Doing a PhD is usually seen as a good thing. But sometimes it can cause perceived or actual tension for yourself or others. Recently, this happened to me and it served as a great reminder that often (as with most things in life), things are not always what they seem and that everything is always-already with(in) a twist. Here’s what happened in 100 words. Enjoy, NG.
Well-meaning advice for my first-time BBQ: ‘Maybe don’t mention your PhD’. Gloomy backyard introductions and I only remember Mouse and Skipper. I stand awkwardly. Drinking. Tattoos pour down legs and arms, scraggly beer strained beards and black heavy metal T-shirts. Smoking. My trendy hat feels too tight. Disappearings. A huge brown mastiff watches half-naked kids fight. Reappearings. I make a joke that falls flat. Eating. Jonno tells me his secret fishing spots. Teasing. Raucous stories of youthful antics. Laughing. On departure: sweaty hugs and a take-home food pack. Over the balcony, Big Dan yells ‘Best of luck with ya research!’
For nearly 2 years now, I have been the co-convenor (with Dr Sherilyn Lennon) of Griffth University’s New Materialisms (NM) Special interest Group (SIG). We meet each month to read, discuss and experiment with New Materialisms approaches in teaching, learning and research. It is also the framing I am using for my bikes-for-education PhD project.
For this months’ New Materialisms session, we were delighted to host our first international presenter Assoc. Prof. Thomas Reynolds (Dept. of Writing Studies, Uni of Minnesota).
I met Tom after I emailed him following a session he did for an international online teaching conference. Despite the time differences (it was hosted by an Israeli Uni so the international timezone shift was brutal for Aussie attendees – Tom’s session was on at 10 pm Brisbane time), I still attended his session, but they ran out of time for questions. I reached out to him and we got email chatting and I invited him to (re)present for our NM SIG. And he said yes!
Title: Multimodality: digital video and the materiality of academic writing.
Tom’s research interests include critical theories of writing instruction, histories of popular literacy, and intersections of literacy and cultural movements. He is currently writing about multimodality in writing instruction. Tom teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in writing and literacy studies. His classes typically write in and study current media.
Abstract
I have been thinking about how to set new ground for the teaching and learning of writing through a lens of multimodality. In particular, in addition to asking my students to read and write traditional academic texts, I’ve asked them to make group digital videos that advocate for issues that are important to them.
With new materialist ideas, I’m interested in helping students see how their work on these projects might involve engagement with both discursive and non-discursive elements. The attached readings explore writing through a non-discursive and, in Cooper’s case, post-humanist framework.
The ideas for this project are exploratory for me at this stage and will hopefully lead to an article.
What we did
This session was an engaging, fun and productive exploration of Tom’s current project onmultimodality, literacy digital video and the materiality of academic writing.
We discussed the two articles and collated some standout concepts (see image) then had a lively conversation following Tom’s presentation about many things, including: who holds power on campus, how to (affectively?) tracing emotional responses to places/space, going on a ‘sound diet’, habituated bodily responses to sound, and territorialising/mapping campus s/p/places as a class/student activity – wow!
It was a real delight to enter a completely different world …that of Tom’s class practice. Each session we get stretched and pulled in different ways and it really helps us to stay open-minded and flexible in our thinking and experimentation.
The discussions were animate, fun and productive – it was a real pleasure to flex our intellectual muscles and share the ideas and lines of flights that emerge for each of us from the conversations, reading and links to our research.
I found Tom’s session and his work to be inspiring and generative – I’d love to be a student in his class!
It also gave me a lot to think about how I teach and holding space for others to tell stories, narratives and learnings via different modalities – a very stimulating session!
Other takeaways included:
How do our habits of thinking and paying attention help us (and our students) transform our writing/understanding/being?
How to give students agency to choose their own passion, to fuel their multimodal creations which (hopefully) leads to better “products” outcomes, but also creative processes leading up to those endpoints?
Readings:
Ceraso, S. (2014). (re)educating the senses: Multimodal listening, bodily learning, and the composition of sonic experiences. College English, 77(2), 102-123.
Cooper, M. M. (2019). Enchanted writing. (pp. 19-44). University of Pittsburgh Press.
