Learning networks and the journey of ‘becoming doctor’
Abstract
Scholars such as Kamler and Thompson argue that identity formation has a key role to play in doctoral learning, particularly the process of thesis writing. This article builds on these insights to address other sites in which scholarly identity is performed within doctoral candidature. Drawing on actor‐network theory, the authors examine the role of material things, what Latour calls ‘the missing masses’, in the process of ‘becoming doctor’, with the aim of unpacking the implications of this for doctoral learning and the journey of becoming a researcher or scholar. Through this approach the authors demonstrate that scholarly identity is distributed and comes to be performed through both traditional and non‐traditional sites of learning. The article concludes by addressing the implications of this for efforts to support candidates in the process of becoming researchers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Doctoral students need support to develop their scholarly identity through access to both traditional and non-traditional sites of learning.
“Furthermore, scholars have argued that doctoral students need support to develop their scholarly identity through access to both traditional and non-traditional sites of learning (Barnacle & Mewburn, 2010).”
From Academic Conferences as Learning Sites: A Multinational Comparison of Doctoral Students’ Perspectives and Institutional Policy (2019) · cites this paper as Barnacle & Mewburn, 2010
This finding concurs with Hopwood's (2010) and Barnacle and Mewburn's (2010) findings about the importance of non-formal learning spaces.
“This finding concurs with Hopwood's (2010) and Barnacle and Mewburn's (2010) findings about the importance of non-formal learning spaces.”
From Academic Conferences as Learning Sites: A Multinational Comparison of Doctoral Students’ Perspectives and Institutional Policy (2019) · cites this paper as Barnacle and Mewburn's (2010)
Cites
Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity
Law, J. (1992) · Systems Practice · doi:10.1007/bf01059830 · Cited by 3,244 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fakunle, O., Dollinger, M., Alla-Mensah, J., & Izard, B. (2019) · International Journal of Doctoral Studies · doi:10.28945/4383 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
- Authors
- Barnacle, R., & Mewburn, I.
- Affiliations
- RMIT University (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Barnacle, Robyn
- Venue
- Studies in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 433-444
- ISSN
- 0307-5079 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-174X
- OpenAlex
- W2142216299
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 13.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Studies in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
- Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Posthumanist Ethics and Activism
- Keywords
- doctoral candidature, academic identity, identity construction, becoming a researcher, learning networks, actor-network theory, missing mass, thesis writing, decentralized identity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review