Purpose Doctoral candidature is a critical phase in which students are trained to conduct rigorous inquiry and to communicate original research through theses. After completion theses, some graduates transition into teaching and/or research roles in higher education, particularly within the precarious conditions of the sessional workforce. While existing literature has examined professional identity formation of academics, limited research has focused on sessional workforce, as they experience less structured support and greater uncertainties. This study aims to address this gap by examining how two recent doctoral graduates experienced the sessional workforce and the implications for their professional identity development. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a collaborative autoethnography of two recent doctoral graduates who critically reflect on their doctoral education and experiences as sessional academics in Australian higher education. Drawing on reflexive narratives, the authors examine the enablers and constraints and evaluate the extent to which doctoral education prepared them for the pedagogical, relational and institutional demands of higher education. Findings The findings demonstrate that professional identity formation is a relational process shaped through three dimensions: fitting into the mould by developing familiarity with workplace norms and achieving proximity to dominant practices; developing confidence towards self-authorship; and carrying forward identities developed during doctoral candidature through the internalisation of publication-oriented values, research-informed teaching and the cultivation of professional habits. Originality/value This article contributes to ongoing debates about professional learning practices and policy by emphasising the need for structural support that aligns doctoral education more closely with the realities of the contemporary higher education workforce. This support is crucial for sustainable academic career development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: