CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37Doctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsStudent Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Feedback as socialization in doctoral education: towards the enactment of authentic feedback

Open access
Carless, David, Jung, Jisun, Li, Yongyan·2024·Studies in Higher Education
DOI 10.1080/03075079.2023.2242888
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Feedback processes are crucial in doctoral supervision but require adaptation to meet the changing nature of the doctorate, and increasing impetus to publish during the candidature. This study builds on concepts of authentic feedback and feedback literacy to chart possibilities for the development of feedback socialization in doctoral education. Semi-structured interviews with twenty doctoral supervisors in a faculty of education in Hong Kong aimed to investigate their understandings of feedback, its enactment within the doctoral process, and broader feedback inputs beyond the supervisor. Data were analyzed through reflexive thematic analysis and trustworthiness was enhanced through a member checking focus group with a sub-set of four of the interviewees. The analysis is informed by sociocultural theory with emphasis on co-construction of insights between supervisors and doctoral students. The findings highlight supervisors’ understandings of feedback as comments, interaction and follow-up; and authentic feedback generated from presenting at conferences or submitting to journals. A contribution of the paper lies in bringing to bear conceptual insights from feedback research in undergraduate education to inform feedback in doctoral supervision. We deploy the concept of authentic feedback, practices that resemble those of the relevant workplace, to demonstrate how journal peer review facilitates the socialization of doctoral students into academic publishing norms. Key supervisor roles lie in guiding the enactment of responses to peer review, and supporting the development of resilience. Proposed features of supervisors’ feedback literacy include sociocultural-based dialogue and co-construction, emphasis on the enactment of feedback and working with authentic feedback of different forms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03075079.2023.2242888

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Carless, D., Jung, J., & Li, Y.
Affiliations
University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Carless, David
ORCID
Venue
Studies in Higher Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-08
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
534-545
ISSN
  • 0307-5079 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-174X
DOI
10.1080/03075079.2023.2242888
OpenAlex
W4385456049
Cited by
37
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 6
FWCI
13.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Studies in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
feedback, doctoral supervision, feedback literacy, socialization, doctoral education, peer review, sociocultural theory, co-construction of knowledge, supervisor role, resilience

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