This article traces elements of the learning of a doctoral student. It concerns attempts to bridge a number of gaps between supervisor and student in the process of studying for a PhD. In particular, it portrays differences in culture, gender, family, age, and experience and how those differences influenced the thinking of the student. A layered discourse of readings, misreadings, and rereadings is developed, drawing on the substantive literature on ‘lone motherhood’, on studies of doctoral supervision, and on anthropological insights into the nature of cultural differences. It is a case study in finding the ‘missing’ (or not yet known) person who is the lone mother and the lone researcher who ‘reveals’ herself to herself through interaction with her supervisors. The supervisors are also ‘rewritten’ in their situated self-understandings during this process.
AmatoP. R. (2005). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social and emotional well-being of the next generation.The Future of Children, 15(2), 75–97.
2.
BaileyD. (1992). Improvisation: Its nature and practice in music.London, England: British Library National Sound Archive.
3.
BarrettF. J. (1998). Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organisations: Implications for organisational learning.Organisation Science, 9, 605–622.
4.
BerlinerP. F. (1994). Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BossP. (2007). Ambiguous loss theory: Challenges for scholars and practitioners.Family Relations, 56, 105–111. doi:10.1111/j,1741-3729.2007,00444.x
6.
BrazielJ. E., & MannurA. (2003). Nation, migration, globalization: Points of contention in diaspora studies. In BrazielJ. E., & MannurA. (Eds.), Theorizing diaspora (pp. 1–22). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
7.
DaviesC. A. (1999). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others.London, England: Routledge.
8.
DelamontS., AtkinsonP., & ParryO. (2000). The doctoral experience: Success and failure in graduate school.London, England: Falmer Press.
9.
DelamontS., ParryO., & AtkinsonP. (1998). Creating a delicate balance: The doctoral supervisor's dilemmas.Teaching in Higher Education, 3, 157–172. doi:10.1080/1356215980030203
10.
DouglasM. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo.London, England: Routledge.
EllisC. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
13.
EllisC., & BergerL. (2003). Their story/my story/our story: Including the researcher's experience in interview research. In HolsteinJ. A., & GubriumJ. F. (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 467–493). London, England: Sage.
14.
EtheringtonK. (2004). Becoming a reflexive researcher: Using our selves in research. London, England: Jessica Kingsley. Frankham, J., & Tracy, F. (2012). Troubling the field of service user involvement in research.Contemporary Social Science, 7, 73–89. doi:10.1080/21582041.2012.658431
15.
GadamerH.-G. (2004). Truth and method (Rev. 2nd ed.). London, England: Sheed and Ward.
16.
GoffmanE. (1986). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity.London, England: Penguin Books.
17.
GrantB. M. (2010). Improvising together: The play of dialogue in humanities supervision.Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 9, 271–288. doi:10.1177/1474022210379376
18.
HabermasJ. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). London, England: Heinemann.
19.
HeywoodD., & StronachI. (2005). Philosophy and hermeneutics. In SomekhB., & LewinC. (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 114–120). London, England: Sage.
20.
HutchingsM. (2015). Improving doctoral support through group supervision: Analysing face-to-face and technology-mediated strategies for nurturing and sustaining scholarship.Studies in Higher Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1058352
JuppJ. (2010). White eracesures: Critiquing critical white studies.Multicultural Review, 19(1), 97–98.
23.
KamlerB., & ThomsonP. (2008). The failure of dissertation advice books: Towards alternative pedagogies for doctoral writing.Educational Researcher, 37, 507–514. doi:10.3102/0013189X08327390
24.
KiernanK., LandH., & LewisJ. (1998). Lone motherhood in twentieth-century Britain.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
25.
LatherP. (1991). Getting smart feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern.New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
MacmurrayJ. (1961). Persons in relations.London, England: Faber & Faber.
27.
MarcusG. E. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
MaréchalG. (2010). Autoethnography. In MillsA. J, DureposG., & WiebeE. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 2, pp. 43–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
MayV. (2010). Lone motherhood as a category of practice.The Sociological Review, 58, 429–443. doi:10.1111/j,1467-954X.2010.01925.x
30.
MurrayM. (1999). The storied nature of health and illness. In MurrayM., & ChamberlainK. (Eds.), Qualitative health psychology: Theories and methods (pp. 47–63). London, England: Sage.
31.
PanourgiáN. (1995). Fragments of death, fables of identity: An Athenian anthropography.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
32.
RancièreJ. (1991). The ignorant schoolmaster. Five lessons in intellectual emancipation (K. Ross, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
RancièreJ. (2011). The emancipated spectator (G. Elliott, Trans.). London, England: Verso.
34.
ReinharzS., & ChaseS. E. (2003). Interviewing women. In HolsteinJ. A., & GubriumJ. F. (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 73–90). London, England: Sage.
35.
RiessmanC. K. (2000). Stigma and everyday resistance practices: Childless women in South India.Gender & Society, 14, 111–135. doi:10.1177/089124300014001007
36.
RiessmanC. K. (2002). Analysis of personal narratives. In GubriumJ. F., & HolsteinJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 695–710). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
RiessmanC. K. (2005). Exporting ethics: A narrative about narrative research in South India.Health, 9, 473–490. doi:10.1177/1363459305056414
38.
Robinson-PantA. P. (2005). Cross-cultural perspectives on educational research.Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
39.
RosaldoM. Z. (1980). The use and abuse of anthropology: Reflections on feminism and cross-cultural understanding.Signs, 5, 389–417.
40.
SmithB., & SparkesA. C. (2008). Changing bodies, changing narratives and the consequences of tellability: A case study of becoming disabled through sport.Sociology of Health and Illness, 30, 217–236. doi:10.1111/j,1467-9566.2007.01033.x
41.
SparkesA. C. (2000). Autoethnography and narratives of self: Reflections on criteria in action.Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 21–41.
42.
StandingK. (1998). Writing the voices of the less powerful: Research on lone mothers. In RibbensJ., & EdwardsR. (Eds.), Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research: Public knowledge and private lives (pp. 186–206). London, England: Sage.
43.
StronachI. (2009). How to fail successfully: An autobiographical reprise.Auto/biography Yearbook.London, England: British Sociological Association.
44.
StronachI., FrankhamJ., Bibi-NawazS., CahillG., CuiV., DymokeK., & Mohd KhirM. (2013). The X-factor: Performing reflexivity as indeterminate praxis.Qualitative Inquiry, 19, 288–297. doi:10.1177/1077800412471508
45.
StronachI., GarrattD., PearceC., & PiperH. (2007). Reflexivity, the picturing of selves, the forging of method.Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 179–203. doi:10.1177/1077800406295476
46.
WestbrookD. A. (2008). Navigators of the contemporary: Why ethnography matters.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
47.
WinklerC. (2002). Single mothers and the state: The politics of care in Sweden and the United States.Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield.
48.
WongL. C. J., WongP. T. P., & IshiyamaF. I. (2013). What helps and what hinders in cross-cultural clinical supervision: A critical incident study.The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 66–85. doi:10.1177/0011000012442652
49.
YanagisakoS. J. (1979). Family and household: The analysis of domestic groups.Annual Review of Anthropology, 8, 161–205. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.08.100179.001113
