). With this understanding, we both explain the currently constructed intelligible ways of being and doing biology, which are interconnected with intelligible gendered performances (Butler, 2006) but also allow for possibilities of cultural change.

Key objectives

In this study (Authors 2023) and building on a similar study on biology students (Authors 2021), we explored how higher education biology teachers negotiate norms of doing and being in science through the lens of science identity. We asked, what higher education biology identities (for teachersand students) are imagined as (unintelligible by university biology teachers and thereby get (re)produced in higher education biology landscapes and cultures.

Research design and methodology

We collected and analyzed 94 teaching statements written by university teachers when applying for faculty positions. We argue that in and through teaching statements, university biology teachersnegotiate and perform overarching academic, scientific, and disciplinary norms and discourses with the goal to present themselves as intelligible candidates for the respective academic position. These statements thereby become performative and can be considered as statements of value, which display implicit and explicit identities recognized in worlds of higher education biology as well as norms that render those identities (un)intelligible. With this understanding, we explore both normative reproductions as well as alternative productions and imaginaries that transgress circularities of exclusive science and biology practices. Merging cultural, social constructivist, as well as feminist critique of science perspectives, we used a discourse analytical framework (Gee, 2014) with a sensitivity towards possible identities and in the following describe two synthesized higher education biology teacher identities deriving from the analysis of the teaching statement texts.

Findings

We identified two university teacher identities imagined as intelligible: Research Science Teachers and Facilitating Science Teachers. Research Science Teachers position research and associated masculine-coded competences as anchor points of biology practice. They consider researchers to be ultimate knowers and consequently to be best suitable for university teaching with the goal to recruit students into research. Facilitating Science Teachers, even though aware of the hegemonic positionof research, disentangle imaginaries of what makes a researcher from what makes a university teacher. They understand themselves to be facilitators for students’ learning and in interaction support them in the process of aspiring their goals. They thereby transgress dominant imaginaries ofresearch as the ultimate competence for themselves and students, and create spaces for alternative identity work.

Conclusions

Visualizing the centrality of a masculine coded research competence imaginary that is also connected to hegemonic imaginaries of science as elite, this study provides further evidence that norms of masculine-coded science practices are positioned as anchor points in university biology teachers'identity negotiations and hence biology as a discipline to not be a gender-neutral practice. While research on possible and impossible (science) identities in male-dominated natural science disciplines is rather extensive and perspectives on higher education biology marginalized, our explorations point toward broader mechanisms of in- and exclusion, based on imaginaries of who embodies science in identity political and gendered fields of tension (Brickhouse et al., 2006). These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of (re)productive processes in science education, providing perspectives of how to together transgress intergenerational (re)productions of hegemonic norms of doing science. Additionally, this study provides further evidence that higher education biology is not a gender-neutral higher education landscape and shed lights on realms of the reproductions of exclusionary norms rendering certain identities unintelligible in higher biology education.

Values of interdisciplinary education is increasingly supported by didactical and pedagogical research. While we are encouraged to teach interdisciplinarily, there are only few examples of how to shape such teaching practices pedagogically. We here provide examples and structures of ways to teach inclusively, interactively and in teams to develop an interdisciplinary dialogue, transgressing monodisciplinary teaching. Our examples derive from an independent basic undergraduate course where gender studies and biology embrace each other as disciplines, and where students develop new perspectives through inclusive discussions in safe teaching settings. We reflect over practices that are useful in a diversity of educational contexts, where discussions and dialogues form the basis for inclusion and interdisciplinary learning.

Det värdefulla med ämnesöverskridande utbildning får mer och mer stöd i didaktisk och pedagogisk forskning. Tvärdisciplinär undervisning uppmuntras, men det finns ännu få exempel på hur man pedagogiskt kan utforma undervisningen i praktiken. Vi ger här exempel på hur man i en tvärvetenskaplig utbildningspraktik kan arbeta med inkludering, interaktion och lagarbete för att utveckla tvärvetenskaplig kommunikation och samarbete. Våra exempel kommer från en fristående grundkurs där genusvetenskap och biologi befruktar varandra ämnesmässigt och där trygga undervisningsmiljöer med inkluderande diskussioner utvecklar studenterna till att få nya och förändrade perspektiv. Vi reflekterar över praktik och upplägg som kan användas i en mångfald av undervisningssammanhang där kommunikation och inkludering är bärande för tvärvetenskapligt lärande.

