Chapter 7: Building a Higher Degree by Research Community During COVID-19 Pandemic: Moving Away from the ‘one man band’ Experience

Chapter 7

Building a Higher Degree by Research Community During COVID-19 Pandemic: Moving away from the ‘one man band’ Experience

Gabriella Karakas, Australian College of Applied Professions

Samantha Webster, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University,

Abstract

One of the most frequent grievances by candidates pursuing higher degrees by research is the inability to engage in meaningful relationships with peers and colleagues. This chapter utilizes autoethnography as an approach to consider Gabriella and Samantha’s experience of facilitating engagement and connectivity among higher degree by research (HDR) candidates at RMIT University. In their capacities as PhD candidate representatives during the COVID-19 pandemic, they contributed to establishing an HDR online platform that contributed to easing heightened isolation among HDR candidates in RMIT University’s College of Design and Social Context (DSC). This chapter explores their experiences using a framework for reflection known as the ‘What? So What? Now What?’ framework, unpacking and discussing excerpts of self-reflection by the authors in the context of pertinent literature and relevant sources. In the context of this edited volume, this chapter focuses on the learning environment of HDR candidates, and indicates that HDR candidates themselves can play an important role in creating much needed elements of the HDR experience.

Keywords:

Higher Degree by Research, COVID-19, Meaningful Relationships, Collaboration, Learning Environments

Introduction

“I feel I’m a one-[wo]man band doing this PhD – but it’s not making very good music”. Gabriella recalls and reflects on one of the first conversations she had with a fellow PhD candidate. It had been some months after she commenced her study, but she was yet to venture into the study space shared by doctoral candidates in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies at RMIT University. When she finally went there, she sat next to a peer at a comparable stage of her research project, who made the above remark. Gabriella found this statement interesting because it spoke to how she herself was feeling. Between spurts of productivity, Gabriella faced periods of what she thought of as ‘PhD drought’ and a barren computer screen. Although she was sitting in a shared PhD space, each person there worked on their own unrelated projects. This meant that collaboration was all but impossible, and communication often limited to general discussions rather than constructive feedback or meaningful peer assistance. The PhD was undeniably a lonely experience, but the further into the candidature Gabriella progressed, the more evident the link between loneliness and lack of productivity seemed.

One of the most frequent grievances of candidates pursuing higher degrees by research is the lack of meaningful relationships with peers and colleagues (Cantor, 2020). A study of loneliness among doctoral students concluded that “both domestic and international [PhD] students from a range of disciplines experience social isolation, suffer a lack of emotional support and may struggle to engage in meaningful relationships with their peers” (Janta, Lugosi & Brown, 2014, p. 565). Complaints of loneliness and isolation among PhD students were exacerbated by the onset of the pandemic; work from home measures removed any previous face-to-face interactions, and further dislocated peers from one another.

Surveys conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic reported that over half (54%) of respondents felt lonelier since the start of the pandemic (Lim et al., 2020). Completing a PhD often felt like working in a silo, with productivity eroded by the additional work needed to self-motivate in the ‘one-man band’ that is the PhD research project. There is limited research on the link between loneliness and PhD productivity, although anecdotal evidence in PhD labs is abundant. A study conducted by Akcit and Barutcu (2017) considered the relationship between loneliness and productivity among academics. It found that there was a significant relationship between lowered productivity and loneliness, highlighting the significant human desire to establish relationships with people around them. A similar study conducted among university students in the UK found that 56% reported that loneliness impacted their level of productivity, either sometimes or often (Doot & Gupta, 2020).

In 2019, Gabriella and Samantha became Higher Degree by Research (HDR) candidate co-representative for just over 700 HDRs within the DSC college. Any plans towards reducing candidates’ isolation (and hopefully increase thesis wordcounts) were thrown into turmoil with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Melbourne spent a total of 262 days in lockdown, earning the title of the ‘most locked-down city in the world’. Gabriella and Samantha found themselves and peers no longer interacting in the ways they had, such as meeting in seminars, having incidental chats in the corridors, or engaging in day-to-day routines that they found supportive of their PhD research and writing up. A study conducted at RMIT shows that many other HDR candidates were grappling with the challenges of working from home, and contemplating uncertain futures (Gomes et al., 2021). Considering these new compounding challenges, Gabriella and Samantha found themselves wanting to create opportunities for peer connection during these strange times, but unsure how to do this in the context of such a diverse cohort.

