Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Context of Postgraduate Programs

Education ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pam Denicolo ◽  
Dawn C. Duke ◽  
Julie Reeves
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Research Report ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Late 20Th Century ◽  
Researcher Development

Rapid, unprecedented transformation in the policy and procedures of doctoral education since the turn of the millennium has resulted in considerable global debate in the higher-education sector about the nature and purpose of researcher development. Previously, despite differences among national groups (e.g., European, the UK and North American models of preparation for research and the examination procedures), general researcher development was firmly under the guidance of the research supervisor/advisor (“supervisor” used henceforth). Although opportunities for methods training or thesis compilation advice, for example, might be available within the department or institution, the basic apprenticeship model was pervasive with acknowledgement, particularly in the United States, of doctoral students being the future stewards of the discipline. Literature providing this historical background (Historical Context) and delineating policy initiatives (Policy) that emerged since the start of the 21st century provides the context for the debate. These developments are portrayed variously to postgraduate researchers through handbooks and reviews (Guidance Handbooks for Postgraduate Researchers). The current debate about the purpose of the doctorate and the nature of “doctorateness” has been fueled by how that policy has been interpreted into practice within the section Debate. The challenge to traditional pedagogical protocols resulted in the incorporation into research education of models of learning/teaching from other education spheres (Pedagogical Models), while the expansion both of the number and diversity of doctoral candidates resulted in the emergence of different forms of doctorate, each with its own procedural variances: see Professional Doctorates (also known as industrial doctorates) and Interdisciplinary Doctorates. One significant modification has been the emphasis shift from the production of a scholarly research report (thesis or dissertation as a monograph or coherent collection of publications with an overview)—a defense of process and results—to one giving equal prominence to the development of the researcher’s attributes and skills for the completion of the doctorate and for future employment (Skills Development). The concept of employability, both within and outside the sector, has in the early 21st century become increasingly prominent in debate and praxis (Employability Skills). The effect on researchers’ program experience and their identity and cultural perceptions (Postgraduate Researcher Experience, Identity and Culture) has evolved as a major source of interest for policymakers and education researchers, while both groups are required to evaluate the structure, functions, outputs, and outcomes of doctoral education (Evaluation). Researcher development as a relatively new phenomenon in the history of the doctorate continues to generate pertinent issues (Emergent Topics). Publications have been selected, as much as possible, from a variety of sources and include a range of disciplinary perspectives and international standpoints as well as leading research and key contributions. Where authors have more than one relevant publication in a section, only a representative one is provided while acknowledging that other work is available. Generally, the review spans the period since the late 20th century, with the subsections emerging from the literature. Each selected reference provides a conduit to further salient literature.

Paul Muldoon

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Karhio
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
21St Century ◽  
English Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Commitment ◽  
Late 20Th Century ◽  
Paul Muldoon ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
Irish Poetry

Paul Muldoon was born in Portadown, Northern Ireland, in 1951 and spent his childhood in the village of Moy at the border of County Armagh and County Tyrone—a setting for several of his poems. He studied at Queen’s University Belfast and published his first collections of poetry in the early 1970s. At the time of the publication of his first volumes, Muldoon famously enjoyed the mentorship of Seamus Heaney, and this biographical and literary connection has been a constant reference point in criticism, to an extent that other significant literary exchanges and influences initially remained underexplored. After working for the BBC in Belfast until the mid-1980s, Muldoon moved to the United States in 1987. Now a US citizen, he currently lives in New York and works at Princeton University, where he holds the Howard G. B. Clark ’21 chair in the humanities. Muldoon has published twenty-two major collections of poetry, nineteen chapbooks and interim collections, two volumes of critical essays, three opera libretti, song lyrics, translations, and children’s literature. He has been repeatedly characterized as a shapeshifting figure, whose work simultaneously reaffirms and undermines preheld conceptions of what we mean by “Irish poetry.” Thus, to propose that his idiosyncratic style and the remarkable complexity of his verse resists critical categorization is a case of stating the obvious. A reverse claim, however, might be more appropriate: that his writing embraces such a variety of categories that attempts at classification lose their purpose. Muldoon’s densely referential writing and his technical mastery of poetic language are matched by few poets of his generation, and the issue of how successfully his undeniable dexterity translates into poetic efficacy has been a persistent tendency in his critical reception. Muldoon has been, in turns, praised for his unrivaled skill and technical virtuosity or accused of his poetry’s evasiveness, perceived as a lack of social or political commitment. Yet, few would question that his verse has a place in any overview of modern Irish writing, modern English-language poetry, or experimental 20th- and 21st-century poetics. In the early 21st century, Muldoon’s perceived obliquity, or his distaste for direct political engagement with the crises of late-20th-century Northern Ireland, has made way to a more outspoken approach, in poetry as well as in public life. His work has been highly critical of the US invasion of Iraq, for example, and also tackled problematic aspects of Irish culture and history in an increasingly direct manner.

