Reflexive but Unrecognised: Misreading Critical Research in the Doctoral Review
Doctoral progress reviews are framed as supportive and developmental. Yet for candidates pursuing reflexive, critical, or non-linear research, they often become spaces of misrecognition—where methodological ambiguity is pathologised, and intellectual risk is penalised. This article interrogates how audit logics, shaped by structures like the REF, reframe scholarly inquiry as compliance. It argues for a higher education culture that values complexity, temporal nuance, and epistemic diversity over bureaucratic legibility.
Continue reading
