Supporting doctoral criticality

By Dr Rachel Chin, Researcher Development Specialist (Writing and Communications)

How did you learn to think and write critically, to conceptualise arguments that move beyond reiterating research to developing new ideas on a topic? When I sat down to reflect on this question, I found it nearly impossible to answer. Learning criticality did not feel like ambling down a brightly lit path. It was more akin to navigating the streets of a medieval city at dusk (apologies to medievalists if this imagery doesn’t quite fit). It was as much about observing and reflecting on the practices of others as it was about testing and experimenting with criticality (with varying degrees of success) in my own work. More importantly, it is an ongoing journey.

Advanced criticality is a key expectation of doctoral candidates. It is also one of the areas that postgraduate researchers (PGRs) find the most difficult to navigate and, I suspect, a skill that supervisors find the most challenging to support. The aim of this article is not to provide an easy solution to teaching or training PGRs in doctoral criticality. Unfortunately, such an approach doesn’t exist. This article provides a starting point for unpacking the complexity of doctoral criticality and it proposes some strategies for supporting PGRs on this journey.

What is criticality and how do you develop it?

Robert Barnett (1997) argues that criticality must be measured across two axes. First, the level of skill, ranging from very basic to the ability to conduct advanced, independent and transformatory analysis. Second, the realms in which one applies criticality, which include ‘formal knowledge, the self and the world’ (Barnett, 63). In Barnett’s view, criticality is not just confined to the classroom. Developing criticality at the highest levels means developing oneself and others as ‘critical beings’.

Writing on criticality has generally echoed Barnett’s ideas, insofar as it recognises that developing this skill (or indeed way of being in the world) is not an all or nothing proposition. Johnston et. al. (2011) suggest a similar continuum to describe this process from early through to guided and late criticality. Students in UK higher education institutions are expected to become more sophisticated in their analysis and application of academic texts and theoretical frameworks as they move through their undergraduate degrees and into postgraduate study.

Both Barnett and Johnston’s frameworks suggest that criticality develops over time and unevenly. This observation alone is useful when thinking about the reality of doctoral supervision, which involves working with individual students who have unique and non-uniform skillsets. But what does it actually mean to develop criticality in research and writing?

Johnston et al. pose a useful model for thinking through this question. They argue that developing independent and critical students requires understanding the context and the resources they need to foster these skills. Here, context includes the cultural, historical and educational experiences of individual students as well as the disciplinary environment in which they are working (accepted practices etc.). Resources relate to the formal knowledge that a student holds about their subject as well as the personal values and attitudes that they embody. In the latter case, this might include being enquiring, open minded, confident and constructively critical.

What is clear is that criticality is not a straightforward concept. Nor can it be neatly confined to the practice of academic writing. Criticality exists and is developed in complex and often nonlinear ways. Students at all levels develop criticality through writing, reading, thinking and speaking about their subject. But this process is also mediated by the context where they do this research. This includes the norms and values that are embedded (implicitly or explicitly) in disciplinary practices, the style of support and guidance provided by a supervisor, a student’s perception of that supervisor’s expectations for their research and the power structures present in a research unit, which might offer or withhold opportunities for development.

What strategies can we deploy to develop doctoral criticality?

Acknowledging the complexity of doctoral criticality can help us understand how to support PGR development. It is important to recognise that students will have different skill levels and that these levels will vary across their skillset. Establishing an open and supportive supervisory relationship and making intentional conversations about criticality core to early meetings can help put supervisors and PGRs on the same page and manage expectations on both sides. 

When it comes to supporting doctoral criticality in writing I argue that it is not possible to isolate writing development from growth in other academic literacies. Core academic practices, such as reading, thinking, discussing and debating all contribute to the development of writing, just as the reverse is also true. That is why supervisors concerned with writing criticality will benefit by taking a broad approach. This might include:

• Encouraging PGRs to get involved in reading groups or journal clubs where they will develop subject-level knowledge but also wider understanding of how academic writing and academic arguments are crafted and articulated.
• Providing feedback on written work and facilitating feedback sessions where students are given space to speak about why they have made particular research choices and how their findings develop or disrupt their field.
• Asking students to present research plans or updates based around structured questions that encourage practice in developing criticality. (see Hands & Tucker for an example of how to do this).
• Signposting or providing access to opportunities to take part in research events such as conferences, workshops or work in progress sessions.

These approaches support the development of doctoral criticality as an academic practice that demands a high degree of specialist knowledge, in one’s subject area and of the wider academic context. They acknowledge that being able to put forward a new and potentially divisive idea requires confidence and the space to develop as an independent researcher. And they demonstrate the importance of communities of learning as part of doctoral development.

Conclusion

There is no single approach to supporting doctoral criticality, whether written, spoken or thought. But, recognising doctoral criticality as a multi-faceted skill can help supervisors to develop a diverse toolkit of approaches to support individual PGRs throughout their degree.

Reading List

• Davies, Martin and Ronald Barnett. The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. 
• Hands, Africa S. and Virginia M. Tucker. “Fostering Doctoral Student Socialization and Research Expertise through Writing Pedagogy.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 63, no. 1 (2022): 64-79. (this article includes a 7-slide model for guiding students to articulate their research plans and anticipated outcomes)
• Johnston, Brenda. Developing Student Criticality in Higher Education: Undergraduate Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences. New York: Continuum International Pub. Group, 2011. (esp. chapters 1-4 for theoretical thinking around criticality)