As many readers know, I am using Feminist New Materialisms (FNM) as my framing for my bicycles-for-education PhD project. FNM is a wonderfully rich and challenging approach to be working with. To help deepen my understandings of NM, this year I have been working as the co-convenor (alongside the amazing Dr Sherilyn Lennon) of Griffith’s Uni New Materialisms Special Interest Group (SIG). Each month, we meet to discuss NM approaches, readings ad applications. We do writing and process activities to help activate and stretch our NM understandings and have an invited guest present to broaden our ideas for working with NMs. Click here to see our other New Materialisms sessions.
This post shares some highlights from this month’s NM meeting where we had Janis Hanley (Social Science PhD candidate) presenting on Milieu, Territory, Atmosphere, Agency & Culture.
See more incredible work by Janis at her Local Yarns blog.
Abstract: For some time now I’ve been exploring ways to conceptualise organisational culture, and safety culture in relation to organisations as assemblages – both for my PhD project and assisting in WHS research. The ideas I’m currently playing with are milieu and affective atmospheres. This work is for a journal paper presenting a case study of safety at a regional coal fired powerplant (scheduled to be phased out), based on ethnographic interviews conducted by Dr Tristan Casey and myself, about a year ago.
Tristan, a workplace, health and safety expert at Griffith, led the project, and is the co-author. The ideas around this paper are being presented here to test it out as a work in progress, and as a practical application. I hope it will help stimulate discussion around these concepts, and be practical for you in terms of considering your own research. Do these concepts resonate with your research? What new things might they reveal?
This meeting was really great. In a meeting prior to the session, Janis and I discussed the abstract and how best to organise the session. We ended up pivoting from the original abstract and instead, Janis ran us though some of her milleu work from her current PhD project.
This was a really interesting session (aren’t they all!?!). Janis took us on a creative and analytical exploration of milieu, territory, atmosphere, agency & culture. Using some written and visual excerpts from her current PhD research-in-progress on the historical Queensland textile industry, Janis provoked us to consider how milieu, chi, concepts of ‘home’ and atmosphere resonated with us and in our research.
Stand out aspects of this discussion were divergent responses to a piano, political graffiti in a factory and participant appreciation of Janis’s diagrams that showed the ‘bite of elliptical surfboards’.
We also did a number of individual and collaborative activities that helped activate and draw out some points for discussion. I found these to very revealing and generative. You never know what to example or what might emerge – but it is always something unusual and interesting. I took a lot away from this session and it gave me much to think about in regard to how atmosphere, milieu and conceptions of ‘home’ feature in my own work and life. Very provocative.
We also did a writing activity. This is one of my favourite things to do I n the SIG as it really helps me try and apply and explain NM considerations in writing, which is a critical skill I need for writing up my dissertation – so any help, practice and feedback I can get with this is very welcomed.
The writing activity we did was for us to write for 10 mins and then share and discuss interesting aspects that emerged. Below was our stimulus for this task.
Writing Activity: Think about the layer of milieu or territory in your research. Write a 100 word or so autoethnographic piece inspired by your musings.
Below are some snapshots of our discussions and a draft of this session’s writing activity.
For this session, we were delighted to have incredible minds behind the Melbourne-based PlayTank Collective – Alicia Flynn, Sarah Healy and Allie Edwards present a session entitled: Lessons from the Play Tank: Adventures in playful scholarship.
Abstract
In this session, we will discuss a workshop that was created to enact NM theories and provide a playful and collaborative space to re-think, re-imagine, re-( ) research for participants at the AARE 2019 conference. Working between the disciplines of art education and design, we embraced the opportunity to create this workshop in a way that attended to the joys and curiosities that we experienced while working/playing together in a material way. This collaboration was intentionally responsive and response-able, allowing us to experience a different way of being academics together, and enabling us to create a workshop that offered the same opportunity for those joining us in our session.
We will share some of the insights from our process of creating the workshop, some highlights and images from the workshop, and pose the question we now have:
What does this workshop make possible, both for us as researchers and for the people who participated in it?
Is this a method that allows people to practice more affirmative and ethical ways of working/playing/being together?
Session Activity: 100 word collaborative brainstorm
Session highlights
Sarah and Alli (and Alicia) not only presented, but also took us on an engaging 2-hour journey through their ideas, inspirations, readings, discussions and no less than two 100s (Stewart, 2010) writing activities (see image) and left us with the enticing thought:
What does this experience make possible, both for us as researchers and for the people who participated in it?
