Transcript Skills Development - Mary Immaculate College

What is effective doctoral supervision?
(The changing landscape of doctoral education)
Douglas Halliday
Durham University
[email protected]
Summary
• Introduction
• Context
– UK , Europe
• Recent trends
• Development of PhD
• What is a PhD? ∂
• Realities of doing a doctorate
• What makes a good supervisor?
• Responses
Conclusions &
Discussions
Durham Context
PGR Student Numbers
Current PG numbers
•
•
PGR 1540 (48% increase from 2005)
PGT 3000 (20% increase from 2005)
1600
1400
1200
1000
50%
24%
17%
9%
Student No
PGR Breakdown:
• Full Time Home Fee
• Full Time O/S Fee
• Part Time Home Fee
• Part Time O/S Fee
∂
800
Part
Time
600
Full
Time
400
200
0
Year
Development of the modern PhD
•
•
•
•
•
•
1809 Von Humboldt – PhD
Taken up in USA (little interest Europe)
First modern UK PhD – Oxford 1920
Durham – 1927
Didn’t spread across UK until after 1945
∂ PhD community until
Many disciplines didn’t build
1950/60’s
• Some supervised by non-PhD staff
• 21st Century PhD now accepted as gateway:
– Academic
– Research
– Other...
UK National Framework – Evolution
Succession of reports set agenda:
• Research Councils’ Joint Skills Statement (2001)
• SET for Success, STEM subjects (2002)
• Investing in Innovation (2003)
• Science Innovation Framework 2004-2014
• HEFCE, JM Consulting, Costs of training PGRs (2005)
• Warry Report – Economic Impact of Research (2006)
∂
• Leitch Review – World class skills (2006)
• Concordat – Career development of researchers (2008)
• BIS PG Review “One step beyond” (2010)
• Vitae RDF – RDS successor to JSS (2010)
• Hodge Review of Roberts’ Skills Training (2011)
• RCUK Postgraduate Policy Framework (2013)
Main drivers for change external to Universities
European Context
• Bologna process (1999) agreed to establishment of
European Higher Education Area by (2010) “Soft process”
• Doctoral Programmes later included as 3rd Cycle
Qualifications
• UK significant influence on what represents 3rd cycle
qualifications (Professional Doctorates, Skills Training)
• Salzburg Descriptors – 10 ∂principles for developing PhDs
in Bologna area
• “Dublin Descriptors” (agreed 2004 Joint Quality Initiative):
– With respect to skills development:
• Masters “largely self directed or autonomous”
• Doctorate “expected to be able to promote... ...
...technological, social or cultural advancement”
» Bologna largely unnoticed in UK
Salzburg Principles (I and II)
• Established in 2005, reviewed in 2010, as part of Bologna
process for reforms of doctoral education.
• Guidelines with three overarching principles embedded:
– Based on practice of research (different from other
qualifications)
– Highly individual programmes undertaken by
independent researchers,
∂ requires flexibility
– Developed by autonomous but accountable institutions
which cultivate research mindset, requires flexibility in
approach and regulation
• Ten principles –
– e.g. Number 1 “The core component of doctoral
training is the advancement of knowledge through
original research.”
UK Student Numbers
Ten years to 2011:
• UG 20% increase
• PG 30% increase
UK Student Numbers
2000
Student Number (1000's)
1800
UG
PG
1600
∂
1400
• PGT increase larger
than PGR increase
600
PG Totals 2011:
• PGR ~109,000 (20%)
• PGT ~459,000 (80%)
400
200
95 96 97 98 99 O0 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9 10 11
Year
Change in HESA method in 2007/08
– remove “writing up” students
UK PG Student Numbers: Some
Trends
• Plateau in UK-domiciled research student numbers
• Last decade seen large increase in international
research students
• Many institutional strategies set ambitious targets for
PGR student growth
∂
• Increasing regulation by Border
Control Agency
• Reducing funding available for postgraduate research
student support
• Increasing use of Doctoral Training Centre approach
• Concentration of Research Council funding on
smaller number of institutions
PG Student Composition Some Trends
• Massification
– Driven by economic growth considerations and
“knowledge economies”. Many governments want
Higher Education to cover substantial proportions
of their populations.
• Diversification
– People entering HE from
∂ large range of
backgrounds – many have no tradition of HE
• Internationalisation
– Growing recognition of value of incorporating large
range of nationals into institution.
