Learning dynamics in doctoral supervision

TL;DR: In science education, there is an emerging focus on what is happening in situ, making use of an array of analytical traditions as mentioned in this paper, and common practice is to use one specific analytical f...

TL;DR: This paper explored how the tensions in scientific discussion between supervisors can become learning opportunities, using participation and positioning theory as a sociocultural perspective and variation theory as an individual constructivist perspective on learning.

TL;DR: This article found that the emerging small cultures of doctoral supervision are characterised by the following features: the students' learning process; the supervisory styles; supervisory roles; the supervising relationships; and the expectation of students and supervisors.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors contribute towards a better understanding of learning dynamics in doctoral supervision by analysing how learning opportunities are created in the interaction between supervisors and PhD students, and how they create learning opportunities for students.

TL;DR: This work has shown that legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice is not confined to midwives, tailors, quartermasters, butchers, non-drinking alcoholics and the like.

TL;DR: Identity in practice, modes of belonging, participation and non-participation, and learning communities: a guide to understanding identity in practice.

TL;DR: In his book Culture's Consequences, Geert Hofstede proposed four dimensions on which the differences among national cultures can be understood: Individualism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance and Masculinity as mentioned in this paper.

TL;DR: The authors examines five common misunderstandings about case-study research: theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical knowledge, one cannot generalize from a single case, therefore, the single-case study cannot contribute to scientific development, the case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building, case study contains a bias toward verification, and it is often difficult to summarize specific case studies.