Part of the framing for this session was this incredible piece that Alicia read out:
“Imagine a pattern. This pattern is stable, but not fixed. Think of it in as many dimensions as you like – but it has more than three. This pattern has many threads of many colours, and every thread is connected to, and has a relationship with, all the others. The individual threads are every shape of life. Some – like human, kangaroo, paperbark – are known to Western science as “alive”; others, like rock, would be called “non-living”, but rock is there, just the same. Human is there, too, though it is neither the most nor the least important thread – it is one among many, equal with the others. The pattern made the whole is in each thread, and all the threads together make the whole. Stand close to the pattern and you can focus on a single thread ; stand a little further back and you can see how that thread connects to others; stand further back still and you can see it all – and it is only once you see it all that you recognise the pattern of the whole in every individual thread. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, and the whole is in all its parts. This is the pattern that the Ancestors made. It is life, creation, spirit, and it exists in Country” (Kwaymullina, 2005, p. 12).
*Kwaymullina, A. (2005). Seeing the light: Aboriginal law, learning and sustainable living in country. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 6(11), 12-15
For this meeting we had 2 readings:
Braidotti, R. (2009). On putting the active back into activism. New Formations, (68), 42. doi:10.3898/NEWF.68.03.200
Stewart, K. (2010). Worlding refrains. In M. Gregg & G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 337 -353). Durham [N.C.]: Duke University Press.
Session note: A great question from last meeting that emerged out of the readings was: What is ‘the second corporeal turn in social theory’ referred to in Taylor and Ivinson (2013, p 666)? This question stemmed from this quote here: “Such moves reinforce earlier feminist theories (Butler 1990; Grosz 1994), and speak back to the second corporeal turn in social theory (e.g. Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992; Foucault 1979; Merleau-Ponty 1962, 1968; Shilling 2008) and within education (Evans, Rich, and Davies 2009; James 2000; Prout 2000; Walkerdine 2009). We indend to discuss this further!
As long-time readers of this blog know, along with Dr Sherilyn Lennon, I co-convene Griffith University’s New Materialism Special Interest Group (SIG). New Materialisms (NM) is an emerging post-qualitative research approach that has a significant take-up in education, queer and gender studies, environmental science and arts-based disciplines in particular, but is gaining traction more widely as well.
This month, we had a mix of three stimuli for the discussion. This was followed by a very moving presentation about a project exploring school workplace sexual harassment and the impact on teacher identity.
Image by Franz Marc: Fighting Forms
Presentation: Workplace harassment and teacher identity
Our presenter had just submitted her Griffith EPS Master’s thesis two days before this meeting, so we were very grateful for her time.
In this session, she shared some insights, ‘data’ and narrative moments from her latest research project which was an exploration of sexual harassment on teacher identity.
Now that her Masters had been submitted, the researcher was interested in feedback from the group on what resonates and how she might be able to build the project into a PhD using a New Materialisms lens.
As a starting point, X was keen to explore how the sexual harassment complaint has its own agency.
As always, it was a very generative and thought-provoking session.
The presentation blew up away and gave us much to think about.
We applauded the bravery, resilience and strength that underpinned this work.
This presentation focused on the impact of sexual harassment on teacher identity and, in so doing, opened up conversations around gendered harassment in institutional settings. The aim is to lift the curtain on the unacknowledged, misunderstood and often overlooked. These discussions offer insights into the ways that identity, power and culture interrelate and operate in institutional settings and how to shed light on the gendered nature of workplace harassment from a position that is often silenced. Here, feelings of powerlessness, critical reflexivity, and scholarly reflection were used to interrogate construction of institutionalised norms and examine how language, subjectivity, and power-relations impact on gender.
This session resonated very strongly with SIG members as it honours the insider’s perspective of the social complexities and challenges many women face in institutional workplaces.
It was certainly very moving – and left us all with much to consider – individually and collectively.
New Materialisms Reading/Discussion
For this meeting we had a mix of 3 stimuli.
First was a Taylor & Ivinson’s (2013) editorial for a journal special which was quoted from in the May meeting and flagged for the SIG to follow up. We also had a reading by Gamble, Hanan & Nail (2019) from the last meeting that helps trace the NM origins, epistemological developments and contested space. Lastly, we used a 30 min YouTube video of Iris van de Turin in which she discusses diffractive reading and asks questions about the spatiotemporality of diffractive reading: where and when does diffraction happen in reading processes?
