Does external funding push doctoral supervisors to be more directive? A large-scale Danish study

Around the world, changing funding policies have pushed for university departments to find increased external project-based funding. While this trend is widely acknowledged, mixed views exist about implications for faculty members’ academic practices. Regarding doctoral education, researchers have raised concern that external funding will push doctoral supervisors to be more directive in their supervision of doctoral students’ research projects. However, the empirical evidence supporting such concern is limited. The aim of the current study was, first, to develop and validate a scale allowing us to measure the degree of supervisor direction. Second, the aim was to examine the hypothesis that directive supervision is more likely to occur when the doctoral student’s research project is supported by external funding secured by the supervisor. A total of 1690 doctoral students at a research-intensive Danish university participated in the study. Three scales, including a directive supervision scale, were developed and validated by means of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Our hypothesis could be confirmed for the health sciences, but not the natural sciences. Results from the humanities and social sciences were ambiguous.     

EXAMINATION OF ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF STUDENTS’ ASSESSMENT OF THEIR COLLEGE: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HARD AND SOFT SCIENCES

This study examines the relationship between the discriminable components of quality of learning experiences (that is, resources, content, learning flexibility, student‐faculty contact, and involvement) and students’ summative assessment of their college. The relative explanatory powers of three alternative combinatory models — the compensatory (linear‐additive), conjunctive, and disjunctive — are tested for. undergraduate students from hard and soft sciences. The conjunctive model provides the maximal predictability for hard sciences whereas all three models have the same explanatory powers in soft sciences. In addition, the five quality of learning experience components explain a higher portion of the variation of assessment in hard sciences than in soft sciences. Finally, the two dominant predictors of assessment in hard sciences are flexibility and involvement while the best determinants of assessment in soft sciences are flexibility and student‐faculty contact. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Doctoral conceptual thresholds in cellular and molecular biology

ABSTRACT

In the biological sciences, very little is known about the mechanisms by which doctoral students acquire the skills they need to become independent scientists. In the postsecondary biology education literature, identification of specific skills and effective methods for helping students to acquire them are limited to undergraduate education. To establish a foundation from which to investigate the developmental trajectory of biologists’ research skills, it is necessary to identify those skills which are integral to doctoral study and distinct from skills acquired earlier in students’ educational pathways. In this context, the current study engages the framework of threshold concepts to identify candidate skills that are both obstacles and significant opportunities for developing proficiency in conducting research. Such threshold concepts are typically characterised as transformative, integrative, irreversible, and challenging. The results from interviews and focus groups with current and former doctoral students in cellular and molecular biology suggest two such threshold concepts relevant to their subfield: the first is an ability to effectively engage primary research literature from the biological sciences in a way that is critical without dismissing the value of its contributions. The second is the ability to conceptualise appropriate control conditions necessary to design and interpret the results of experiments in an efficient and effective manner for research in the biological sciences as a discipline. Implications for prioritising and sequencing graduate training experiences are discussed on the basis of the identified thresholds.     

‘I Don't Even Have Time to be Their Friend!’ Ethical Dilemmas in Ph.D. Supervision in the Hard Sciences

This study focused on exploring students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of ethical problems in doctoral supervision in the natural sciences. Fifteen supervisors and doctoral students in one research community in the natural sciences were interviewed about their practices and experiences in the doctoral process and supervision. We explored to what extent doctoral students and supervisors experienced similar or different ethical challenges in the supervisory relationship and analyzed how the experiences of ethical dilemmas in supervision could be understood in light of the structure and practices of natural science research groups. The data were analyzed by theory-driven content analysis. Five ethical principles, namely non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, fidelity and justice, were used as a framework for identifying ethical issues. The results show that one major question that appears to underpin many of the emerging ethical issues is that the supervisors and students have different expectations of the supervisory role. The second important observation is that doctoral students primarily described their own experiences, whereas the supervisors described their activities as embedded in a system and elaborated on the causes and consequences at a system level.     