– Preparing workforce for international working
• Concentration
– Creation of Doctoral Training Centres
The UK Doctoral Journey
• Evolution of the PhD
• Significant increase in formal requirements of
– HEFCE
– QAA
– RCUK
– Border Agency
∂
• Greater clarity and explicit statements about nature
and purpose of PhD
• Shift from doing research to training researcher
• Considerably more structure to PhD “Structured PhD”
• However...
– Original research still key element of PhD
UK External Priorities for the PhD?
• What are stakeholders priorities?
• Are they clear and consistent?
• Tensions?
∂
Recent Statements by PhD Sponsors
• BIS Statement
What does the future
• RCUK Statement
have in store?
• Research Councils’ Delivery Plans
These suggest:
• Longer periods of funding for studentships
• Closer examination of submission
rates
∂
• Internships likely to become an integral part of PhD
• Employability high on agenda
• Smaller number of fellowships – focussed on future
“research leaders”
• Continued movement towards research concentration
• Only applies to “home” students, international students?
PhD – Old View
The Times Higher 17 January 2003
“Skills development, and a belief in
skills transferability, is key to
reconceptualising the PhD as
generic vocational training.”
∂
“If graduates are really to undergo
generic employment skill
development, the PhD is probably an
inefficient means of achieving this end.
But if Universities are to make a
contribution to knowledge, and if this is
what the PhD student is embarking on,
this should be the focus of PhD
programmes.”
Doctorateness – What is it?
Doctorateness – an elusive concept?
Published March 2010
“Many commentators
and observers believe
that the time is right and
the sector is ready for a
national debate in the UK
on the nature of the
doctorate, given the
multiple drivers for
change, multiple
agendas at work, and the
multiple stakeholders
with an interest in both
the debate and the
outcome.”
“This paper explores the changing nature
doctoral education in the UK, and
∂ of
poses some important questions about
what we mean by the term
'doctorateness', the quality that at least in
principle all doctoral awards (of all types
and in all disciplines) should have in
common and all doctoral candidates
should be able to demonstrate.”
What is a Durham PhD?
By Thesis:
• Candidates are required to demonstrate the ability to
conduct original investigations, to test or explore
ideas / hypotheses (whether their own or those of
others), and to understand the relationship of the
theme of their investigations to a wider field of
knowledge. The thesis should include an original and
significant contribution to ∂knowledge, for example
through the discovery of new knowledge, the
connection of previously unrelated facts, the
development of new theory, or a new analysis of
older views. It should also include substantial matter
worthy of publication, though it need not be submitted
in a form suitable for publication
Durham University Regulations
What is a PhD?
• UK defined in QAA Framework for Higher Education
Qualifications (UK – Institutional Autonomy)
• Many countries – defined in national legislation
• Deeply held views about issues such as
– Student or staff?
∂
– Role of Doctoral or Graduate Schools
– Embedded or separate in institution
• Location of PG students – “ownership”
• Governance arrangements
– Mainstream / core or fringe activity?
– Who are supervisors?
– Recognition, status, work loads, cohorts?
Fit for purpose – What purpose?
• Planning the academic workforce –
sustainability
• Range of skills – research plus?
• Working in a “knowledge economy”
• More than an academic qualification?
∂
Some concerns – the traditional view
•
•
•
•
“It’s not appropriate” – the PhD is about research
Misconceived – what are “employment skills”?
Additional burden – for students and staff
Could affect academic standards – downgrade
PhD
∂
• Insufficient time in 3-4 years
However – growing
consensus about value of
PhD. Skills acquired are as
valuable as knowledge.
Purpose of research training?
Place in PhD? Role of supervisor?
• Best research is done by the best researchers
• How do you train the best researchers?
– Knowledge
∂
– Behaviours
• Researchers identify behaviours from peers
and “leaders”
• Training helps develop effective behaviours
• Researchers also need training and mentoring with
good roles models
• Training challenges some of paradigms of academia
• What are added benefits of “structure”?
Mixed messages in media...
“There are some important
dos and don’ts to bear
in mind when choosing
someone to oversee your
doctoral thesis, advises
∂
Tara Brabazon – the
foremost being don’t
let the supervisors
grind you down.”
11 July 2013
UK Council for Graduate Education
Two recent reports (2009, 2010):
∂
Summarise progress in sector with data
http://www.ukcge.ac.uk
What do PhD researchers think?