We used the readings and our own knowledge and experiences to explore our central question of: ‘What lines of flight emerge for you?’
We used this key question to pick at the seams of NM and how we can engage with, and apply, New Materialist methodologies. Here is a sneak peak at some of our machinations.
Taylor & Ivinson Reading NotesGamble, Hanan & Niall Reading Notesvan der Tuin Reading Notes
Session resources
Editorial: Taylor, C. A., & Ivinson, G. (2013). Material feminisms: New directions for education. Gender and education 25(6), 995-670.
Reading: Gamble, C. N., Hanan, J. S., & Nail, T. (2019). What Is New Materialism?. Angelaki, 24(6), 111-134.
Youtube Video: Iris van der Tuin – Reading diffractive reading: were and when does diffraction happen?
Some academic publications are a bore to read, but there are the rare few that are accessible and engaging.
Today, I am sharing one that fits that bill. It is a reflection piece in the most recent issue of the Journal of Narrative Politics. It is by Manu Samnotra.
This article includes 7 vignettes, each of which shows various insights into Manu’s Florida bike-university-international lifeworld. I have chosen one particular vignette, to share here, which is the fourth in the paper (pg 62-63) which is the shortest vignette. It was originally presented as a one-paragraph moment. I chose this piece as it is concise, familiar and accessible (clearly written and articulated and not overly theoretical – thank goodness!).
Although it is an academic publication, it is a personal piece that bike riders can relate too. Elsewhere in the article, Manu explores themes or family, mobility, education, immigration/citizenship, friendship, community and more.
Manu’s writing is not at all cumbersome or heavily referenced (which is a unique feature of the Journal of Narrative Politics). I’d recommend checking out the whole article (see below). I have changed the layout of this section to better suit the blog format. Enjoy! NG.
Samnotra, M. (2020). Pedaling from Courage. Journal of Narrative Politics, 6(2).
We were on our bicycles on our way to the university, rolling on a path unmarred by borders and hierarchies. We saw two figures in the distance.
Pedaling.
Perhaps we registered its novelty; in this neighborhood where we rarely saw any children, and where there were no cars parked during the day, it was strange to see pedestrians walking in the middle of the street. Whirring. We were discussing what we might cook that night for dinner.
Pedaling.
We hear voices now, distant voices, and there is shouting. The road is much smoother in this part of the ride. Whirring. We exchange glances. As we get closer, we notice that the figures in the distance, getting nearer to us every moment, are not white. The color of their skin became apparent before anything else.
Pedaling.
We see now that one of them is gesticulating. Sticking arms out sideways, questioning.
Pedaling.
We notice now that one of them is a man. We hear his words clearly. He is angry. He is insulting her. Whirring. He is demanding that she stop what she is doing and acknowledge him. A few feet away, and we realize that the woman is walking ahead of the man. Whirring. Her body is stiffened, but not in the way that suggests that they are strangers. Whirring. She is trying to maintain a distance between them. As we are about to cross them, the man stretches forward and punches her. It grazes the back of her head. She stumbles but quickly regains her footing and keeps walking.
Pedaling.
We two cyclists look at each other.
Pedaling.
We are already a block down the path before we realize what we have seen. Whirring. No, that is not right. We know what we saw. Whirring. It just takes us that long to acknowledge what we have seen. She wants to stop pedaling. Our bikes come to skidding halt. She was always braver than me. I tell her not to stop.
Pedaling.
We cover the rest of the distance until we reach the university where we finally consider what we have seen.
Manu Samnotra teaches political theory at the University of South Florida. He can be reached at msamnotra@usf.edu
People keep asking how my PhD is going. It’s a legitimate and infuriating inquiry. How to explain the research da(y)ze? Here’s one in 100 words.