Social work doctoral education: Are doctoral students being prepared to teach?

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandy R Maynard ◽  
Elizabeth M Labuzienski ◽  
Kristina S Lind ◽  
Andrew H Berglund ◽  
David L Albright
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Programs ◽  
Doctoral Program ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Work Practice ◽  
Assessment Methods ◽  
Course Content ◽  
Social Work Practitioners

Summary Longstanding tensions exist around the purpose of social work doctoral programs, particularly around the extent to which doctoral program should prepare their students to teach. Indeed, social work programs in the United States have been criticized for failing to prepare graduates for teaching; however, it has been a number of years since doctoral curricula have been reviewed. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which US social work doctoral programs are training their students to teach by assessing the extent to which pedagogical training is explicitly integrated into doctoral curricula and examining the scope and content of required doctoral courses on teaching. Content analysis of social work doctoral program curricula ( n = 72) and teaching and learning related course syllabi ( n = 24) was conducted by two coders. Syllabi were coded and analyzed to produce a profile of course objectives, readings, teaching strategies, assessment methods, and course content. Findings Of the 72 PhD programs, 90% included a goal related to the preparation of their students for teaching; however, only 37 (51%) required a course on teaching. Course content, teaching, and assessment methods were found to vary across courses. Applications Training the next generation of social work practitioners to engage in effective social work practice is critical to the profession; however, the preparation of doctoral students to provide quality education to future social work practitioners seems to be largely neglected. Implications for doctoral education are discussed.

scholarly journals Re-envisioning Doctoral Mentorship in the United States: A Power-Conscious Review of the Literature

10.28945/4735 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 237-252
Author(s):  
Genia M. Bettencourt ◽  
Rachel E. Friedensen ◽  
Megan L Bartlett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Direct Applicability ◽  
Important Form ◽  
The U.S

Aim/Purpose: Multiple barriers exist within doctoral education in the United States that can undermine the success of students, particularly for students with marginalized identities. While mentorship can provide an important form of support, it must be done in an intentional way that is mindful of issues of equity and power. Background: By applying a power-conscious framework to current practices of doctoral mentorship in the U.S., we propose key considerations to help support doctoral students and shift power imbalances. Methodology: As a scholarly paper, this work draws upon a comprehensive review of existing research on doctoral mentorship in the U.S. Contribution: As a relatively recent development, the power-conscious framework provides an important tool to address issues of inequity that has not yet been applied to doctoral mentorship to our knowledge. Such a framework provides clear implications for mentorship relationships, institutional policies, and future research. Findings: The power-conscious framework has direct applicability to and possibility for reshaping doctoral mentorship in the U.S. as well as elsewhere. Each of the six foci of the framework can be integrated with research on doctoral students to help formal and informal mentors enhance their practice. Recommendations for Practitioners: Throughout our analysis, we pose questions for mentors to consider in order to reflect upon their practice and engage in further exploration. Recommendation for Researchers: Research on doctoral mentorship should explicitly engage with broader dynamics of power, particularly as related to understanding the experiences of marginalized student populations. Impact on Society: The demanding nature of and precarity within U.S. doctoral education leads to high rates of departure and burnout amongst students. By re-envisioning mentorship, we hope to begin a broader re-imagining of doctoral education to be more equitable and supportive of students. Future Research: To examine these claims, future research should explore doctoral student mentorship relationships and how power dynamics are contained therein both within the U.S. and in international contexts.