This chapter reflects on Gabriella and Samantha’s experience of facilitating connection as candidate representatives during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how they believe the online platform they contributed to enhanced productivity and a sense of community. What also emerges through their reflections is that the learning experience and learning environment of HDR candidates is one where candidates themselves can play a vital role in developing and creating, thus decentering assumptions about the centrality of academics and staff in establishing learning environments and experiences.

Gabriella and Samantha use an autoethnographic approach and a minimalistic framework for reflection known as the ‘What? So What? Now What?’ framework (Driscoll, 2000; Pretorius & Ford, 2017; Rolfe, Freshwater & Jasper, 2001). In brief, the ‘What’ dimension of the framework allowed them to recall and outline their experiences, the factual account of what happened and the particular situation. Secondly, the ‘So What?’ dimension allowed for the deeper exploration of thoughts and feelings during this experience. Lastly, the ‘Now What’ prompt builds on insights gained in order to plan for the future. Excerpts of personal reflections by both Gabriella and Samantha will be unpacked and discussed in context of pertinent literature and other relevant sources.

What?

Gabriella and Samantha reflected on their experiences during early stages of the pandemic. Their reflections highlight the emotionally charged response to the drastic shift and ensuing changes to their lives. Gabriella, as a counsellor, likened her initial feelings of the pandemic to the stages of grief:

I could liken my feelings at the beginning of COVID-19 to the seven stages of grief – shock and denial, pain and guilt, anger and bargaining, depression, the upward turn, reconstruction and working through, and finally acceptance and hope. It’s interesting to consider the first lockdown of many in Melbourne, and how different my response was to it. The initial feeling was denial. Even though global signs pointed to the first lockdown being a long and extended period away from the office, I remember only taking my laptop away from the shared PhD lab, thinking that it would be silly to take the rest of my materials home with me (as ‘surely I’d be back next week’). The succession of grief stages came after, from pain and guilt (‘I’m so unproductive at home, I can’t believe I’m not pushing myself to do more’), anger (‘how much longer is this going to be! I can only walk this block so many times!’), and bargaining (‘I promise I’ll finish it twice as fast if things go back to how they were!’), depression (‘I’m no good at this anyway… what’s the point?’),  the upward turn (‘it’s not changing soon so I should change my mindset or see how I can make this work’), reconstruction and working through (‘I know many people are going through this too, we should come together and see how we can help one another), and acceptance and hope (at least I’m safe and well, and hopefully we’ll be back again soon’).

Because of physical distancing demands, there was grief over the demise of conventional routines in academia which supported productivity, such as brainstorming in labs, professional development seminars, and convening with colleagues and peers (Wallace et al., 2020). Samantha reflected on the impact of the pandemic on her PhD productivity and personal life:

The world seemed as if it was moving on swiftly, yet I felt as if I was caught unprepared, not knowing where to go next. Plans for my research were upended by COVID-19 restrictions and I was unable to do my fieldwork as planned. It was difficult to feel motivated at that time, and isolation compounded the feelings of grief for the research plans that had to be abandoned.

Although inertia felt like second nature after months at home, Gabriella and Samantha could see there was a need to cultivate an academic environment in their new context. Restrictive policies during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted mental health, possibly due to what counsellors would call impaired mood homeostasis (i.e. failure to positively regulate mood via mood-modifying activities; Haucke, Liu & Heinzel, 2021). Later, Gabriella reflected on her experience:

I realised quickly I was not alone in my feelings – my PhD peers becoming increasingly vocal about writer’s block, feelings of loneliness and isolation, and the impact of being separated from peers and familiar spaces on the quality of their writing, thinking and reasoning.

As student representatives, Gabriella and Samantha felt a duty to advocate for HDR students who were also commenting on similar experiences of inertia and lowered productivity, particularly those who had previously made a habit of working from campus. However, merely attempting to transpose old ways of engaging with peers to an online format felt like an unrealistic aim. Gabriella and Samantha began to speculate on the possibilities that were viable in digital forums yet could actually have measurable outcomes. Gabriella recalls:

Chatting with Samantha, it was evident that we really couldn’t know how far our reach was as candidate representatives, and if we were truly making a difference. We knew what the feedback was – that people were delaying milestones and not getting much work done – but really, what could we do to remedy it? It was time to get creative.