It was never going to be easy: this spinning hyper-real simulacra imaginarium. Breathe in. Passionate tears during compost therapy. Breathe out. A research assistant job comes through. Vegetarian dumplings. Whispers of theoretical (in)security. Omissions, occlusions, occasions. Frangipani’s first buds. A maelstrom of attunement as I grip my red pen. Personifying landscapes, fast-forwarding childhoods, (re)working images, terraforming heartbreaks. Screaming all the while. Riding wild horses. An unoriginal miscellany. Embolden by Kathleen Stewart and my broadcasting sister’s birthday, I take solace in Manu’s grey bicycle T-shirt. Cheers all round. When all else fails, winter dog walks and melted cheese toasties.
AARE is Australia’s premier network for educational
researchers. A key aim for AARE is to inform and improve policy and practice in
education – and share these insights with other interested parties.
AARE blog is where experts share opinions, raise questions and explore education themes and issues.
The annual conference is the most popular AARE offering. Each year, local educational professionals from Australia and around the world come together to network, share ideas and hear about the latest educational research, projects and approaches. Here are some keynote presentations from past conferences and some past papers.
AARE 2019 Conference
The theme for this conference was ‘Education for a Socially Just World.
The sessions on offer are extensive (dare I say overwhelming?).
The truncated program of abstract titles only alone is 274 pages – click here.
The complete program (full abstracts) is a whopping 1162 pages – click here.
So many great sessions to choose from – and some very big names.
In order to save my sanity, time and effort I just decided to stick with seeing what the Post- Structural Theory SIG had on offer – and then go to any other sessions/speakers who caught my eye.
Here, in no particular order are some of my hot tips for AARE 2019 sessions:
Sarah Healy (Melbourne Uni), Alli Edwards (Monash Uni), Alicia Flynn (Melbourne Uni). Welcome to the Playtank! Re-_____ing research.
David Bright (Monash Uni). Qualitative inquiry and Deleuze and Guattari’s minor literature: In which I consider verisimilitude as a criterion for judging the quality of qualitative writing with reference made to Kurt Vonnegut’s novel Slaughterhouse 5 albeit not really in the telegraphic schizophrenic manner of tales of the planet Tralfamadore. (I went to this session and it was amazing! It ended up winning the Best Session Award 2019 for the whole conference – and rightly so!).
Parlo Singh (Griffith Uni) and Gabrielle Ivinson (Manchester Metropolitan Uni, UK). Radical Inclusion Research in/with Schools Serving High Poverty Communities.
Sarah E. Truman (Melbourne Uni), David Ben Shannon (Manchester Metropolitan Uni, UK). Queer textualities and temporalities: speculating-with Alpha Centauri.
Lucinda McKnight (Deakin Uni), Melissa Wolfe (Monash Uni) and Bronwyn Davies (Independent scholar). Is new materialism incompatible with social justice? Panel Discussion with Professor Bronwyn Davies.
Maria Ejlertsen (Griffith Uni). “I don’t fit in, I fit out”: Enabling more-than inclusive spaces for student belonging and engagement with school through attention to more-than-human entanglements of spacetimematter.
I went for the full three days and to as many sessions as I could (these were just a few).
I also went to the below session which was the first in a series of AARE Post-Structuralist SIG Event Series feat. Professor Bronwyn Davies funded by AARE Poststructural Theory SIG Major Grant 2019. See abstract below.
Exploring the poetics and the ethics of new materialist inquiry: Professor Bronwyn Davies
As researchers, our task is to get inside the processes of those materialisations of the world that
we encounter (where encounter is not a collision but a mutual affecting and being affected); it is
to find or generate the concepts that will enable us to see those encounters not in normative,
already-known terms, but in ways that open up new possibilities for sensing and responding, for
becoming sense-able and response-able. That is the ethics of new materialism.
And what of the poetics? New materialist research is necessarily playful. It crosses disciplinary
boundaries, messing those boundaries up; it works with new and emergent philosophical
concepts, bringing them to life through art, poetry, literature; it enters into the very specificity of
sensual existence as it is caught in a moment of spacetime and simultaneously opens up, or finds
its way into life itself. Through such explorations it seeks to break loose from old dogmas, old
methods, old binaries—all the paraphernalia of a normalized set of thoughts and practices that
place the individual human above and separate from the world, and that constrain research
through the repetition of the already-known. It seeks to open up thought, giving space to
emergence of new ways of understanding, new ways of becoming, throwing off the shackles of
the clichéd conventions of rationality and order.
