Full Download The Future of Doctoral Research Challenges and Opportunities 1St Edition DR Anne Lee Ebook Online Full Chapter PDF
Full Download The Future of Doctoral Research Challenges and Opportunities 1St Edition DR Anne Lee Ebook Online Full Chapter PDF
Full Download The Future of Doctoral Research Challenges and Opportunities 1St Edition DR Anne Lee Ebook Online Full Chapter PDF
https://ebookmeta.com/product/future-foods-global-trends-
opportunities-and-sustainability-challenges-1st-edition-rajeev-
bhat/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-research-on-challenges-
and-opportunities-in-launching-a-technology-driven-international-
university-1st-edition-mehdi-khosrow-pour/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/hamas-transformation-opportunities-
and-challenges-1st-edition-ibrahim-natil/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/internet-of-drones-applications-
opportunities-and-challenges-1st-edition-saravanan-krishnan-
editor/
Biological Treatment of Microbial Corrosion:
Opportunities and Challenges 1st Edition Reza
Javaherdashti
https://ebookmeta.com/product/biological-treatment-of-microbial-
corrosion-opportunities-and-challenges-1st-edition-reza-
javaherdashti/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-creative-phd-challenges-
opportunities-reflection-1st-edition-tara-brabazon/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/taiwans-economic-and-diplomatic-
challenges-and-opportunities-1st-edition-mariah-thornton/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-handbook-of-food-research-anne-
murcott-editor/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/enhancing-the-role-of-ict-in-
doctoral-research-processes-1st-edition-kwong-nui-sim-editor/
THE FUTURE OF DOCTORAL
RESEARCH
This book explores the future of doctoral research and what it means to be involved
in all stages of the process, providing international insights into what’s changing,
why it’s changing and how to work best with these changes. It looks at the key
issues that have been thrown into sharp relief by crises such as world pandemics.
Drawing on work from outstanding authors, this book shows the ways in which
the doctoral process has altered the supervisor/supervisee model and the challenges
that now need to be managed, and demonstrates the importance of aligning all
the stakeholders, systems and processes to ensure a successful future for doctoral
education. Bringing together a range of perspectives, innovative practices and
rigorous research, this book tackles topics such as:
• how doctoral research changes in keeping with the global expansion and trans-
formation of doctoral education programmes
• the significant influence funding bodies –be they charities, governments,
businesses or non-governmental agencies –can have on doctoral research
• the extent to which doctoral research penetrates daily life and vice versa
• how to encourage and embed an ethical approach to research, as well as uni-
versity responses to external challenges.
Uniquely international and bringing together the many stakeholders in the research
business, this book is essential reading for doctoral supervisors, candidates and
anyone involved in designing or organising research programmes for early career
researchers and doctoral students.
Anne Lee is a Research Fellow at the University of Bristol, UK and was formerly
Associate Professor at the University of Stavanger in Norway. Her books are widely
used by supervisors. Her Successful Research Supervision (2nd ed.) and the companion
volume, Successful Research Projects, were both published in 2020 by Routledge.
List of figures ix
List of tables xi
List of contributors xiii
Foreword by Ronald Barnett xxiii
Acknowledgements xxvii
PART I
Doctoral research in the changing university 3
PART II
Collaborations and funding 77
PART III
Doctoral researchers’ perspectives 131
PART IV
Doctoral supervisors’ perspectives 207
PART V
Ethics and accountability 293
Index 354
FIGURES
Claire Aitchison has worked, published and researched in the field of doctoral
education, specialising in doctoral writing for over two decades. As co-founder and
contributor to the DoctoralWriting blog, she regularly reflects on sector concerns
and delights in the collegiality of social learning networks. She currently works as
an Academic Developer at the University of South Australia, and also continues to
offer training for doctoral students and supervisors.
education and with over seven years of professional experience at the University
of Washington Graduate School, she is responsible for the development and
coordination of professional development programmes for graduate students and
postdocs.
Søren Bengtsen is Associate Professor and Deputy Director of the research centre
‘Centre for Higher Education Futures’ (CHEF) at Aarhus University in Denmark.
His main research areas include doctoral education and supervision, and the
philosophy of higher education. He is the co-founder and current Chair of the
Philosophy and Theory of Higher Education Society (PaTHES).
Tracey Bunda is a Ngugi Wakka Wakka woman who researches Indigenous women,
decolonisation of patriarchal white institutional power and Indigenous know-
ledge systems. As Professor of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies in the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit at the University of Queensland,
she focuses on developing pathways for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher
education engagement.
Cally Guerin has worked in doctoral education since 2008, teaching, researching
and publishing on best practice in researcher development. Currently she works
at the Australian National University in the Researcher Development team.
Along with Claire Aitchison and Susan Carter, she is a founding co-editor of the
DoctoralWriting blog.
