Building Pedagogical Identities Across Cohorts: A Collaborative Autoethnography of a Doctoral Peer Support Group

Overview: Pedagogical training is a key aspect of social work doctoral programs as graduate students comprise the next generation of social work professors. This presentation describes our experiences in a student-run pedagogical peer support group. Themes identified through a collaborative autoethnography approach will be presented.Proposal text:

Background:
Many graduate programs do not provide extensive support in preparing PhD students how to teach (Bonner et al., 2020; Bullin, 2018; Buskist, 2013). About half of social work PhD programs require completion of a teaching course, however, students may benefit from additional support beyond this course. There is an assumption in academia that graduate students are automatically prepared to teach (East & Chambers, 2007), however some experience symptoms of imposter syndrome (Meanwell & Kleiner, 2014). To reduce such experiences, it may be helpful for graduate students to talk to other students about teaching (Meanwell & Kleiner, 2014). During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctoral students had to adjust to connecting with their peers virtually. In our social work PhD program, students formed a pedagogy peer support group to support each other in teaching and preparing to teach. The group met virtually to stay connected during the pandemic.

Methods:
Collaborative autoethnography (CAE) was used as it allows researchers to hold dual roles of researcher and informant and allows researchers to interact with each other’s stories (Chang et al., 2013). CAE allowed for collaboration in a time marked with social distancing and isolation (Roy & Uekusa, 2020). First, the three presenters concurrently wrote reflections about our experiences in the peer support group. Next, we shared our reflections with each other, and engaged in a CAE process of probing one another’s work to elicit deeper meanings and understanding (Ngunjiri et al., 2010). Next, we conducted a close reading of each other’s reflections (Paul & Elder, 2008), responded to each other’s probes, shared our updated reflections, and engaged in group and individual meaning-making. We concluded with group writing while keeping in mind our shifting identities (Denzin, 2002) and awareness of our positionalities (England, 1994).

Results:
Six main themes were identified through the CAE process: (a) role and identity transitions throughout the group and reflection processes; (b) acknowledgment of privileged identities; (c) experiences of imposter syndrome; (d) the value of community and peer support during COVID-19; (e) gaps in institutional and pedagogical support; and (f) gatekeeping in the social work profession.

Conclusions:
This presentation will provide attendees with an example of how participating in and reflecting upon experiences in a pedagogy peer support group through CAE offers additional pedagogical support to social work PhD students. More training in pedagogical techniques is needed at the PhD level so that future social work academics can be well-prepared to teach social work students. Participation in a student-run pedagogy peer support group may enhance social work PhD students’ preparedness for entering the professoriate.