• UK national survey run by UK Higher Education
Academy
• PRES – Postgraduate Research Experience Survey
• Based on Australian PREQ (Postgraduate Research
Experience Questionnaire) survey
∂
• ...
PRES 2013
• Participation
– 122 HEIs – [48,400 PGRs , 41.9%]
• Significant redesign from 2011
– shorter, consistent scales, more emphasis on
research skills and professional development
∂
• Overall satisfaction levels high 82% for research
students ⇧
• Research skills development highest levels of
satisfaction 85%
• Students positive about supervisors’ skills and subject
knowledge
PRES 2013 ...cont’d
However...
• No evidence of significant difference with training in DTC or
non-DTC environments
• Wider training Professional Development opportunities low:
• STEM 54%, SS 34%, A&H 37% received wider training
∂
• Supervision and skills development have largest impact on
satisfaction (more so than new resources)
One (relevant) conclusion:
• Investing in supervisor development and professional skills
development will have biggest impact on satisfaction levels
of PhD students
• (More impact than new buildings, etc. )
What is doing research really like?
One possible myth:
• Many new research students assume,
understandably, that the process of
∂
research is similar to the way that it is
written up in publications
Research topic
Literature review
Identification of ‘gap’ to research
Hypotheses
Methodology/methods
∂
Data collection
Data analysis
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
However, published work:
•
...present[s] a mythical reconstruction of
what actually happened. All of what are in
retrospect mistaken ideas, badly designed
experiments, and incorrect calculations are
omitted. The paper presents the research as
if it is carefully thought∂ out, planned and
executed according to a neat rigorous
process.
• B. Martin, “Scientific Fraud and the Power Structure
of Science”, Prometheus, 10 (1992) 83-98.
In practice…
In reality….
∂
Moreover, research problems can happen
to anybody….
One example is of a person who did not do very well in his undergraduate
degree, but one of his professors recognised that he had talent and enrolled
him in a PhD programme. After two years, he submitted a thesis for his
doctorate, which was turned down because it was deemed to be
insufficiently original. Subsequently, he had no alternative but to get a job
working in a patent office and continue his studies part-time and
unsupervised. Three years later he presented his second thesis, on a
different area of the subject, and that was
∂ turned down as well on the
ground of insufficient originality. He then enrolled at another university, and a
year later submitted another thesis, which was also turned down on the
ground that there was not enough experimental evidence to support his
conclusions. Finally, he put in a thesis which was deemed to be an original
contribution to knowledge and understanding and which had experimental
results, but was told that it was too long for a doctorate. According to his
own account, he cut one word from it, re-submitted, and on the fourth
attempt finally gained his PhD.
?
Why can early-career researchers
find research problematic?
•
Students’ experience of transition to independent
doctoral research is marked by a radical break
with…knowledge-reproduction...students now have to
learn craft skills and cultural competencies which are
not part of the undergraduate [or taught
postgraduate] experience.∂ They have to learn how to
cope with experiments that do not work. They have to
cope on their own ‘in the field’, away from the relative
safety of the classroom or the seminar. They have to
rely upon their personal resources.
• S. Delamont, P. Atkinson, and O. Parry, “The Doctoral
Experience: Success and Failure in Graduate School”, London:
Falmer, (2000) p2
∂
Courtesy of Stan Taylor
Common problems
• Drifting from the topic
• Difficulties with the
methodology/methods
• Frustration with the∂ substantive
research
• Inconsistencies in findings
• Seeing the wood for the trees.
What can you do? 1) regularly selfreview your progress
– what did I plan to achieve by this stage of my
research?
– what have I actually achieved?
– am I slipping behind?
– how can I make up the ∂time?
What can you do? 2) acknowledge the
existence of a problem
• “ As an undergraduate or Masters' student, you may
have sailed through with effortless brilliance and it
can be an immense shock to encounter problems,
and acknowledging them can be seen as weakness
or failure. This is known as….....
∂
‘Top gun’ syndrome
•
...students are seen…as the best and the
brightest. Significant academic achievement has led
them to their current place. They are thus unable to
admit faults or shortcomings for fear of “showing
themselves up” in the...academic community. It
becomes better to struggle
∂ on with barely a clue about
what is going on than to admit...that one does not
know what is happening.
• Atkins, D. (1996) Supervision: A Student Perspective. Centre for
Educational Development and Academic Methods and Graduate
School, Australian National University.
https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41546/2/GS96_2.pdf
(accessed 14th June 2014).
