Search

Working as women in academia may still be regarded as 'complex and fraught with myths, gross generalisations and mixed emotions' (Barakat, 2014, p. 1). In this paper, we articulate the collaborative autoethnographic process in which we have been engaged over some time and through which we have challenged generalisations, explored emotions and illuminated further our complex identities as women in academia. Sharing and making visible our collaborative autoethnographic conversations and writing to other readers is risky and exposes us to possible censure. We realise that we are susceptible to being disparaged for being self-indulgent -- a common criticism of autoethnography -- yet we contend that our conversations and writing are both self and socially luminous as we connect our 'selves' with the UK higher education context. The paper's main focus is the collaborative autoethnographic process in which we have been engaged. Examples from our conversations and writing are included in order to demonstrate the power of this process and its potential and wider relevance for research.

In this paper, collaborative autoethnography is used to explore the authors' involvement as participants in and facilitator of an academic development programme that took place in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Recognising the significant differences in cultural origin between the Iraqi participants and its British facilitator, the authors share their reflections on the programme. Consideration is given to the implications of cultural differences in respect of the authors' expectations and experiences of this educational encounter, with particular emphasis on different approaches to learning and teaching prevailing in collectivist cultures, compared to those that are more individualist. The authors highlight the importance of early relationship-building in cross-cultural educational encounters, emphasising the two-way nature of this particular learning experience and the subsequent impact on their practice as educators.

This paper presents a consideration of the experiences and perspectives of four female academics who are the first graduates of a new Professional Doctorate programme at a university in the South West of England. The authors position themselves simultaneously as researchers and research participants, engaging in collaborative autoethnography to reflect critically on their experiences. Key issues are identified, including the need to navigate some significant shifts in identity throughout the doctorate, and how the course structure and peer relationships supported each of the authors to reach their end goal--the successful completion of their studies. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential implications of the authors' experiences for leaders of professional doctorates. These include student/lecturer contracts and actively facilitating opportunities for students to establish relationships for peer support.

This paper sets out to evaluate a proposed twelve-month programme of development aimed at academic staff at a new university in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. The author uses a model of cultural difference proposed by Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede as her starting point. Reference is also made to the work of other researchers and to the views of a number of people with first-hand experience of education in Iraqi Kurdistan. Cultural differences between the Kurdish participants on the proposed programme and its British facilitator are a likely challenge in this kind of project, in particular those associated with collectivist vs. individualist traditions. Focusing on this divide, some marked differences emerge in terms of how learning is viewed and approached in the two different countries. Whilst acknowledging that cultural difference is not confined to national boundaries, the author argues that the degree of collectivism or individualism within a society can be regarded as one of the many significant components of the complex concept of "culture". She does not attempt to offer any empirical evidence to support a "best way" to approach international educational encounters. Rather, the author's aim is to draw some conclusions to inform and facilitate the design and delivery of the proposed programme. At the same time, this paper may also offer some useful insights to those who find themselves in similar situations requiring them to deliver programmes in environments which are culturally removed from their own.