��ɫ����

Why might you want to get a doctorate? To win a promotion? To get a better job? To climb a ladder of status and prestige? To change the world and make a difference?

You may cite all or several of these reasons, none of them, or other reasons altogether. Postgraduate researchers have many motivations for undertaking doctoral research, all of which, to some degree, are linked to emotion: desire, passion, ambition, and so on. Emotions are also invoked in how universities present or communicate the purpose and value of doctoral study to the public, and to prospective doctoral candidates. These are linked to civic and social responsibility, economic value and knowledge creation (see Bryan & Guccione, 2018), and personal and professional development (Nerad, 2015).

Anyone who has done a doctorate will know that this significant, early career research project invokes many, seemingly contrary emotions. Disappointment sits alongside triumph, shame sits alongside enjoyment, frustration sits alongside gratitude. Emotions such as gratitude, pleasure and enjoyment are associated with things going well, where candidates are taking every opportunity to grow, learn, ask questions, be critical, and so on (see for example Bondi, 2005). Emotions such as fear, shame, frustration, anger, sadness tend to be seen as emotions to resolve and move away from and are associated with things going wrong.

However, the reality is far more ‘both/and’ where emotions are concerned, rather than ‘either/or’, and suppressing the so-called negative emotions may lead to much greater mental health, wellbeing and progress concerns down the road. Suppressing these emotions may also affect candidates’ sense of being seen, valued and included in the university. Taking a both/and stance (‘I am both grateful for this opportunity and frustrated by the quality of my supervision’, for example) may mean that candidates don’t display or perform the ‘right’ kinds of emotions consistently or in ‘typical’ ways. And when they do not act in what are deemed to be appropriate ways, universities may well cast these candidates as problem cases that need to be dealt with. Are these candidates ‘doctoral material’? What support do they need to ‘get up to speed’? Doctoral candidates may struggle to express ‘negative’ emotions (see Collins & Brown, 2021) in environments where the implicit ‘feeling rules’ downplay these emotions or encourage candidates not to feel them (see Hochschild, 1979); or where they do not feel safe enough to be fully honest about their struggles, challenges or worries.

‘The reality is far more “both/and” where emotions are concerned, rather than “either/or”, and suppressing the so-called negative emotions may lead to much greater mental health, wellbeing and progress concerns down the road.’

Hochschild’s feeling rules tell us tacitly, through social norms and conventions, what the right kinds of emotions and related behaviours are in any given situation (such as a supervision meeting, a viva, a conference). These rules are part of how any institution polices behaviour and, by extension, belonging. In trying to belong – or resist – we perform emotional labour, or manage our emotions in relation to the situation or environment we are in (Collins & Brown, 2021). At times, this is easy, especially if the environment is comfortable or welcoming. At other times, however, this is difficult, especially when we are in environments that are not welcoming, and in which we feel like outsiders. My current research pays attention to what doctoral researchers – especially those from backgrounds or groups underrepresented in doctoral study – say about the labour they are performing, when, where and how, and whether these stories can give us insights into what feeling rules are tacitly and overtly impacting their sense of belonging and motivation (see Clarence, 2021).

Paying attention to these stories, and the emotional labour doctoral researchers from a range of different home, school and life backgrounds are doing, is important for widening equity and social justice. Consider a candidate who is not showing the expected or ‘right’ kinds of emotions – who is frustrated, progressing slowly, struggling with their writing and feedback, and how it makes them feel. We may start to wonder if perhaps this candidate is just not ‘doctoral material’, or if perhaps they are just not ready for study at this advanced level. This invokes a ‘deficit discourse’, where the university or the wider education system can present its values, knowledge-making practices and behaviours as neutral, universal, just the ways things are done, rather than contingent, contextual and open to challenge (see Smit, 2012). If we do not reflect on the ways in which we may be tacitly inscribing elitist or exclusive ideas of what ‘good’ researchers do, or what ‘appropriate’ researcher behaviour looks like, we may be admitting researchers with exciting new ideas and perspectives through inclusive admissions, only to tacitly limit what it means to be a good researcher further down the pipeline through invoking feeling rules that and reinforce an exclusionary status quo (see Posselt, 2014).

‘In limiting what it means to be a good researcher, we may sideline or silence exciting and challenging voices and ideas.’

In limiting what it means to be a good researcher, we may sideline or silence those exciting and challenging voices and ideas; researchers may choose to exit a system that makes them feel othered, at a deficit and unwelcome (see Kis, 2022). We therefore need to listen carefully to what doctoral researchers, especially those from underrepresented communities, tell us about the forms of emotional labour they are doing, when, where and how. What we hear and learn can enable us to deepen our understanding and practice of inclusive doctoral education in powerful and meaningful ways, widening equity and social justice.

This blog post relates to a paper presented by Sherran Clarence at ��ɫ���� Conference 2025: ‘Exploring the role of emotions in doctoral education and the implications for inclusive doctoral education and supervision’.

References

Bondi, L. (2005). The place of emotions in research: From partitioning emotion and reason to the emotional dynamics of research relationships. In J. Davidson, L. Bondi, & M. Smith (Eds.), Emotional Geographies. Ashgate.

Bryan, B., & Guccione, K. (2018). Was it worth it? A qualitative exploration into graduate perceptions of doctoral value. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(6), 1124–1140.

Clarence, S. (2021). Towards a theoretical framework for exploring emotion in doctoral education. In P. Rule, E. Bitzer, & L. Frick (Eds.). The global scholar: Implications for postgraduate studies and supervision (pp. 215–229). African Sun Media.

Collins, J., & Brown, N. (2021). Where’s the validation? Role of emotion work and validation for doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(7), 1389–1402.

Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551–575.

Kis, A., Tur, E. M., Lakens, D., Vaesen, K., & Houkes, W. (2022). Leaving academia: PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments. PLoS ONE, 17(10), e0274976.

Nerad, M. (2015). Professional Development for Doctoral Students:  What is it? Why Now? Who does it? Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 15, 285–318.

Posselt, J. (2014). Toward inclusive excellence in graduate education: Constructing merit and diversity in PhD admissions. American Journal of Education, 120(4).

Smit, R. (2012). Towards a clearer understanding of student disadvantage in higher education: Problematising deficit thinking. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(3), 369–380.