What can you do? 3) seek help
You can:
• explain the problem to a fellow-student, preferably
one more advanced in his or her studies, or if
appropriate a post-doc – often they have experienced
similar problems and will ∂be able to help you out;
• go to see your supervisors, tell them that you are
stuck, tell them why, and ask them for suggestions.
Beware?
• Published accounts do not necessarily
accurately represent the process of research;
• Research is often a messy business, with two
steps forward, one backwards, and a few
sideways;
∂
• Learning to cope with these difficulties is all
part and parcel of becoming an independent
researcher, but that does not mean to say
that you must cope entirely on your own.
Don’t…
•
put yourselves in the position of the doctoral
students interviewed by Becher et al. who were ‘...at
sea to the point of having to give up, without anyone
being aware of their plight.’ Remember that research
by Ahern and Manathunga (2004) and Manathunga
(2005) suggests that students who get stuck and
procrastinate are far more likely not to complete their
doctoral programmes, or ∂if they do so to take much
longer to complete.
•
T. Becher, M. Henkel, and M. Kogan, (1994), Graduate Education in Britain.
London: Jessica Kingsley, p149
K. Ahern and C. Manathunga, “Clutch-Starting Stalled Research Students”,
Innovative Higher Education, 28 (2004) pp.237-54
C. Manathunga, “Early warning signs in postgraduate research education: a
different approach to ensuring timely completions”, Teaching in Higher
Education, 10 (2005) pp.219-33
•
•
Do
• Self-review your progress;
• If you are falling behind, try to develop a
strategy to catch up;
• If it is not working, acknowledge that there is
a problem;
∂
• If you can’t solve it, seek help
VERY Important to…
• Establish good relations with your
supervisor;
• Be clear at the start as to what you
can expect from ∂them and what
they can expect from you.
Remember…
• No right answers – will depend on individuals,
research projects, and disciplines
• But important to know where you stand on
these matters and to discuss them with your
∂
supervisors so that all of you have a clear
idea of what you can expect from each other.
For….
• You need to sort out a good working relationship with
your supervis[ors]. Relationships have to be worked
at and discussed, because most of the [later]
problems stem from a failure to set out the
expectations both parties have for the relationship. A
few [minutes] devoted to ∂discussing the best ways to
work together will not be wasted.
• S. Delamont, P. Atkinson, and O. Parry, O. (1997) Supervising
the PhD: A Guide to Success, Buckingham, Open University
Press. 2nd Ed. (2004) pp.14
Supervisors
• From the QAA Quality Code (section B11) June 2012
Indicator 9
• Higher education providers appoint supervisors with
the appropriate skills and subject knowledge to
∂
support and encourage research
students, and to
monitor their progress effectively.
This means?...
•
•
•
•
Criteria for eligibility in appointing supervisors
Performance in the role is kept under review
Supervisors expected to engage in development
Supervisor training and development opportunities
are relevant to research education
∂
• In supporting supervisors to enhance their knowledge
and skills, higher education providers define and
enable sharing of good practice and encourage
strategies such as mentoring relationships, for
example for new supervisors.
• Supervisors working in industry or professional
practice are also required to participate
Guidance may include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
providing satisfactory guidance and advice;
being responsible for monitoring the progress of the student's research programme;
establishing and maintaining regular contact with the student (where appropriate, guided by
institutional expectations), and ensuring his/her accessibility to the student when s/he needs
advice, by whatever means is most suitable given the student's location and mode of study;
having input into the assessment of a student's development needs;
providing timely, constructive and effective feedback on the student's work, including his/her
overall progress within the programme;
ensuring that the student is aware of the need to exercise probity and conduct his/her research
according to ethical principles, and of the implications of research misconduct;
ensuring that the student is aware of institutional-level sources of advice, including careers
guidance, health and safety legislation and equal opportunities policy;
providing effective pastoral support and/or referring the student to other sources of such support,
including student advisers (or equivalent), graduate school staff and others within the student's
academic community;
helping the student to interact with others working in the field of research, for example,
encouraging the student to attend relevant conferences, supporting him/her in seeking funding for
such events; and where appropriate to submit conference papers and articles to refereed journals;
maintaining the necessary supervisory expertise, including the appropriate skills, to perform all of
the role satisfactorily, supported by relevant continuing professional development opportunities.
∂
There is a lot of information...
• What is essential for supervisors?
• What do they want to know?
• What is the best way to present this
information?
