Transcript Document

NETWORK CREATION
FOR DOCTORAL EDUCATION:
PRACTICAL CHALLENGES
Marie-Laure DJELIC
ESSEC BUSINESS SCHOOL
Paris, France
[email protected]
NETWORKS – WHY?
 For Schools and PhD Programs
▫ Creating synergies and sharing scarce material and intellectual
resources
▫ Reducing costs
▫ We can all collectively benefit when we each do what we are best at
– classical division of labour argument
 For Faculty members
▫ Discussions and teaching experience are definitely more satisfactory
in groups that are a bit larger
▫ Possibly associated with some mobility
▫ Access to a larger and more diverse intellectual community (students
and indirectly their advisers)
 For Students
▫ Dynamics of learning are better in mid-size than in very small-size
groups
▫ Getting access to a much richer pool of Faculty members
▫ Creating a community of peers – and learning the ropes, early on of
network and community functioning
▫ Learning from diversity but also meeting students working on parallel
issues and overcoming intellectual « loneliness »
▫ Possibly associated with the benefits of partial mobility
[email protected]
NETWORKS IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION –
WHAT?
Completely externalized – structured around hub
organizations (EIASM, Edamba), professional
associations and their conferences, research
projects or funding programs (A)
Adhoc networks of a given program to facilitate
mobility during the dissertation writing period
essentially (B)
Structured network to share teaching resources (C)
Joint PhD programs (D)
=> Nationally based, regionally based, transnational
[email protected]
(A) EUROPEAN RESEARCH COLLOQUIUM
Initiative: from the Netherlands, with national
money and then EU funding
Objective: going beyond a summer school – creating
a space through time for PhD students from diverse
horizons to work together
15/18 PhD students, working on a related topic
(Europeanization and Transnationalization), meet
approximately every six months over a two-year
period
Selected at the end of their first year – rather during
the active phase of dissertation writing
A common target – an edited volume
Wide diversity of countries (mostly European, East
and West)
[email protected]
WHAT WAS GAINED?
Learning by doing
Through confrontation, diversity, debate and
discussion
A final process and final product
A community between students but also
between students and Faculty members
The possibility to envision and launch new
projects
[email protected]
[email protected]
7
(B) ADHOC NETWORKS FOR MOBILITY
 ENTER program in Economics:
 Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona
 University College London
 Universitat Mannheim
 Université Libre de Bruxelles
 Stockholm Universitet
 CentER (Tilburg University)
 MPSE (Université des Sciences Sociales de Toulouse
 Doctoral students in the program spend one or two semesters in one or
two institutions of the network on the same footing as local students –
take courses or pursue dissertation research under the additional
supervision of faculty at the host institution. Typically first year of
courses locally, then selection into the ENTER program on the basis of
Academic excellence.
 Annual network-wide meetings – « Jamborees ». Presentation of
current research by doctoral students and faculty.
 Both the exchange of students and the Jamboree have been funded
under the European Union ERASMUS and TMR programs.
[email protected]
(C) STRUCTURED NETWORKS TO
SHARE TEACHING
SUBS – Stockholm/Uppsala Business Studies
Bringing together the two programs – in
2008 a total of 19 students
Common compulsory and elective courses,
shared between Uppsala and Stockholm
The thesis process remains associated with
each Department
[email protected]
SUBS
[email protected]
(D) JOINT PHD PROGRAM
 CLEI /IEL– International PhD program (Center for the
Comparative Analysis of Law and Economics, Economics of Law,
Economics of Institution), founded in 2004
 CRG – Polytechnique, France
 Cornell University
 Law School at the Centre of Advanced Studies in Law and
Economics, University of Gent, Belgium
 University degli Studi di Torino
 Joined later 5 other European programs
 First year – compulsory course work in Turin with professors
coming from all over the network. Preliminary exams.
 Second year – development of the research at one of the
schools depending on the topic/fields of their project. Mobility
of at least 6 months within the network is compulsory
 Third year will be devoted to completion of the doctoral
dissertation. PhD degree is granted formally by the University of
Torino after decision of the Doctoral Board, which is completely
multi-partner
[email protected]
[email protected]
CEIL/IEL PhD Program, Collegio Carlo Alberto,
Turin University
12
PRACTICAL CHALLENGES (1)
 Those networks imply collaboration when many of our programs
are competing
 How do we overcome the sense of propriety that many of our
institutions have on THEIR PhD program?
 How do we convince administrators of the usefulness of a
process that is « costly » in many ways
 Agenda and logistics issues
▫ Courses organized over compact periods – conflicts of agenda
▫ Budgetary issues for the travel of students
▫ Space availability
▫ Constraints on mobility
 Issues of measurability – how do the programs compare; how do
they evaluate students, how do they reward Faculty members?
[email protected]
PRACTICAL CHALLENGES (2)
 Supervisor « susceptibility »
 Student « perplexity » - how do you ensure the continuity of
supervision together with a diversity of experiences and inputs?
 Differences of context creating constraints that an external teacher
may not be aware of
 How can this kind of experience become formally recognized, valued
during and even more after the PhD? Postdoc opportunities, a real
transnational job market….
 How do you choose your network strategy? What should be your
criteria for choosing your partner institutions?
 How do you sustain such a resource consuming construction?
[email protected]