Many had previously asserted they wanted a platform to (re)connect with peers, however, everyone seemed to now be struggling with the initial stages of ‘grief’. Complacency and helplessness had set in and contact between peers was increasingly irregular. It became apparent that any decision regarding peer-engagement would require ‘buy in’ by those who we hoped would participate in it. Therefore, including PhD candidates in design was paramount. Samantha commented:

Yes – creating new platforms for engagement seemed like a great idea. But as we know, ideas can seem great in abstract, but it’s about execution and buy-in from others. Many of our peers lamented that there was never really a strong PhD community to begin with, so what could we do to facilitate one in such precarious times? Really anything we were to create needed to have a clear goal. It was about reminding everyone of the importance of their research project, and hopefully, getting others excited about it when connecting to peers.

After much discussion, and after collaboration with key academic stakeholders across levels in the College, Gabriella and Samantha began to conceptualise how a new collaborative and productive PhD space could look in the virtual context. They first made a call to HDR students via email and College newsletters, inviting candidates to reach out to them with ideas and requests on how to improve their learning experience. Much to their surprise, this was met with enthusiasm from peers and academic staff alike. A common theme throughout correspondence was that a blend of academic and social spaces should be facilitated. PhD candidates wanted to be able to meet (virtually) with each other and discuss their research, but also share ways they were maintaining their wellbeing during arguably one of the most challenging global periods in recent memory. After a process of collating the inputs, the Design and Social Context HDR Canvas page (an online learning management software platform) was born. This interactive portal, much like what was long employed across traditional coursework units, was the first of its kind specifically created for PhD candidates, by PhD candidates. It provided an accessible platform for informal peer chats via forum discussion posts, a calendar of weekly events that all could join (such as virtual ‘Shut up and Write’ Pomodoro writing sessions, where one could write in the company of others, and career information events), links to wellbeing resources and weekly interactive group yoga sessions, and contact details for all relevant staff and personal in one location. Gabriella reflected on the first week of the portal launch:

After initial teething issues (as is always the case with the launch of anything new), the portal gained traction, fast. HDRs across disciplines were emailing us asking how they could get involved with facilitating extra social sessions or providing general feedback on how great it was to have the convenience of one digital space to locate contact details for academic staff. Although the space was originally designed in response to COVID-19, it really did prove itself as a fantastic aid for HDRs, meeting many of their informational, social, and educational needs.

The platform was a remarkable success, reaching and connecting over 700 HDR students at RMIT. Many students who were previously inactive in HDR community spaces were now highly engaged in virtual events and forums. It appeared that the space was not a substitution for face-to-face interactions (not that it sought out to be), but a way to bridge gaps between students who were geographically dispersed or found it difficult to access campus for a multitude of reasons. Many commented that they felt reinvigorated to continue with their research project, and more productive after connecting in the online spaces. In the following section Gabriella and Samantha analyse their thoughts around facilitating this virtual collaborative space, and comment on potential areas of improvement.

So what?

In addition to the HDR Canvas platform being well used, the demographic had also notably shifted to include more than those previously well engaged in face-to-face events and interactions. Prior to COVID-19, metropolitan residents attending the university seemed to be those most immersed in campus life. An online format lent itself to being more geographically inclusive, with people from interstate and rural locations able to participate in virtual meetings. Similar findings were reported by Niner and Wassermann (2020), who noted that moving online substantially increased the accessibility for those who would be unable to attend an in-person event for financial or personal reasons. Their study, which investigated virtual conferences, indicated that the online experience was able to replicate some of the benefits of in-person events, with many participants interested in attending online or virtual events in the future (Niner & Wassermann, 2020). Gabriella considered some of the benefits of online interactive forums in academic contexts:

The HDR Canvas shell was more inclusive than face-to-face spaces in many ways. I began to notice faces I had never previously seen on campus, and after discussion, realised how much we had in common (in terms of research interest and beyond!). We also started to discuss the impact of regular online meet ups facilitated by the platform on productivity. Having ‘accountability buddies’ and having to discuss my writing progress with others in set time frames meant I had no choice but to get on with it. I wondered if this had created opportunities for more people to engage than those who felt confident in a normal face-to face setting. I also wondered about modes of communication. For many, meeting in the comfort of their own home meant they were able to engage with peers in ways (and times) that previously would have been unachievable.  

