Chapter 1 suggested that professional doctorate students are more likely to study within a group or cohort. This offers the potential for a variety of activ- ities which promote peer support and provide a consistent focal point during
the study experience. This should help minimize what Neumann (2005: 178) describes as the ‘lone researcher syndrome’ of the PhD.
There are several skills required from professional doctorate students that perhaps emphasize or reinforce the need for effective group support and mutual learning. For example while meeting the criteria of doctoral study in terms of originality, creativity and the advancement of knowledge through research, students are also developing and applying their research in their professional practice. In essence they are advancing professional knowledge using research strategies while also integrating this knowledge with profes- sional practice. This characteristic distinguishes the professional doctorate from other modes of doctoral study, as explored in Chapter 1.
Group cohesion and support offer the opportunity to critically reflect on the experiences generated during the professional doctorate process and to rehearse for some of the issues and challenges to be faced when engaged in practitioner type research. For example a later chapter will explore the issues of leading research in professional practice. In addition students can use groups to develop the academic skills commensurate with doctoral study. For example there are opportunities to further develop academic writing style, which may be completely different to the formal report writing required in some professions. Furthermore groups can be used to prepare for key mile- stones in doctoral study: interim assessment or review and preparation for viva. Increasingly there is an expectation that students will disseminate their research work through conference presentations and publications. Again groups could be used as a learning opportunity in relation to these requirements.
While all of these issues focus on particular professional doctorate out- comes, such as knowledge and skill, there are wider process benefits of group membership, such as mutual encouragement and reciprocity of learning.
Communities of practice could be used as a conceptual framework to under- pin group activities for professional doctorate students. These comprise groups of people who have a shared interest and a common need to learn about their practice, their role in practice and how that practice can be strengthened and developed. The guiding principle for learning is through a group approach to developing and exploring common issues, rather than the pursuit of learning on an individual basis (Smith 2003).
A community of practice is defined as, ‘A set of relations among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation with other tangential and over- lapping communities of practice’ (Lave and Wenger 1991: 98). In the context of professional doctorate study the community of practice is the student community who seek to develop their practice through the effective imple- mentation of research strategies and the enhancement of professional skills, such as leadership, change management and reflection. The definition above also implies that communities of practice overlap. For example while students may work as a group or cohort within one community of practice as it were, there is an overlap with other communities of practice, for example:
• The students’ workplace and colleagues • Professional organizations
• Research or professional networks
• The wider doctoral student population in the university
Wenger (1998) identifies three characteristics for a community of practice: 1 The domain: this is described as the common purpose or aim shared within
the group
2 The community: members of which share common practice needs and have discussions to support each other and facilitate practice. The community is based on relationships that foster learning and development. This charac- teristic distinguishes the community from an interest group, which may have a shared interest but does not necessarily use this to advance or change practice
3 The practice: the work and practice that is common to community members who collect resources and/or develop and apply these resources and prac- titioner experiences
If the three components are applied to professional doctorate students then Wenger’s initial concept, the domain, relates to the students’ research purpose in terms of knowledge and skills gained to advance professional practice through research. It should include process as a focus within the domain, given that the journey towards a professional doctorate is of equal importance to knowledge outcomes. Within the domain the shared element is practitioner– research: the enhancement of practice expertise and change in practice through study.
The second element, the community, could be the cohort or group of students working through the process of professional doctorate study together. The remit within the community is to communicate together to share resources, advance learning and facilitate support for members’ development. Within this community there is a strong element of reciprocity. For example in conventional study scenarios the student may take responsibility for their own learning, gather their own information and make their own notes. This may happen in a community of practice; however, there is also mutual obliga- tion or reciprocity in relation to the learning of others.
Put simply, when time is a precious commodity and if things appear to be going well during the professional doctorate study process, it may be tempting to miss some group sessions or opt out of them completely. However, you have an obligation to help others with their study processes, as they may have helped you previously. Thus the process of study and research development takes on a reciprocal rather than individualistic stance.
The final element from a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) relates to practice itself. There may be consideration of developing a particular aspect of practice, for example education, or of changing or evaluating the
practice milieu. The commonality within the community of practice for a professional doctorate programme is how best to engage with practice and work towards goals to improve practice knowledge and expertise. Within a cohort or group studying for a professional doctorate there is huge potential to share resources, which may be based on practical experiences, reading or people and professional networks that could influence practice.
Lave and Wenger (1991) also identify and discuss legitimate peripheral par- ticipation. They consider this to be the process that enables new members of the community of practice to interact with other experienced community members and then engage with increasing expertise and confidence in the activities of the community. In the context of professional doctorates this kind of participation could relate to the expertise within the small cohort or group of students, and it could equally relate to participation with other professional doctoral groups and the wider doctoral community in the university or, exter- nally, including research supervisors. Equally it could apply to a professional community, a professional group of practitioners such as clinical psycholo- gists or counsellors for example, and participation in practice using a higher level of skill and expertise.
The following is Paul’s account from a community of practice:
Paul’s account
‘I had done a Masters previously; that was different somehow, something I “did” in University, separate from the workplace. The doctorate was different as I was developing knowledge and testing new approaches in practice. On the doctorate our group worked in the health services but had different professional backgrounds. At that time I did not know about communities of practice though on reflection now that is how we functioned.
Initially we needed to get to know each other and develop our ability to work as a group. We did this by sharing our respective research interests and common themes emerged about practice: evidence based practice and change, for example. Initially we did not have a focus on our research aim or how we were to proceed, which methods were suitable. Through discussion and critical questioning, part of which involved exploring our beliefs about practice, our ideas were clarified. We also had to access and critique the relevant literature, and discuss our ideas with colleagues in practice.
This was challenging: group members really asking us why we had chosen our subject and research methods. This could have been perceived as criti- cism, it really made us reflect and justify our approaches to enhance practice. In our professional areas there was some potential for resistance to our research ideas and we used our group to explore how best to negotiate in practice, identify key people who could help the research process and who understood our workplace.
up against hurdles when researching practice, for example encouraging people to participate, ethical issues, data analysis, generally how to proceed and we shared resources and experiences. It wasn’t that anyone in particular had the right answers we were able to reflect and discuss our experiences. It wasn’t cosy or chatty; sometimes there was a real difference of opinion in the group. We used the group to pool our resources. These resources could be articles, textbooks, good websites, other people with specific expertise and our own experiences. We brought information back to the group from conference attendance or from our respective professional organisations.
Going through the doctoral process in a group helped to push us along and hold our enthusiasm.’
Student activity 2.2
Undertake the following discussion in the group or cohort you are studying with on your professional doctorate programme. If a group is not clearly identi- fiable then think who such a group could include and suggest collaboration. If there are group facilitators involve them in the discussion along with your research supervisors and professional colleagues where possible. Use the following questions as prompts:
• Who are the members of your community of practice?
• What other professional networks/communities do members belong to? • What other resources are available to enhance professional practice and to
advance learning (for example group members, the wider university and other professional groups)?
• How would you like your community of practice to operate? For example what are the boundaries for communication and discussion? What are the parameters or ground rules? What activity/behaviour is acceptable? What about confidentiality?
• What are the roles and responsibilities of the group members?
• How will you develop and challenge critical questioning and constructive discussion in the community of practice?
• How will you evaluate learning as a community of practice?
Discussion of the above can take place face to face, within a virtual learning environment or by email. Keep notes of the discussion and review on a regular basis.