∂
• What framework supports
their understanding
of this?
Requires a structure
The Durham approach...
• to be aware of the external context of supervision;
• to be aware of the institutional context for doctoral
supervision, including expectations of supervisors
and students, retention and completion, and
employability;
∂
• to be aware of the pedagogical
context, including the
skills needed to supervise a much more diverse
student population;
• to be aware of the programme context, including the
skills needed to supervise different types of
doctorates (Professional, Industrial etc...)
• ... and best practice in their disciplines
Good supervision depends on...
• Knowledge and understanding of the broader context
• Knowledge and understanding of the institution, its
standards, codes of practice, rules, regulations for
research degrees
• Knowledge and understanding of the pedagogy of
∂
research supervision
• Knowledge and understanding of good practice within
your discipline
• in addition to:
• Knowledge of the academic discipline
Paradigms of supervisory styles
• Structure
– Who is responsible for organising and managing
the research project
• Support
– Who is responsible for supporting the candidate
∂ project
and the resourcing of the
• Rate “Structure” and “Support” as low or high
Gatfield’s Paradigm of
Supervisory Styles
high
Pastoral
Support
Contractual
∂
Laisser-faire
Directorial
low
high
Structure
From: “A Handbook for Doctoral Supervisors”
Stan Taylor and Nigel Beasley (Routledge)
low
Supervisory style and student needs
• Laisser Faire
– Assumes student capable of managing both
project and themselves
• Pastoral
– Assumes student capable of managing project but
∂
needs personal support/encouragement
• Directorial
– Assumes student not capable of managing
research project but can manage themselves
• Contractual
– Assumes student needs high levels of academic
and pastoral support
Achieving congruence between
style and needs
•
•
•
•
Each student will have a different set of needs
How do you identify what these are?
How do you match your style to student needs?
What does the student want?
∂
• Tools for achieving this
– “Brown and Atkins” rating scale
• Importance of PhD candidate – supervisor
relationship
Dynamics of supervisory styles
over time
• ...the supervisory style needs to be adjusted to a more
hands-off approach to allow competent autonomy to be
developed... Unfortunately, in some cases, supervisors
adopt a static supervisory approach, or if it is altered,
this may not be done in alignment
with the growth and
∂
emerging needs of the student but on the basis of a
teacher-centred (“I known what is best for the student”)
dogma.
Gurr (2001: 86-87)
• Gurr, G. (2001) Negotiating the “Rackety Bridge” – a Dynamic
Model for Aligning Supervisory Style with Research Student
Development. Higher Education, 34(1): 81-103.
Demands on supervisors
Competition
Research
Publications
HR
Issues
Internationalisation
Student
numbers
Governance
Marketing
Supervising∂
ELearning
Resources
REF2014
Expansion
PhDs
Learning &
Teaching
Funding
Fees
Research
Management
Student
Experience
Key Issues:
• Staff engagement
Demands on supervisors
• Most appropriate method for supporting the initial and
continuing professional development of doctoral
supervisors?
• Balancing demands on supervisor time
∂
• Adding value
Institutional Responsibility?
What should be your institutional response to this?
• Structures to support supervisors and researchers
– Graduate School – cost in time of austerity? Bologna
process requires “Graduate School”
– (UK) HEFCE and QAA requirement for minimum
standards
∂
• Institutional Specialisation:
– Level of focus on PhD programmes, Masters
programmes or both? Importance of economic drivers?
– How to build on training strengths already in place?
– Institutional culture for supervisors:
• Support, recognition, value?
Concluding Themes
•
•
•
•
•
Future environment requires ongoing change
Drivers for change mainly external to HEIs (UK)
Nature of PhD qualification
Diversity in HE sector
Sustainability of supervisor training:
∂
– Lots of good activity across
sector
– Have perceptions and behaviours changed?
– Is good supervision valued and recognised?
– Is wider training fully embedded – integral?
– What is the best role of training (face to face,
virtual, blended etc.)
Thank you for you attention
Mary Immaculate
College
∂
Research Showcase
2 September 2014
Acknowledgements
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dr Lowry McComb, Director of Postgraduate Training
Dr Stan Taylor, Academic Staff Development Officer
Professor Liz Burd, Deputy Dean,
Professor Chris Gerrard, Deputy Dean
Dr Robert Carver, Deputy Dean
Colleagues from:
∂
– UK Council for Graduate Education
– Quality Assurance Agency