The biomedical doctorate in the contemporary university: education or training and why it matters

The form and function(s) of doctoral education continue to be a subject of much debate by stakeholders internal and external to the university. Notable concerns driving this debate derive from a seemingly discursive array of factors including increasing student numbers, increased understanding of the economic value of doctoral graduates, capitalisation of the academic market and a focus on allocating funding using ostensibly narrow, arbitrary measures of ‘program success’ such as completion rates/time to completion, all framed by a wider debate regarding precisely what constitutes valid knowledge in contemporary society. Within the university, the biomedical sciences are one area of scholarship undergoing rapid change in this respect. One of the salient outcomes of these internal and external dialogues is the apparent transition of biomedical doctoral education towards a ‘training model’ that places increasing emphasis on rapid completion and the generation of ‘industry ready graduates’; a transition that is, potentially, occurring at the expense of the edifying and transformative aspects of biomedical doctoral education. Focusing on the effects of academic capitalisation, this paper draws on data from Australia and Europe to examine the drivers and potential effect(s) of this shift on contemporary doctoral education in the biomedical sciences. This paper acknowledges the potential benefit of contemporary developments whilst simultaneously concluding that by progressing too far towards a quantitatively assessed, industry-driven training model we risk eliminating the intellectual and societal transforming aspects of biomedical doctoral education that make graduates increasingly valuable to our economy and, just as importantly, to our society as a whole.     

The Experience of Doctoral Studies in the UK and France: differences in epistemology,research objects and training

This article investigates how doctoral students perceive their research education in different disciplines in two higher education systems, the UK and France. It explores what underlies the diversity of doctoral students' experiences. Three theoretical positions are identified: the epistemological position, conceptualisation of research objects and organisational structures of research training. A questionnaire on the experiences of research training was distributed to doctoral students in Economics & Management (representative of social sciences) and Chemistry (representative of natural sciences) in France and was compared to a survey carried out earlier in Education (representative of social sciences) and Chemistry (representative of natural sciences) in the UK. Strikingly, similar disciplinary patterns were found in the doctoral research experiences in the two countries. The findings were used to review the three theoretical positions on the experiences of doctoral studies.     

Understanding natural sciences education in a Reggio Emilia‐inspired preschool

This ethnographic study explored aspects of how the natural sciences were represented in a Reggio Emilia‐inspired laboratory preschool. The natural sciences as a discipline—a latecomer to preschool curricula—and the internationally known approach, Reggio Emilia, interested educators and researchers, but there was little research about science in a Reggio Emilia classroom. The current research aimed to gain insight into natural science experiences in a Reggio Emilia‐inspired classroom. To gain in‐depth information, this inquiry‐based study adapted a research design with ethnographic data collection techniques (i.e., interview, observation, document/artifact collection, and field‐notes), namely Spradley's Developmental Research Sequence Method, which was a well‐known, pioneer ethnographic method. The data were analyzed from an interpretive perspective using multiple lenses. These lenses included Spradley's DRS for the classroom culture, Corsaro's peer culture theory, the Reggio Emilia approach, and Ohio's Early Learning Content Standards. The study involved 18 preschoolers, 10 teachers, and a program director. The results indicated that the Reggio Emilia‐inspired preschool offered a science‐rich context that triggered and supported preschoolers' inquiries, and effectively engaged preschoolers' hands, heads, and hearts with science. The natural sciences learning in this Reggio Emilia‐inspired preschool classroom met and exceeded some of Ohio's prekindergarten standards. The results suggested that the Reggio pedagogy, grounded in inquiry, is compatible with science education goals. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 1186–1208, 2010     

What disengages doctoral students in the biological and environmental sciences from their doctoral studies?

This study explored the causes of student disengagement from their doctoral studies in the biological and environmental sciences. The data came from interviews of 40 doctoral students (male?=?15, female?=?25) and underwent qualitative analysis for content. Our results showed that doctoral studies provide multiple contexts for disengagement, such as the scholarly community and supervision, while doctoral students’ sense of distress, cynicism and inefficacy emerged as central components of disengagement. The study identified isolation, indifference, and lack of support and constructive feedback as sources of cynicism, while distress and inefficacy were more often related to failure or lack of progress in research. Our findings indicate that the source of disengagement can vary not only between individuals, but also between the academic activities at hand. Thus, while promoting an engaging doctoral experience, awareness of what typically triggers disengagement in the doctoral journey is vital.     