Allyson Holbrook is the Founding Director of the centre for the Study of Research
Training and Impact (SORTI) at the University of Newcastle, NSW. She has led
a large number of national competitive grants and played a number of roles in
connection with research including membership of the Australian Research Council
College of Experts, Chair of the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics
Committee and Research Coordinator for the Australian Association of Research
in Education (AARE).
xvi List of contributors
Margaux Kersschot is Policy Advisor YUFE (Young Universities for the Future of
Europe) at the University of Antwerp’s Department of Research and Innovation.
During her PhD (Leuven, Antwerp) Margaux became President of the European
Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers (Eurodoc). She was on the
advisory board of the H2020 PRINTEGER project on Research Integrity.
Melita Kovačević is a Full Professor at the University of Zagreb. She has been
involved in higher education policy for two decades and held different positions
on a national and European level related to higher education. She contributed
globally on a number of topics in higher education. She is a former Chair of the
European University Association Council for Doctoral Education (EUA-CDE),
and Vice Chair of the PRIDE association.
Vibeke Krane is a clinical social worker and has a PhD in Psychology. She is an
Associate Professor and Manager of the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Team,
University of South-Eastern Norway. Her research fields are students’ mental health,
teacher–student relationships, children’s living conditions and service development.
Krane has worked for 20 years as a therapist in mental health services.
Bård Mæland is Professor of Theology and currently serving as the Rector of VID
Specialized University. He is the Chair of the Board of Western Norway Graduate
School of Research (WNGER II) and has also been the chair of the Board of
the Research School Religion-Values-Society (RVS). He has published widely in
Norwegian and English and has extensive experience as a doctoral supervisor.
include rhetorical transfer in academic writing, assessment design and what’s going
on behind the writing at postgraduate level.
Alfredo Picariello is the head of the doctoral administration office of ETH Zurich
and one of the members of the organisation committee of the Symposium on
Doctoral Studies held there in January 2019. He is responsible for all adminis-
trative matters around the doctorate –from admission to graduation. The legal
foundations and organisational structure of a doctorate are his main interest and
field of expertise. He started his work at the doctoral administration office in 2007
and can be referred to as one of today’s many ‘Third Space’ employees who have
recently positioned themselves at universities between the scientific field and the
classical administration.
Gabriela Pleschová is the Director of a joint teacher development course for begin-
ning teachers at the University of Economics in Bratislava and Masaryk University.
She is a graduate of Oxford University (2012, MSc in Education) and Comenius
University in Bratislava (2004, PhD in Political Science). Her studies have appeared
in journals such as Studies in Educational Evaluations, European Political Science, Journal
of Political Science Education and International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in
Education. She is the co-editor of Teacher Development in Higher Education: Existing
Programs, Program Impact and Future Trends (Routledge, 2012). She serves as the co-
convenor of the Teaching and Learning Politics standing group of the European
Consortium for Political Research. In 2013, she was awarded a Senior Fellowship
from the Higher Educational Academy.
Susan Porter is the Dean and Vice-Provost of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
at the University of British Columbia (UBC) (since 2013), and President of the
Canadian Association for Graduate Studies (2017–19). She is also a Clinical Professor
in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at UBC. A strong focus over the past six
years has been the advancing of conversations and action towards a rethinking of
the core of doctoral education –students’ research and dissertations –to better meet
the urgent needs of the 21st century. Among other initiatives, she co-led a national
task force on the subject, and implemented an award-winning program at UBC
(the Public Scholars Initiative) that demonstrated the immense value and legitimacy
of this perspective.
Benno Volk is head of the team for Curriculum and Faculty Development in the
Educational Development and Technology department (LET) at ETH Zurich.
He is former president of the SFDN –Swiss Faculty Development Network
(www.sfdn.ch), the association of university didactic institutions at universities
in Switzerland. Benno studied pedagogy (major field of study: adult education/
xxii List of contributors
Inge van der Weijden (PhD, F) is a Senior Researcher, Lecturer and PhD
Coordinator at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden
University. She coordinates the hub on academic careers at CWTS. Inge conducts
both qualitative and quantitative research on work experiences and evaluation of
scholars in order to better understand the career development of scientists. Inge is
President of The Netherlands Centre of Expertise for Doctoral Education.
I recall very well the ceremony at my university when my PhD was formally con-
ferred. It was back in the 1980s and then the University of London was fully a fed-
eral university and held unitary degree ceremonies for all of its constituent colleges
(which included institutions that were world famous). The ceremony was held in
the Royal Albert Hall, a great Victorian cavern of a place. Those wearing the red
doctorate gown struck me then as being incredibly numerous: we formed a huge
phalanx in our seats and then, as we filed towards the stage, had a long time to wait
before each of processed across the dais. What was apparent even then was that the
PhD had been –to use a term –massified. The term ‘mass higher education’ –
coined by Burton Clark –has normally been interpreted to apply to undergraduate
education, but much less noticed is that it has characterised doctorate education
for quite some time. And in the process, doctorate education has come to take
different forms, and has come to be a repository of multiple and even conflicting
interpretations.
