Advertisement

A Creative Peer-to-Peer Methodology

  • Lene TanggaardEmail author
  • Charlotte Wegener
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture book series (PASCC)

Abstract

This chapter develops the idea of a creative peer-to-peer methodology seen as an example of social creativity. It presents examples of co-creation of new practices regarding doctoral training and supervision. This creative methodology is meant to inspire new collaborative practices in doctoral training. Doctoral training is often based on very traditional formats of supervision with professors controlling the content and guiding the process in a more or less hierarchical format. With our creative peer-to-peer methodology, we challenge this framework to allow for a more dynamic idea of supervisory relations to develop with higher potential for learning on both sides.

Keywords

Social creativity Co-writing Co-creation Doctoral training Creative methodology 

References

  1. Barnacle, R., & Dall’Alba, G. (2014). Beyond skills: Embodying writerly practices through the doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1139–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, H. S. (2007). Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article (2nd ed.). London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brinkmann, S. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in everyday life: Working with everyday life materials. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Brinkmann, S., & Tanggaard, L. (2010). Toward an epistemology of the hand. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(3), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brodin, E. M. (2014). Critical and creative thinking nexus: Learning experiences of doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, ahead-of-p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brodin, E. M. (2016). Critical and creative thinking nexus: Learning experiences of doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 41(6), 971–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodin, E. M., & Avery, H. (2014). Conditions for scholarly creativity in interdisciplinary doctoral education through an Aristotelian lens. In E. Shiu (Ed.), Creativity research: An interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary research handbook (pp. 273–294). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  9. Delamont, S. (2009). The only honest thing: Autoethnography, reflexivity and small crises in fieldwork. Ethnography and Education, 4(1), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fergie, G., Beeke, S., McKenna, C., & Creme, P. (2011). “It’s a lonely walk”: Supporting postgraduate researchers through writing. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 236–245 Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ946149.pdf.Google Scholar
  11. Glăveanu, V. P., Tanggaard, L., & Wegener, C. (2016). Why do we need a new vocabulary for creativity? In V. P. Glăveanu, L. Tanggaard, & C. Wegener (Eds.), Creativity: A new vocabulary (pp. 1–9). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Goode, J. (2010). Student agency in “doing supervision”. In M. Walker & P. Thomson (Eds.), The Routledge doctoral Supervisor’s companion: Supporting effective research in education and the social sciences (pp. 38–50). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2008). The failure of dissertation advice books: Toward alternative pedagogies for doctoral writing. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mills, C. W. (1980). On intellectual craftsmanship (1952). Society, 17(2), 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tanggaard, L., & Brinkmann, S. (2010). Formidling af kvalitativ forskning. In S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (Eds.), Kvalitative metoder: en grundbog (Vol. p. 560 sider). København, Denmark: Hans Reitzel.Google Scholar
  17. Tanggaard, L., & Wegener, C. (2016). A survival kit for doctoral students and their supervisors. Travelling the landscape of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  18. Wegener, C., & Tanggaard, L. (2013a). Supervisor and student co-writing: An apprenticeship perspective. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2030
  19. Wegener, C., & Tanggaard, L. (2013b). The concept of innovation as perceived by public sector frontline staff—Outline of a tripartite empirical model of innovation. Studies in Continuing Education, 35(1), 82–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wegener, C., & Tanggaard, L. (2018). A survival kit for academic journal publishing: Learning to write—writing to learn. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication & Psychology, Faculty of HumanitiesAalborg UniversitetAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations