BIPOC Doctoral Students’ Insights About Collaborative Learning: A Collaborative Autoethnography Study of an Academic Program Evaluation
, Shondelyn Jackson-Towner, Andre Towner, Heewon Chang, Abere KassaThis article addresses the lack of research on BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) PhD students’ experiences in collaborative learning processes. It aims to fill this gap by using collaborative autoethnography to analyze the experiences of four BIPOC doctoral students who participated as co-researchers in a year-long collaborative program evaluation self-study of their academic program.
The authors discuss their experience in a student leadership role in the collaborative program evaluation process of their doctoral program as a form of collaborative learning, how their identities influenced the processes they participated in, and the themes of what they learned during the evaluation process. The article ends with recommendations to improve the experience and impact of BIPOC doctoral students’ participation and better align the skills learned at the PhD level with the broader job market.
The study uses the qualitative method of collaborative autoethnography to analyze the perspectives and experiences of four BIPOC doctoral students within a broader cultural context.
This article provides insight on how to improve the experience of BIPOC doctoral students’ participation in the collaborative process and better align the skills learned at the PhD level with the broader job market. It provides four recommendations: first, align student training with job market realities; second, dismantle systemic and structural barriers; third, respond to the effects of social location; and last, negotiate power through consensus building.
Five themes emerged from the reflections. First, consider how important planning and good communication are to the collaborative learning process in terms of preparation, group dynamics, and resource availability. Second, power disparities existed among faculty, student researchers, and committees. Third, consider how the researchers’ identities affected their interpretations and interactions at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Fourth, the importance of negotiating between diverse perspectives and interests; and finally, what they gained from participating in the collaborative review process.
The authors provided four recommendations for improving the experience of BIPCO doctoral students’ participation in the collaborative process and better aligning the skills learned at the PhD level with the broader job market. First, align student training with job market realities. Second, dismantle systemic and structural barriers. Third, respond to the effects of social location. Last, negotiating power through consensus building.
Researchers should work toward creating an accepted framework for the collaborative program evaluation process to provide a road map of the journey instead of just providing the compass. Additionally, they should design and conduct a full-scale collaborative program evaluation to engage BIPOC students from the beginning. Finally, they should conduct a participatory-collaborative-inclusive academic program evaluation at different levels of higher education.
This article provides insight on how to improve the experience of BIPOC doctoral students’ participation in the collaborative process. It also demonstrates how collaborative learning assists in aligning the skills learned at the PhD level with the broader job market.
Future research should work toward creating an accepted framework for the collaborative program evaluation process to provide a road map of the journey instead of just providing the compass. Additionally, it should design and conduct a full-scale collaborative program evaluation to engage BIPOC students from the beginning. Finally, future research could conduct a participatory-collaborative-inclusive academic program evaluation at different levels of higher education.
Back