Inevitably, in this process, the doctorate has undergone considerable changes,
not least as its availability has widened across the world and across different kinds of
institution. These changes are not just peripheral –for example, over the presenta-
tion of the dissertation –but reach into the very idea of the doctorate. Just what is
to count as a doctorate dissertation? Are there any general criteria that a disserta-
tion should possess or may it legitimately vary considerably, discipline by discipline,
institution by institution and country by country? Or is there no unifying essence
to doctoral work, with all the varieties barely forming family resemblances?
Here, for example, is just one issue. I have probably examined around 80 doc-
toral dissertations across the last three decades, and in several countries. From time
to time, during the oral examination –which is part of the examining process for
the doctorate in most but by no means all countries –and especially if matters are
going reasonably well, with a smile on my face, I remark to the candidate that, in
xxiv Foreword
the English language, the word ‘thesis’ is ambiguous. It can refer to the elemental
kernel of the candidate’s work, whether that be in the form of a central finding, or
an argumentative claim, or a new theory of a phenomenon or whatever the work
may be. Or it can refer simply to the massive and heavy 300-page text on the desk
in front of the candidate. This second sense has come largely to displace the first
sense so that the thesis may have no thesis!
Students may be very diligently conducting their study, working methodically
through its components –the literature review, the methodology, the fieldwork, the
data collection and the data analysis –but emerge somewhat lacking in a thesis; that
is, in a definite claim of the kind we see in good abstracts. Examinations in which
I am involved where the dissertation has that character usually end simply with the
candidate being asked to write a further chapter so as better to clarify, state and
articulate the thesis for which they are contending, not least by reflecting on the
lines of the conversation in the oral examination; which they happily do and then
they receive their doctorate degree not long afterwards.
There are two points to this story. Firstly, what counts as a satisfactory doctoral
dissertation is far from fixed and is always on the move. Secondly, the idea that a
doctoral dissertation is a space in which a student grabs hold of an issue and, on the
basis of much research or scholarship, argues a unified set of claims is in jeopardy.
And this is readily explicable. Globally, the expansion of the university is under-
standable –in large part –in it becoming a machine for the growth of ‘cognitive
capitalism’, in Boutang’s (2011) memorable phrasing. And the doctorate has inevit-
ably been caught up in this latest stage of societal development.
What are called for now from doctorate students are precisely a set of skills that
testify to a capacity to conduct research projects wheresoever they might be called
for in the economy and society.What is not on the cards is the capacity to forge rad-
ically new insights into the world and to formulate them in strong claims or theses
about the world. After all, therein lies original thought, and although ‘thinking
provokes general indifference, [it] is dangerous exercise nevertheless’ (Deleuze and
Guattari, 2013: 41).
The doctorate is the highest academic qualification that is commonly available,
and so the central question is precisely that implied in the title of this volume: what
is the future of doctoral research to be in the light of experience? The question begs
a further question: which experience –that of the doctorate and/or that of the
wider world? As this is being written, the world has been besieged by a virus: the
streets of many cities are empty, as citizens are confined to their homes, in peril of
their lives. This is a very telling experience, and one that should hold lessons in the
recasting of the doctorate.
The Coronavirus vividly shows up the interconnectedness of the world. This
is an interconnectedness that is horizontal and vertical, that is geographical and
epistemic, and in which the world and its knowledges influence each other.
(Knowledge is not simply a mirror on the world.) Just some of the systems of
the world that are implicated in this immediate crisis are statistics, the biological
and the natural sciences, zoology, social health, politics, health systems, transport
Foreword xxv
(i) The idea of a dissertation requiring students to provide a definite thesis –an
argued central claim or set of claims –should be reinstated. And that central
claim –finding, concept, theory, policy or whatever –should be clearly stated
in the abstract.
(ii) The dissertation should show evidence of an awareness of pertinent connections
with contiguous matters in adjacent territories.
(iii) It should contain something of a synoptic view, and a reconnecting of the doc-
torate as an exemplification of wisdom.
(iv) Within reason, it should intimate how the world might benefit –in whatever
way –from the study in question.
(v) Universities offering doctoral studies should set up a doctoral school in which
students are collectively provoked by difficult questions that in turn promote a
synoptic perspective.
(vi) Supervisors should be given support in enabling students to develop a
life-enhancing study.