Independence forms a prominent value in dominant discourses on research education and supervision (Elliot et al., 2023; Nerad et al., 2022). In Nordic contexts, the goal of supporting doctoral candidates in achieving independence is institutionalized through policies and pedagogies of supervision (cf. Retsinformation, 2014; Wickmann-Hansen, 2021). Independence thus constitutes a cultural norm informing expectations on what ideal supervision looks like and shapes (re)productions of the ideal student (Wong & Chiu, 2020) affecting available and celebrated identities (Gonsalvez et al., 2019) in doctoral education.

In the last decades, PhD education has become increasingly internationalized with up to half of the doctoral candidates being international (Baggersgaard, 2023). This implies a diversification of cultural experiences in supervision practice (Sahar et al., 2022), rendering doctoral candidates exposed to troubled negotiations of identity (Kidman et al., 2017). Considering the prominence of independence for Nordic supervision culture, we here problematize that norm and ask: What is implied in being “independent” and how is independence negotiated in international experiences? 

This workshop explores how to develop supervision competencies towards a sensitivity for cultural situatedness. Taking our point of departure in expectations surrounding independence, we dive into intersectionalities of natural science doctoral supervision, academic science histories, and socio-cultural dimensions of professional and personal identity work. Grounded in the concept of science identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007) as constructed and (re-)produced in cultural worlds (Holland et al., 1998), we facilitate multiple exercises, encouraging discussions on how we can develop cultural and identity literacy as an important competence of supervision practice. 

Engaging all participants, this workshop will draw on a variety of activities. While introducing the subject to participants, they will undertake a card sorting exercise (Mensah, 2012) that centers different dimensions of social and professional identity with the aim to visualize how their perceived salience differs for each individual. After debriefing the exercise first in small groups with a short multiple-hands-multiple-voices summary, we will scaffold narrative-based group work, commencing with a short reflexive writing exercise on emotional cultural encounters. Through the construction of collages, participants get to visualize these encounters with expectations of independence through an art-based activity, which we will debrief in plenum. We will furthermore encourage participants to choose one emotion that represents the underlying feeling of that encounter and collect that information on post-it notes to prompt both a feeling of togetherness when sharing similar emotions as well as visualizing diversities in experiences.

References: 

Baggersgaard, Claus (2023, November 2). Fire ud af ti forskere er nu udlændinge. https://dm.dk/forskerforum/magasinet/2023/forskerforum-nr-5-2023/fire-ud-af-ti-forskere-er-nu-udlaendinge/

Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44(8), 1187-1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237 

Elliot, D L., Bengtsen, S. & Guccione, K. (2023) Introduction. Researcher independence and interdependence: an oxymoron? In Dely Lazarte Elliot, Søren S. E. Bengtsen, and Kay Guccione (eds.) Developing researcher independence through the hidden curriculum. Palgrave Macmillan https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42875-3

Gonsalves, A. J., Silfver, E., Danielsson, A., & Berge, M. (2019). “It’s not my dream, actually”: students’ identity work across figured worlds of construction engineering in Sweden. International Journal of STEM Education, 6, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0165-4 

Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press.

Kidman, J., Manathunga, C., & Cornforth, S. (2017). Intercultural PhD supervision: exploring the hidden curriculum in a social science faculty doctoral programme. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(6), 1208-1221. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1303457

Mensah, F. M. (2012). Positional identity as a lens for connecting elementary preservice teachers to teaching in urban classrooms. In Identity construction and science education research (pp. 103-121). Brill. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-043-9 

Nerad, M., Bogle, D., Kohl, U., O’Carroll, C. Peters, C. & Scholz, B. (2022) Towards a Global Core Value System in Doctoral Education, London: UCL PressSahar, R., Nurdamayanti, S., & Saad, M. (2022). Academic Cultures of Postgraduate Supervision: What Influences Supervisors in their Practices?. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 7(21), 113-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v7i21.3719 

Retsinformation (2014) Bekendtgørelse om ph.d.-uddannelsen ved universiteterne og visse kunstneriske uddannelsesinstitutioner (ph.d.-bekendtgørelsen). BEK nr 1039 af 27/08/2013. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2013/1039 

Wickmann-Hansen, Gitte (2021) DUT guide on supervision. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift 16(31) https://doi.org/10.7146/dut.v16i31.127292

Wong, B., & Chiu, Y. L. T. (2020). University lecturers’ construction of the ‘ideal’ undergraduate student. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(1), 54-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1504010