In the workshop following this paper, I will present one or more of my own explorations that begin with where I am, or slip right into the middle, and then reflect on what was involved in going there. What re-conceptualising was involved? What new practices? What ethics? What poetics? I will then open up that exploration with the audience, inviting them to shift from being audience to becoming participants, giving them an opportunity to talk and write about something that matters to them in their encounters with more-than-human relationality, that called/calls on their sense-ability and response-ability.
For this last meeting we did things a little differently!
Instead of having a guest presenter, we invited everyone to present.
In the spirit of New Materialisms, we wanted to hear, seem think-with lots of different voices, perspectives, approaches and ‘data’.
So , we asked attendees to bring a piece of data that ‘glows’ and that they would like to re-turn-with other members of the SIG.
The idea here is that we are all working on different research projects, with different applications and with different data. As we break for the holidays for the end of the year, we thought it might be interesting for participants to share a part of their research with others as a way of mining alternative insights.
We asked participants to chose a data’ selection’ that was digestible in a short time frame (i.e. within 2 minutes to present to leave time for discussion).
An example of this might be 100 words of writing/transcription or an image or an object.
And we had a great time!
Participants shared all kinds of ‘data’ – photos, images, artwork, audio, moments of research(er)-becomings and other material. I won’t share people’s content here as the material is often confidential, part of resarch project (covered by Ethics) or personal – you had to be there!
It was lovely to have the time and space to share work and ideas and get some inspiration to tide us over the holiday – and to get some fresh eyes and ideas to look anew at the content and ideas we were working with.
What a way to end the year!
Below are some moments from the workshop – it was super fun and inspiring!
Image: Night Owl City
Reading material for this meeting
There are two readings for this SIG meeting were selected as they attempt to articulate the difference between fNM approaches and other (post)qualitative approaches.
Jackson, A. Y. (2013). Making matter making us: Thinking with grosz to find freedom in new feminist materialisms. Gender and Education, 25(6), 769-775. doi:10.1080/09540253.2013.832014.
Hughes, C., & Lury, C. (2013). Re-turning feminist methodologies: From a social to an ecological epistemology. Gender and Education, 25(6), 786-799. doi:10.1080/09540253.2013.829910.
Lately, I’ve been craving extra time and space to explore New Materialist more generatively, At uni, the time is limited and often, more senior academics take-over theory session. .. and the HDRers still left with answers.
So instead of relying on supervisors, I decided to invite five trusted New Materialist and Posthumanist PhD friends for a day-long study group/workshop in my garden where we could all collaborate to create and share knowledge.
I planned the day so there was room for sharing, discussion, thinking, writing and activities -and also time to do some gardening! I had organized a full-day program (see below).
Each participant nominated an NM tropic to share/teach the group.
New Materialism is an umbrella term for a range of theoretical perspectives that share a re-turn focus on matter. Recently, feminist New Materialisms (fNM) has gained momentum due to a unique consideration for the agency of all matter. In fNM understandings, habitual human-centric ways of thinking, doing and being are disrupted as an ethico-onto-epistemological approach emerges.
FNM is exciting, complex and emerging – and a challenge for PGs. Because it is so difficult to understand, PGs often rely on supervisors and academics as ‘experts’ for ways to understand and apply fNM. This reliance bypasses autodidactic learning. But what might be possible if the formalities and associated materialities of this power structure were disrupted and reframed? Inspired by the fNM central ethical tenet of flattening power hierarchies within and across the Academy, I am hostingThe New Materialist’s Garden.
This research session is an independent, one-day, fNM theory/methodology ‘study group’ held in my garden. The garden provides an alternative ‘learning context’ that deliberately disrupted and displaced traditional notions about academic knowledge, performances, educational spaces and who is ‘an expert’.
The aim of this day is to see what insights and ‘wonder’ (McLure, 2012) might emerge when HDRs collaborate to share and reframe experiences of ‘thinking-doing-being’ fNM research and what it is to be ‘experts-becoming’.
I hope this experience will help/encourage/inspire (post)grads to trouble the ways they are ‘thinking-doing-being’ theory and who are ‘research experts’.
Expert ‘queering’ is a significant shift for PG and emerging researchers to contend with, but even more so as they transition beyond candidature.
Hopefully, such reframings will not only aid in their current research, but also enable more (post)grads to view themselves as ‘experts/researchers-becoming’ rather than ‘student/candidate-unchanging’.