(vii) Senior leadership should be brought to bear, so that a university’s doctoral
studies work is publicly positioned so as to become a form of the university’s
public engagement.
xxvi Foreword
(viii) Examiners should be briefed, in Notes of Guidance, that they will be expected
to assess candidates’ dissertations for the qualities of clarity and incisiveness
of the thesis (within the ‘thesis’), connectedness and life-enhancement. The
viva should expose and test the candidate’s thesis as such (that is, in the proper
sense of ‘thesis’).
(ix) National audit processes should pay specific attention to doctoral work (so
far almost entirely overlooked), and should especially review the examination
arrangements which should include the character of the oral examination.
(In some systems, it is symbolic or non-existent.)
(x) There should be a reflective statement at the end of each dissertation which
is not autobiographical as such but which interrogates the character and the
rigour of the text itself.This would enhance the candidate’s powers of critical
self-reflection.
A 10-fold set of reforms of this kind could help substantially to reposition doctoral
research ‘in the light of experience’, and this volume surely offers many clues as to
the details of proceeding in this way.
References
Boutang,Y. M. (2011) Cognitive Capitalism. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2013) What Is Philosophy? London and New York: Verso.
newgenprepdf
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Gabriela Pleschová and Agnes Simon (Chapter 16) thank Jaromír Novák and
Ladislav Pasiar, who coded course graduates’ assignments against course outcomes,
and Zuzana Mészárošová, who was the second coder of the observation protocols.
This study resulted from the international cooperation project Extending and
Developing Good Practice in Teacher Education that has been funded through
an external grant under the KA2 –Cooperation for Innovation and the Exchange
of Good Practices of Strategic Partnerships for higher education scheme of the
Erasmus+ grant (Grant No. 2016-1-SK01-KA203-022551). This project is co-
funded by the European Union.
We would like to thank the UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) for
giving their permission to reproduce the ‘Framework for good supervisory practice’
(2020) by Stan Taylor in Chapter 19.
Line Wittek and Thomas de Lange (Chapter 21) thank the university teachers
for their participation in the project. Gratitude also goes to Marit Kirkevold for
her generous role in the implementation of action learning groups in the Research
School. They also thank the editors for their valuable comments on several stages
of the writing process.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
— No ihan aina!
— Se on kaunis nimi.
— Mikä se oli?
— Törrönen.
— Päivää, virkkoi.
— Vai olivat
Tällä kertaa oli hän sattunut Möttösen taloon, jossa asukkaat olivat
hieman takapajulla Kuivalan edistysmielisestä väestöstä… Niinpä
isäntäkään ei vielä tietänyt, mitä on henkivakuutus. Böljengögel
koetti sitä hänelle hiki päässä selittää toivoen tämmöisessä
alkuperäisessä asukkaassa saavansa heräämään tavallista
suuremman harrastuksen vakuutusaatteeseen.
— Mutta jos sattuisi kuolemaan, tikasi ukko. Silloin siinä tulisi hätä
käteen herroille.
— Ne eivät uskalla,
— Kyllä ne herrat semmoista uskaltavat, väitti ukko. Kun saavat
kokoon mieleisensä summan, niin silloin kintaat pöytään.
— Niin kävi, että rahat jäi sinne. Eivät kuulu saavan takaisin
itkemälläkään. Semmoisia ne on ne vakuutukset, päätteli emäntä ja
kysyi hetken perästä.
*****
*****
Tiehaaran talossa oltiin päivällisellä kun Böljengögel meni tupaan.
Tervehdykseen vastattiin ystävällisesti, ja isäntä tuli syöntinsä
lopetettuaan puhuttelemaan vierasta. Tuli siinä vähitellen tiedoksi
isännälle ja talonväelle, että vieras oli vakuutusmiehiä. Isäntä lopetti
heti keskustelun ja kiipesi uunin päälle vetelemään ruokaunia, siellä
kun eivät hänen lepoaan kärpäset häirinneet. Tiehaaran pojat Jussi
ja Aatami kyyräilivät kulmiensa alta vierasta pahaenteisesti.
Böljengögel aavisti pahaa poikien synkistä katseista. — Jokohan nuo
riiviöt ovat samallaista väkeä kuin Möttösessäkin, ajatteli hän.
— Se haukkuu jo.
— Tietysti se, että isäsi voi minä hetkenä tahansa tulla tietämään,
että minä olen kuin olenkin vakuutusmies. Ja silloin voi nousta
ukonilma.
*****
Kerä toivoi tällä kertaa, että maa olisi auennut ja niellyt Näreen
asiamiehet. Mutta nämä istuivat penkillä nauliten hänet katseillaan,
joista ei voinut sanoa erikoisesti lempeyden loistavan. Suutari
Horttanaisen piikkiparta liikkui hiljaa. Räätäli Kinnunen siirtyi
lähemmäksi Kerää, saadakseen hänet paremmin naulita katseillaan.
— Korjaa nyt heti luusi siitä, jos aiot ne viedä ehjinä tästä talosta.