unike survey on doctoral education by corina balaban and sue wright ljubljana summer school 7-11...
TRANSCRIPT
UNIKE Survey on Doctoral Education
By Corina Balaban and Sue WrightLjubljana Summer School
7-11 July 2014
Introduction to survey
• Looks at doctoral education practices across the UNIKE partner institutions.
• Distributed to heads of doctoral schools, supervisors and PhD fellows.
Outline
1. Background 1. Context2. Motivation 3. Design
2. Results 1. Population2. Environment3. Requirements4. Supervision practices5. Role of supervisor6. Skills7. UNIKE project8. Changes
3. Discussion
Context/ background
Most surveys so far have focused on:– PhD students and their experiences – working
conditions (EURODOC survey) – Quality assurance (EUA-ARDE project)– Cooperation (EU-China Doc survey)– Career path after PhD (Vitae UK)
Motivation of survey
• To find out how doctoral education is organised in different institutions across Europe.
• To provide a view of doctoral education practices as experienced at different levels (heads of doctoral schools, supervisors, fellows).
• To explore how doctoral education practices have changed in recent years.
• To generate a reflexive ability about doctoral education practices within UNIKE.
Doctoral Practices
• Very diverse and can include many aspects (…)• For the purpose of this survey we chose to focus only on a few
1. Environment2. Requirements3. Supervision practices4. Role of supervisor5. Skills6. UNIKE project7. Changes
• The survey does not aim or claim to exhaust all doctoral education practices.
Design of survey
• Online distribution.• Multiple choice questions, combined with
open questions.– rationale: comparable factual responses across
institutions accompanied by more elaborate explanations.
– some questions easy to frame, some questions difficult to put into survey format – further discussion needed.
Population
• 3 target groups to receive own version of survey:– heads of doctoral schools (H)– UNIKE supervisors (S)– UNIKE PhD fellows (F)
Rationale: gaining comprehensive understanding of doctoral education as perceived by actors playing different roles in the process.
• Chosen discipline for distribution of survey: education and social sciences
Rationale: access facilitated by UNIKE partners, close to our interest, comparable results.
Population
• Small, but good response rates:–Heads: 4 out of 6– Supervisors: 7 out of 8– Fellows: 11 out of 12
• Limitations but also possibilities.
Population
1 2 3 40
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
H1. Number of PhDs enrolled
Full timePart time
Individual responses of heads
Num
ber o
f PhD
s
Population
Less than 3 years 3 years More than 3 years Do not complete 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
H3. Percentages of PhDs completing
Head 1Head 2Head 3Head 4
Perc
enta
ge
Population
Less than 5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years More than 15 years0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S1. Experience in supervising PhD students
Supe
rviso
rs
Population
1 2 3 4 5 6 70
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
S2. PhD students supervised to completion vs. currently supervised
supervised to completioncurrently supervised
Individual supervisors
Num
ber o
f stu
dent
s
Environment
Particip
ate in
seminars
with
colle
agues
Assign
ed to
a res
earch
group
Choose va
rious a
udiences
for d
issem
ination
Main point o
f refe
rence
superv
isor
Doctoral
studen
ts’ w
orkshops a
nd writi
ng gro
ups
Joint publica
tions
Creating o
wn envir
onment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
H6S4. PhD engagement with research environment, as seen by heads and supervisors
HeadsSupervisors
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
Environment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F1. Means of engagement with local environment
Very well wellnot so wellnot at all
Num
ber
of fe
llow
s
Environment
Very often (daily) Often (weekly) Not so often (monthly) Never0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F2. Interaction with other Phds and staff
num
ber o
f fel
low
s
Requirements H4. YES NO
Submitting and defending thesis 4 0
Attending courses of one’s own choice 3 1
Attending compulsory courses 4 0
Presenting research at international conferences 2 2
Publishing articles in academic journals 3 1
Publishing in non-academic outlets 1 3
Publishing in English 3 1
Publishing in the local language 1 2
Teaching/ supervising undergraduate students 0 3
Doing internship/ placement/ secondment 0 3
Doing commissioned or consultancy research 0 3
Supervision Practices H5.
Number of supervision hours a student is entitled to receive per year:• 2 heads - Officially determined.• 2 heads - Left to the agreements between supervisor and
student.
Actual number of hours per year:• 50 hours full-time, 25 hours part-time (1 head).• Not officially determined (2 heads).
Supervision Practices
Every week Every 2 weeks Every month Every two months Other0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S3. Frequency of supervision
Num
ber o
f sup
ervi
sors
Supervision Practices
Every week Every month Every 2 month Other – please specify 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F3. Supervision frequency
Num
ber o
f fel
low
s
Role of Supervisor
facilit
ator in
the l
earn
ing pro
cess
valuab
le so
urce of in
formati
on
advis
or - how to
conduct
resea
rch
advis
or -how to
writ
e acad
emica
lly
advis
or- how to
writ
e in differe
nt gen
res
advis
or - how to
publish-ac
adem
ic arti
cle
advis
or- how to
presen
t at c
onferen
ce
advis
or- how to
apply
for gran
ts
advis
or- how to
build a
caree
r in ac
adem
ia
advis
or- how to
build a
caree
r outsi
de acad
emia
Other0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
S5F6. Perceived role of supervisor
By supervisorsBy fellows
Perc
enta
ge
Role of Supervisor S7.Has the role changed throughout career?• 50% Yes - 50% No
Comments: • More focus on preparing students for academic jobs than it used to be, as
a result of the competitive environment.• The implementation of the Bologna process (three years time to complete
PhD) has had an impact on the intensity of research. • The focus on 'relevance' of the research has been influencing the choice
of research topics.• There are more PhDs today and therefore more group work – role of
supervisor changed that way.• The role has remained roughly the same.