Indeed, there were many opportunities facilitated by the online platform. There was a radical departure from the status quo of only being ‘student life active’ if you frequented campus. By way of accessibility, the online format lent itself well to welcoming participation Australia wide, with the usual travel costs now void. Niner and Wassermann (2020) reported that one of the most positively acknowledged elements of online spaces is the ability for participants to access recorded materials and being able to engage with content at their own pace, in their own time zone, which was also a well-acknowledged positive feature of the Canvas shell (Edelheim et al., 2018; Gross and Fleming, 2011). Samantha shared her observations regarding new opportunities presented with the changed format:

Sometimes people would reach out to us after a careers session that was held via Zoom that they had seen advertised on the Canvas shell. Previously, when all seminars were held face-to-face, it meant many who had children, worked, had restricted mobility, or otherwise, missed out. Now it was as simple as directing them to the recording, which they could view at their own leisure.

As well as the evident benefits of the online format, shortfalls of the platform became apparent. It seemed that some PhD candidates succumbed to ‘Zoom fatigue’ – tiredness, worry or burnout associated with the overuse of virtual platforms of communication, particularly videotelephony (Jiang, 2020). Although many showed initial enthusiasm to partake in online events and meetings, some would drop out, particularly during long sessions. Furthermore, a balance of academic and social dimensions was hard to strike. Also commonly cited was the inability of candidates to ‘protect’ their time from work or personal commitments (particularly as the closure of schools brought on increased home-schooling pressures for parents); face-to-face formats allow better physical and mental distancing from usual commitments. It was also stated that the lack of opportunity for informal interactions, or ‘water cooler’ chats was missing from the Canvas platform, particularly as these could be a precursor for meaningful connection and networking (Edelheim et al., 2018; Gross and Fleming, 2011). Gabriella and Samantha found one of the challenges of shifting networking events online was the inability to recreate similar informal and non-verbal communication cues that are essential for relationship building (Oester et al., 2017). This informal communication comes from physical proximity, where body language can be a signal to invite verbal engagement (Fish et al., 1993). This proximity is challenged by remote participation where many of these cues remain invisible or less easily detected (Erickson et al., 2011; Fish et al., 1993). Samantha reflected:

[…] there was still a gap where social interactions and exchanges had once lived in the campus lab rooms. I felt we weren’t quite able to meet that need in our format, and this was reflected in comments and conversations from our peers a few months into having the platform. I felt people were keen for spaces to informally chat about things, because mainly in the hosted meet ups and even social events, there was a pre-determined ‘theme’ for conversation. But this also forced me to question whether there were spaces and settings for this kind of informal engagement when we were face to face. Whilst this was part of the problematic nature of online engagement, I felt like this ran deeper than the limitations of technology. These issues were there for me before we had to do it all online. Maybe the online nature just made it more visible or gave us the opportunity to reflect on something we were seeing in a different light?

From an organizational perspective, Gabriella and Samantha were surprised by the outreach of peers and academics alike, many offering to assist in various capacities in organising social events, seminars, online writing boot camps, and beyond. Grimalda et al. (2021) suggest that situations of existential threat, such as COVID-19, enhances prosociality in general, particularly toward others perceived as belonging to the same group (parochial altruism). This is directly in line with Gabriella and Samantha’s experience. It was a recurring comment that the platform created a new academic for academic engagement that was missing from the PhD experience which is well-known for being a solitary endeavor (Cantor, 2020). Gabriella noted the following:

Upon reflection about organising various events via the platform, I can attribute the enthusiasm of PhD candidates and academic staff. Although the act of volunteering is in itself altruistic, many contributors claimed that they felt reinvigorated through their organizational efforts, and more connected to their peers than ever. The previous feelings of guilt of perhaps not taking full advantage of the PhD experience meaning they were more committed to meaningfully engage with their peers and the research field.

Reflecting about the platform helped Gabriella and Samantha recognise benefits, whilst also acknowledging significant room to learn and grow. This led them to consider the implications of the Canvas shell and think about how this might impact future HDR learning experiences.

Now what?

