What Do ‘Learning’ and ‘Hidden Curriculum’ Mean in the Doctoral Studies Context?
Simply speaking , we regard the hidden curriculum in doctoral education as the unofficial (and informal) channels of genuine and useful learning that can be acquired within or outwith both the physical and metaphorical walls of academia. By contrast, the formal curriculum from which knowledge is specifically gained by study refers to activities where learning is typically acquired via the official (or structured) doctoral courses, seminars, workshops, and supervisory meetings—strictly within what we regard to be the academic setting. Although the hidden curriculum may also reinforce the more visible formal curriculum, doctoral researchers may reap the benefits of the hidden curriculum if it is found. Due to both the ‘hiddenness’ and prized characteristics of the hidden curriculum, we refer to these informally acquired skills or knowledge as doctoral ‘treasure’!
In understanding the hidden curriculum, our preliminary ideas come from an earlier article, which examined frequently unrecognised ‘treasure’ encountered by those who pursue doctoral education in an international setting (Elliot, Baumfield, Reid, & Makara, 2016). This notion served as a useful starting point. Although the primary focus of that article was on international doctoral researchers, the idea of the hidden curriculum arguably applies to all doctoral researchers. With this in mind, we aim to present an in-depth exploration of ‘the hidden curriculum’, contextualised in the light of the general doctoral education journey, while taking into account the experiences of local and international doctoral researchers alike.
It seems that the best place to start when exploring the conceptualisation of the hidden curriculum is to consider what the term ‘learning’ entails. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (Colman, 2015), learning characterises ‘the act or process of acquiring knowledge or skills, or knowledge gained by study’ (p. 16). Such a definition appears to highlight at least two systems or modes: learning from informal experience and intended formal learning, in which ‘knowledge’ can be obtained. We will argue and discuss in greater depth how these modes are inseparable in doctoral researchers’ day-to-day experiences of ‘learning’.
Let us begin by picturing three doctoral learning scenarios….
Scenario 1
Two international doctoral researchers (Grace was about to commence while Hannah was in her second year) were informally introduced to each other by a staff member, with a view to providing assistance to Grace who was searching for accommodation. Email correspondence ensued but no formal meetings took place between them. Several months later, they actually met at one of the university events and realised how they were previously connected. Their face-to-face meeting helped renew an amiable connection and facilitated learning further about each other’s topics, including their distinct research strengths. The conversation then led them to agreeing to share their knowledge and skills with each other—Grace taught Hannah the statistics program ‘R’ while Hannah demonstrated how to use NVivo software for qualitative research.
Scenario 2
It was a genuine struggle for Jon to identify the theoretical framework that suited his research. Even after broad and extensive reading that drew upon a few disciplines, for example, education, psychology, and philosophy, the task remained a huge challenge for him. Having raised this concern with his supervisor, it was agreed that he would converse informally with other scholars—doctoral researchers and staff members—in the department to inquire not about the theories per se that they previously used, but more about their journey of ‘discovering’ suitable theoretical framework(s) for their research. Such casual chats proved very productive in giving Jon nuggets of ideas and helpful ‘cues’ concerning practical strategies for ‘looking for’ and ‘recognising’ what might exist in the literature. More than that, these conversations unexpectedly led to an academic staff member lending Jon a seminal book on his research topic. Needless to say, it was gratefully received!
Scenario 3
A third scenario involves a group of eight doctoral researchers who ended up sharing the same office. The group’s diverse composition was apparent, that is, a mixture of different year levels, research foci, supervisors, genders, and nationalities. Their proximity afforded generic opportunities for sharing and supporting each other. As an example, after attending a subject-specific seminar, Carmi shared with her officemates her reflection on the core importance of research coherence. This inspired three third year doctoral researchers to offer advice based on their first-hand experience of how to strengthen coherence in both academic writing and research practice. In turn, the whole group informally benefited from this impromptu exchange of ideas, contributing to their mutual development as independent researchers.
What Makes Unofficial Mechanisms for ‘Learning’ Crucial Among Doctoral Researchers?
It can be argued that in each case, genuine learning did take place—whether through acquiring practical ‘know-how’ on research software use, well-tested strategies in finding a good match between the theory and the research study itself, or a broader insight into how the ‘overall coherence’ of research can be reinforced. At first glance, the type of ‘learning’ from each scenario appears to be purely serendipitous. After all, these examples of ‘learning’ occurred outwith what might be regarded as official or conventional doctoral learning contexts, for example, research method seminars, supervision meetings, and conference participation. Yet, we stress that informal interactions with fellow doctoral researchers, staff members and, at times, even with those from outside the doctoral community need neither be dismissed nor underestimated, as each could be a genuine channel for learning.
Linking to our two-pronged definition of ‘learning’ (Colman, 2015), whereas it recognises that ‘knowledge gained by study’ conveys the idea that learning occurs via official curricular activities, a wider definition of ‘acquiring knowledge or skills’ may refer to much broader and unofficial channels of learning. As shown in the three scenarios above, doctoral researchers can translate these informal interactions into mini-learning opportunities that may powerfully scaffold and form part of their wider learning experiences leading to meaningful and useful doctoral experiential learning. Such unintentional informal interactions then become not simply mechanisms for acquiring knowledge and skills, but equally, they greatly help in appreciating the strengths of their fellow scholars and, in turn, actively contribute to a vibrant scholarly community—where implicit support, whether academic, emotional, social, and/or psychological, is freely given and received. Together, informal interactions with co-doctoral researchers and other scholars can help build a supportive research culture and mutually harness what their research learning community can offer. For example, this may include identifying and clarifying the threshold concepts in doctoral education (or the critical concepts that have been argued to be essential for learners to understand fully, enabling them to progress their learning) (Kiley, 2009, 2019; Kiley & Wisker, 2009), allaying some doubts and baseless fears and even revitalising their research confidence and sustaining their progress, en route to becoming independent researchers. The specific threshold concepts in doctoral studies contexts that Kiley (2009, 2019) has identified require a sound understanding of the argument/thesis, theory, framework, knowledge creation, analysis, and research paradigm.
Our shared views of the critical importance of harnessing these opportunities prompted us to revisit (and even expose) what we refer to as ‘the hidden curriculum’ that is typically characterised by ‘the unintentionality and the often concealed learning processes that transpire’ outwith the official or formal curriculum within the context of doctoral studies (Elliot et al., 2016, p. 740). We also include interactions that take place in such contexts as personal (with their family, close friends, fellow doctoral researchers), community (clubs, societies), even work-related (paid work, internships, or volunteering), as well as any form of meaningful interactions at the societal level, including those interactions that doctoral researchers seek for themselves.
How Are the Formal and the Hidden Curricula Interlinked in Doctoral Studies?
In the discussion of the formal (or the official) and the informal (or the hidden) components comprising the entire doctoral learning experience, the two curricular types can be likened to two sides of the same coin. Yet, there is a conceptual boundary that seemingly splits the two. Arguably, this boundary needs to be crossed for key stakeholders (e.g. doctoral researchers, supervisors, mentors, researcher developers, etc.) to appreciate the value of both curricula—formal and hidden—with a view to bridging them. Only by doing so can it open up a whole range of less investigated and more holistic experiences for doctoral researchers to use and maximise to their advantage.
Let us explain…...