The Impact of Research Training and Research Codes of Practice on Submission of Doctoral Degrees: An Exploratory Cohort Study

The paper examines the impact of the transformations in doctoral education in the arts, humanities and social sciences in the United Kingdom over the past decade. It focuses on the introduction of formal research training and codes of research practice and in the first longitudinal candidate cohort study examines their impact on doctoral outcomes, especially Ph.D. submission rates. Results from this quantitative study show that engagement with research training, completion of a project outline and plan and appointment of a supervisory team were statistically positively associated with submission of the thesis within four years. It is concluded that the professionalisation of doctoral education by research training and codes of research practice has had a positive impact on doctoral educational outcomes.     

Neuromyths: Why Do They Exist and Persist?

Neuroeducation—a recent approach to educational policy—claims that a bridge should be established between education and mind‐brain sciences, with the double aim of devising educational methods that work and of understanding why they work. The success of this encounter depends, among other conditions, on getting the science right; otherwise, neuroeducation and science‐informed policies risk doing more harm than good. On several occasions, the cognitive and brain sciences have been misunderstood, and misused: neuromyths—the misconceptions about the mind and brain functioning—have blossomed, thus raising both theoretical and pragmatic concerns. This article addresses the origin, persistence, and potential side‐effects of neuromyths in education. The hypothesis is put forward that the persistence of neuromyths is sustained by specific cultural conditions, such as the circulation of pieces of information about the brain and the appetite for brain news, but has its roots in deeper cognitive intuitions.     

Positive and negative experiences related to doctoral study conditions

ABSTRACT

During their doctoral studies, students undergo an emotionally and intellectually intensive process involving a wide range of positive and negative experiences. This article analyses PhD students’ perceptions of the most positive and negative experiences related to doctoral study conditions. Previous researchers have primarily focused on analysing experiences that negatively affect doctoral work and have related these experiences to institutional, social and individual variables. However, little is known regarding positive experiences and how both positive and negative experiences are interpreted and related to variables connected with doctoral study, such as discipline, funding, enrolment type, and the stage of the doctoral process. In total, 1173 doctoral students from 56 Spanish universities completed an open-ended online survey. The findings indicate that opportunities for PhD students to communicate their scientific advances, receive expert feedback and interact with other researchers have a high positive influence on their doctoral journey. However, funding difficulties, particularly for students in the social sciences, and relationships with the research community, principally with the supervisor, were perceived as the main negative challenges. Experiences related to research design, data collection and analysis were perceived either negatively – primarily for mid-level students – or positively. These results should be considered in future doctoral programme policies to determine when, how and why to provide specific support during the doctoral process.     

The Changing Environment for Doctoral Education in Australia: implications for quality management,improvement and innovation

Although there has been considerable institutional attention to quality management and improvement in Australian higher education, concerns about the quality of doctoral education persist. This paper argues that addressing these concerns will require a shift in perspective. The conventional view of doctoral education which assumes an on‐campus, full‐time student experience, with socialisation arising formally and informally through interaction with the supervisor(s) and other academics in a university department, and which prepares the candidate for academic or other full‐time research work, is increasingly recognised as problematic. The rapid growth in candidate numbers is associated with a more diverse doctoral student population, and increasingly flexible patterns of research and study. These trends are likely to continue as they are in response to major changes in the higher education environment and changes in patterns of research activity. The argument presented is that addressing concerns for quality management, improvement and effective innovation demand the development of a research‐based wholistic conceptual framework for doctoral education which integrates all aspects of the doctoral education experience, and a focus on constructing and evaluating doctoral programmes in their particular organisational settings and physical locations.     

德国工科大学的博士生教育探析

德国工科大学的博士生培养在全球化背景下进行了改革,并形成了若干显著特征：强调既＂专＂又＂博＂的培养目标;纯粹科学与应用科学并重;加强跨学科研究应对全球化挑战。我国工科院校应该借鉴德国工科大学的博士生教育特色,树立起＂登高见博＂的博士生培养理念,在坚持特色中实现纯粹科学与应用科学的结合,并加强跨学科研究,从而达到提升博士生教育质量的目的。     

Improving graduate education to support a branching career pipeline: recommendations based on a survey of doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences

Today's doctoral programs continue to prepare students for a traditional academic career path despite the inadequate supply of research-focused faculty positions. We advocate for a broader doctoral curriculum that prepares trainees for a wide range of science-related career paths. In support of this argument, we describe data from our survey of doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Midway through graduate training, UCSF students are already considering a broad range of career options, with one-third intending to pursue a non-research career path. To better support this branching career pipeline, we recommend that national standards for training and mentoring include emphasis on career planning and professional skills development to ensure the success of PhD-level scientists as they contribute to a broadly defined global scientific enterprise.     

博士生的延期毕业率到底有多高 ——基于2017年全国离校调查数据的实证研究

基于2017年全国博士生离校调查数据进行的实证研究发现:博士生的平均延期率为39.68%,在延期群体中,48.15%的平均延期时间为一年,且延期率和延期时间在不同个体、不同学科及不同院校之间存在不同程度的差异性。进一步的回归分析发现:首先,自然科学中,男性延期概率显著低于女性;入学年龄越大,延期概率越高,延期时间也越长;博士生培养的贯通程度越高,则延期概率越低。其次,与人文学科相比,农学的延期概率显著更高而医学延期率显著更低;入选"一流学科"的博士生延期概率显著更低。第三,在自然科学中,院校层次越高,则博士生延期概率越高,但不同区域间延期率的差异并不显著。根据不同学科"内在规定性"和学科知识生产属性制定合理的培养周期是重要的改革趋势。     

The Doctorate in Fine Art: The Importance of Exemplars to the Research Culture

The doctorate in Fine Art has had a troubled history in the UK. Although there are growing numbers of doctorates being undertaken and over forty institutions which offer doctoral study, there is still little understanding of this research culture. There is a developing literature, but it remains curiously focused on research methods and protocols rather than on establishing the character of the culture through what is being produced by doctoral students. Macleod and Holdridge have produced an AHRB‐funded study of selected exemplars of doctoral submissions. The study seeks to make both a practical and strategic intervention in the ongoing ‘making/writing’, ‘theory/practice’ debate. It also seeks to clearly demonstrate how artist researchers have dealt with the academic requirements of the PhD and how the production of a substantial written text (generally 30,000 words plus) showing a keen knowledge and criticality of the subject field has been achieved. The exemplars demonstrate both the distinctive and the normative character of the PhD in Fine Art. However, the underpinning empirical research for the study (1996 —) has also demonstrated the critical independence of such exemplars within the broader field of academic research. Through a brief analysis of three doctoral submissions selected from the study, the paper seeks to draw out some of the more important findings and their implications for the developing research culture.     

Supervision of Doctoral Students in the Natural Sciences: expectations and experiences

Within the natural sciences and engineering, literature relating to postgraduate education, in particular the process of completing a doctorate, remains generally scarce. That which does exist emphasises the role of the supervisor in effecting successful completion and points to a wide range of activities performed by supervisors. There remains, however, little by way of accounts of the actual experiences of supervisors or students when engaged in the process of doctoral supervision. It is these experiences which form the basis of this paper which focuses upon doctoral students and their supervisors in the disciplines of physics, mathematics and engineering science. Data for the paper have been collected, as part of an ESRC funded project, by means of in‐depth interviews with students and supervisors in nine universities in England. In particular, we address students expectations of PhD supervision, the extent to which expectations have been met, and within the context of the ‘career’ of the PhD, the ways in which supervision changes as the doctoral process progresses. Important issues relating to the need for training for PhD supervisors and their capacity to meet the expectations of their students are raised, together with those which question the relationship between the PhD and the culture of academic work.     

学术活跃度与博士生学术产出的实证分析——以中国某研究型大学为案例

本文以我国某研究型大学自然科学领域的博士生为研究对象,分析博士生在读期间的学术产出状况;构造了以学术研究投入时间、国内国际会议报告、与导师交流频率为维度的学术活跃度概念,并利用负二项分布的回归模型,证实了学术活跃度与博士生学术产出之间的关系。本研究认为,应努力创造良好的博士生教育环境和氛围,通过提高博士生的学术活跃度,进而提高其学术产出,这对提高我国博士生教育培养质量具有十分重要的意义。