The experience of developing and running the HDR Canvas platform during the pandemic was, for Gabriella and Samantha, an opportunity to reflect on HDR community building. There are few firm conclusions, and many questions emerged (and avenues for further research have opened up). However, the experience of pivoting face-to-face interactions to an online platform for engaging with HDR peers allowed them to reflect on what they could take into the future, and the possibilities of modifying methods of collaborating, contributing, and connecting with such communities. They became keenly aware of the importance of learning from their experiences, particularly as COVID-19 changed the face of academia and interaction at large. This again challenged the myth of ‘snapping back’ to previous ways of approaching learning and research in any post-COVID-19 era that emerge. Gabriella remarked:

We’re at a time where I feel there is no going back to ‘normal’. While this new way of doing things has been challenging and uncomfortable, it’s also shed light on assumptions we’ve made and things we’ve taken for granted.

The pandemic paved the way for reimagining the HDR experience. Significant budgetary constraints in higher education institutions, and the reality that many international students are still unable to study in Australia meant that the candidate experience will continue to shift and evolve. Samantha reflected on the future of HDR learning in an unknowable future:

We can’t even conceive of the future of the HDR experience. As my experience as an HDR student draws to a close, I hope that our learnings during this time can inform those who embark research degrees in future and help facilitate more connectivity between candidates. From my experience, productivity in this space seems to be at its most optimal when we are connected.

Looking towards the future of the HDR experience, Gabriella and Samantha have wondered about the possibilities of using ‘hybrid’ or a mixture of synchronous and asynchronous models of peer interaction going forward. Gabriella acknowledges that “it is hard to omit the reality that many people are wired towards face-to-face engagement”. Following this, Samantha commented on alternatives to hosting either face-to-face or online events:

While the ‘hybrid’ model seems to offer the best of both worlds, it is also probably the most complex, having to engage on screen and in person at the same time while switching between the two. Is a compromise achievable?

A study conducted by Tisdell and Loch (2017) investigated the challenges of integrating in-person and online formats, and the risk of inadvertently segregating the online and in-person communities from one another. The authors raise their concerns that inadequate integration in hybrid models has the potential to widen existing systemic inequalities, particularly if in-person activities are prioritised (Tisdell & Loch, 2017). It is crucial that we continue to question and challenge new ways of working and reflect on the barriers that any new formats may introduce. Although it can be inferred that connectivity among PhD candidates can support their productivity, some HDR candidates are not as able to connect with others due to factors outside their control. Modified practices in the future should reflect the diversity of the HDR cohort, and in doing so, be regularly reassessed for their effectiveness and adapted as needed.

Conclusion

Through their reflection of reimagining student engagement in the COVID-19 era, Samantha and Gabriella considered the link between connectivity and productivity. Prior to COVID-19, HDR students lamented the isolation that is often considered ‘part and parcel’ of the PhD experience – the pandemic further compounding dislocation from space and peers. From their experience in developing an online mode of engagement during this time, Gabriella and Samantha found there were many benefits – such as creating further opportunities for a more diverse cohort of students to attend, increased accountability in completing writing and research tasks, and reported lowered feeling of isolation. However, we also noted the distinct lack of informal social opportunities which play an important role in students’ feelings of connection and belonging. Although the circumstances of the pandemic meant that an online platform for HDR community building was the only option, Gabriella and Samantha are cautious in embracing the online or hybrid student platforms as a one-size-fits-all solution to these issues into the future, believing that inequalities in the HDR experience will persist in these new formats without a commitment to actively addressing them (see also Niner et al., 2020, p. 254). Their experience, however, points out the fact that HDR candidates, alongside more senior university staff, can play a vital role in this community building, and may in some ways be best placed to lead a shift in the HDR candidate’s experience from being a ‘one man band’ to working ‘in concert’ with peers.

References

Akçit, V., & Barutçu, E. (2017). The relationship between performance and loneliness at workplace: a study on academicians. European Scientific Journal, Special Issue, pp. 235-243.

Cantor, G. (2020). The loneliness of the long-distance (PhD) researcher. Psychodynamic Practice, 26(1), 56-67.

de Caux, B. C. (2021). Doctoral candidates’ academic writing output and strategies: Navigating the challenges of academic writing during a global health crisis. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 16(1).

Door, V., & Gupta, E. (2020). The Cost of Incognizance: How Loneliness Affects Productivity. Harvard Economics Review. https://www.economicsreview.org/post/the-cost-of-incognizance-how-loneliness-affects-productivity

Driscoll, J. (2000). Practising clinical supervision: A reflective approach. London, UK: Baillière Tindall.

Edelheim, J. R., Thomas, K., Åberg, K. G., & Phi, G. (2018). What do conferences do? What is academics’ intangible return on investment (ROI) from attending an academic tourism conference? Journal of Teaching in Traveling and Tourism. 18, 94–107. doi: 10.1080/15313220.2017.1407517

Erickson, T., Sadat Shami, N., Kellogg, W. A., & Levine, D. W. (2011). Synchronous interaction among hundreds: an evaluation of a conference in an avatar-based virtual environment. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, pp. 503–512. doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979013

Fish, R. S., Kraut, R. E., Root, R. W., & Rice, R. E. (1993). Video as a technology for informal communication. Communications of the ACM 36, 48–61. doi: 10.1145/151233.151237

Gomes, C., Hendry, N., De Souza, R., Hjorth, L., Richardson, I., Harris, A., & Coombs, G. (2021). Higher Degree Students (HDR) during COVID-19: Disrupted routines, uncertain futures, and active strategies of resilience and belonging. Journal of International Students, 11(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v11iS2

Grimalda, G., Buchan, N. R., Ozturk, O. D., Pinate, A. C., Urso, G., & Brewer, M. B. (2021). Exposure to COVID-19 is associated with increased altruism, particularly at the local level. Scientific reports, 11(1), 1-14.

Gross, N,. & Fleming, C (2011). Academic conferences and the making of philosophical knowledge. In: Camic, C, Gross, N, Lamont, M (eds) Social Knowledge in the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 151–179.

Haucke, M., Liu, S., & Heinzel, S. (2021). The Persistence of the Impact of COVID-19–Related Distress, Mood Inertia, and Loneliness on Mental Health During a Postlockdown Period in Germany: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study. JMIR Mental Health, 8(8), e29419.

Janta, H., Lugosi, P., & Brown, L. (2014). Coping with loneliness: A netnographic study of doctoral students. Journal of further and Higher Education, 38(4), 553-571.

Jiang, M. (2020). The reason Zoom calls drain your energy. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200421-why-zoom-video-chats-are-so-exhausting

Lim, M., Lambert, G., Thurston, L., Argent, T., & Eres, R. (2020). Survey of Health and Wellbeing – Monitoring the Impact of COVID-19. Swinburne University of Technology: Iverson Health Innovation Research Institute.

Lobb, E. A., Kristjanson, L. J., Aoun, S. M., Monterosso, L., Halkett, G. K., & Davies, A. (2010). Predictors of complicated grief: A systematic review of empirical studies. Death Studies, 34(8), 673-698.

Nelson, R. (2018). Creativity crisis: Toward a post-constructivist educational future. Clayton, VIC: Monash University Publishing.

Niner, H. J., & Wassermann, S. N. (2021). Better for Whom? Leveling the Injustices of International Conferences by Moving Online. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 146.

Niner, H.  J., Johri, S., Meyer, J., Wassermann, S. N., & Meyer, J. (2020). The pandemic push: can COVID-19 reinvent conferences to models rooted in sustainability, equitability and inclusion? Socio-Ecological Practice Research. 2, 253–256. doi: 10.1007/s42532-020-00059-y

Oester S., Cigliano J. A., Hind-Ozan E. J. & Parsons ECM (2017). Why Conferences Matter—An Illustration from the International Marine Conservation Congress. Frontiers in Marine Science.. 4, 257. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00257

Pretorius, L., & Ford, A. (2017). Mind-melds and other tricky business: Teaching threshold concepts in mental health preservice training. In E. Kendal & B. Diug (Eds.), Teaching medicine and medical ethics using popular culture (pp. 149–167). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., & Jasper, M. (2001). Critical reflection in nursing and the helping professions: A user’s guide. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Skovholt, T. (2012). Becoming a Therapist: On the Path to Mastery. Wiley. Hoboken, New Jersey.

Tisdell, C., & Loch, B. (2017). How useful are closed captions for learning mathematics via online video? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology.  48, 229–243. doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2016.1238518

Valliani, K., & Mughal, F. B. (2021). Human emotions during COVID-19: A lens through Kubler-Ross Grief theory. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 14(2), 247–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001064

Wallace, C. L., Wladkowski, S. P., Gibson, A., & White, P. (2020). Grief during the COVID-19 pandemic: considerations for palliative care providers. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 60(1).