Abstract
In traditional representations of doctoral supervision, the relationship between supervisor and doctoral candidate is often conceptualised as hierarchical: master and apprentice; expert and novice; supervisor and student. Even in the case of more constructivist orientations which seek to position the process as more complex than the mere transmission of expertise, it is the doctoral candidate who is positioned as the one who evolves, as a result of a rite of passage (e.g., Petersen, Stud High Educ 32(4): 475–487. 10.1080/03075070701476167, 2007). In recent years, there have been calls for more fluid conceptualisations that question such hierarchical positionings of supervisor and doctoral candidate. For example, Fullagar et al. (Knowl Cult 1(4): 23–41, 2017) represent doctoral supervision as a ‘learning alliance’, where both supervisor and doctoral candidate develop and learn. In this chapter, we draw upon a collaborative autoethnography by three colleagues, one who occupied the role of Doctoral Candidate and two who occupied the role of Supervisor, in order to interrogate the notion of fixed identities within both roles. Drawing upon the Deleuzian concept of ‘becoming’, and Braidotti’s ideas of ‘process ontology’, we explore how the supervisory relationship for a Prospective PhD by Publication offers processes of becoming for both supervisors and doctoral candidates, and we also call into question the expert/novice dichotomy that conceptualises traditional models of supervision. We reflect upon what this rethinking might signify for both the Prospective PhD by Publication, as well as for other models of doctoral supervision, and the broader concepts of learning and change.