Skills – part 1
Researc
h
Communication
Presen
tation
Writi
ng
Creativit
y
Critical
thinkin
g
Problem
solvi
ng
Analytical
skills
Indepen
dent th
inking
Argumen
tation
Forei
gn la
nguag
e
Inter
-cultu
ral aw
areness
Team
work
Different k
inds of a
udiences
Diverse
envir
onments
Lead
ership
Teach
ing/ su
pervisin
g
Entre
preneu
rial
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
H7S6. Skills developed through supervision
HeadsSupervisors
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
Skills – part 2
Researc
h
Communication
Presen
tation
Writi
ng
Creativit
y
Critical
thinkin
g
Problem
solvi
ng
Analytical
skills
Indepen
dent th
inking
Argumen
tation
Forei
gn la
nguag
e
Inter
-cultu
ral aw
areness
Team
work
Different k
inds of a
udiences
Diverse
envir
onments
Lead
ership
Teach
ing/ su
pervisin
g
Entre
preneu
rial
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
H7S6. Skills developed through taught curriculum
HeadsSupervisors
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
UNIKE Skills – part 1
Researc
h
Communication
Presen
tation
Writi
ng
Creativit
y
Critical
thinkin
g
Problem
solvi
ng
Analytical
skills
Indepen
dent th
inking
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F7. UNIKE activities developing skills I
very wellwellnot so wellnot at all
Num
ber o
f fel
low
s
UNIKE Skills – part 2
Argumen
tation
Forei
gn la
nguag
e
Inter-cu
ltural
aware
ness
Team
work
Addressin
g differe
nt audien
ces
Worki
ng in dive
rse en
vironmen
ts
Leaders
hip
Teach
ing/ su
pervisin
g
Entre
preneu
rial sk
ills
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F7. UNIKE activities developing skills II
very wellwellnot so wellnot at all
Num
ber o
f fel
low
s
Skills
very well well not so well not at all0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F10. UNIKE preparation for work
Inside academiaOutside academia
Num
ber o
f fel
low
s
UNIKE Project S8.Setup of UNIKE influencing supervision:• 3 Yes• 4 No
Comments:• Not any difference to the way I work with them as supervisor. But
helping them fit in all the activities and demands of UNIKE is an 'extra'. • UNIKE fellows have more:
– fieldwork opportunities– research and career opportunities– opportunities for collaborative work with other PhD fellows– international contacts
• Higher time pressure to complete in 3 years.
UNIKE Project S9.Dissemination of training ideas from UNIKE
Comments:• UNIKE project – presented and explained in the Faculty governing bodies. • Regularly inform colleagues in doctoral school, and wider audiences, on UNIKE
experiences.• In contact with the head of local PhD school and the pro-dean for research
and talent development. Involvement in a working group on the future of PhD supervision. UNIKE's research Training Handbook is being used as a model in a new training course for supervisors.
• UNIKE fellows made presentations of their projects to other PhD students; actively participate in monthly seminars.
• Mutual exchange generated by 'difference' of UNIKE, through students' participation with other non-UNIKE students.
• Much of the UNIKE set up is already common practice in my institution.• Graduate School is extremely rigid and has poor routes for communication.
UNIKE Project
Good balance Too many courses Too much supervision Too much independent research 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F5. Balance between UNIKE activities
Num
ber o
f fel
low
s
UNIKE Project
Access to resources Access to academic networks
Ability do to fieldwork abroad
Funding Quality of supervision0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F8. Experiences of UNIKE PhDs as seen comparatively to other PhDs
SameBetterWorse I don’t know
Num
ber o
f fel
low
s
Changes (qualitative)
H8. Changes in doctoral education practices over the last 5 years• Granted an award for high quality PhD; initiated an
international exchange. • More systematic training and integration of research and
publishing opportunities.• Doctoral study program accredited according to Bologna
guidelines • Now part of larger doctoral training centre that operates
across the social sciences in more local universities. Research council has devolved the operation and management of the funding for doctoral training through a series of such centres.
Changes (qualitative)
H9. Origin of the changes• Initiated and funded by the national research
councils. • International: Bologna process.• Both national and international.• Bologna system implemented at national
level, inspired by international bodies.
Changes (qualitative)
H10. Responsibility for implementation • Decisions made by Education Committee for whole
university or Faculty Graduate Studies Board, led by Graduate dean for Social Sciences and Law.
• Scientific Council in articulation with the Dean, the University Senate and the Rector.
• Director of EdD/ Director of PhD.• Faculty level: Commission for Doctoral Study and
Program Council for Doctoral Study.