How Are You?: A Culturally Sensitive Group Therapy Program for Latinos

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. S482-S482
Author(s):  
M. Paris ◽  
M. Lopez ◽  
L. León-Quismondo ◽  
M. Silva ◽  
L. Añez
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Behavioral Health ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Local Community ◽  
Psychiatric Symptoms ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
The United States ◽  
Group Program ◽  
Spanish Speaking ◽  
Alternative To Hospitalization

IntroductionAn ongoing challenge for the behavioral health field in the United States is ensuring access to culturally and linguistically responsive treatments for the growing number of monolingual Spanish speakers. The limited availability of services further compromises mental health outcomes given the unique psychosocial stressors often experienced in this population, such as language barriers, family separation and inadequate social support, unemployment, trauma, and poverty.ObjectiveIn response to the local demand for services, the authors describe a specialized group program for monolingual Spanish speaking adults with chronic and persistent mental illness.AimsThe program aims are two-fold:– to reduce exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms for individuals presenting in an acute state of distress through the provision of recovery-oriented mental health services in a familiar setting and preferred language;– to offer a specialized behavioral health training experience for bilingual psychology doctoral students.MethodsThe group is led by the psychology fellow and is offered twice per week for a total of six hours, and includes elements of interpersonal and cognitive behavioral therapy; motivational interviewing; spirituality; coping skills training; and art/music.ResultsThe described mental health group program is the only one available in Spanish in the local community and has reduced utilization of the hospital emergency room. Consequently, it fills an important gap in the service system and offers care that would otherwise be unavailable for individuals in need.ConclusionsThe program is a cost-effective alternative to hospitalization for Spanish speaking Latinos and a unique professional experience for psychologists in-training interested in a career in the public sector.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

scholarly journals United States security cooperation with Kenya in the second decade of the 21st century

2021 ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
Rafał Jureńczyk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Africa ◽  
21St Century ◽  
The United States ◽  
Training And Development ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Security Cooperation ◽  
Security Sector ◽  
The Us

The subject of the paper is the cooperation of the United States with Kenya in the area of security in the second decade of the 21st century. The introduction contains the methodological assumptions of the paper and a synthetic historical background. The first section of the paper covers the theoretical framework. The second section outlines the increase of the United States’ strategic involvement in Africa, including East Africa, in the 21st century. The third section discusses the joint efforts of the US and Kenya in combating terrorism and piracy. The fourth section is devoted to US training and development assistance for the Kenyan security sector. The considerations are carried out within the framework of the postcolonial current of the theory of international relations. During the research, the method of analyzing text sources was used. The main thesis of the paper assumes that although Africa, including Kenya, was not a particularly important area of strategic interest of the United States, these countries had significant common security interests and undertook cooperation to implement them. First of all, it concerned counteracting international terrorism, but also the general stabilization of East Africa. In the future, the importance of East Africa in American politics might systematically increase, both in the area of economy and security, which will entail further strengthening of cooperation between the US and Kenya.

scholarly journals The Philosophical Approach of Sankofa: Perspectives on Historically Marginalized Doctoral Students in the United States and South Africa

10.28945/4463 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 783-801
Author(s):  
Pamela Felder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
The United States ◽  
Student Experiences ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Philosophical Approach ◽  
Doctoral Experience

Aim/Purpose: This work contributes to the expansion of dialogue on doctoral education research in the United States, South Africa, and within the context of higher education internationalization. There is an emphasis on identifying and reinterpreting the doctoral process where racial and cultural aspects have been marginalized by way of institutional and systemic exclusion. An underlying premise is to support representation of marginalized doctoral student experiences to raise questions about participation and contributions within the dialogue on doctoral education research and practice. Background: Decades of reporting provide evidence of statistical portraits on degree at-tainment. Yet, some large-scale reporting does not include representation of historically marginalized doctoral students until the 1970s in the United States, and the 2000s for South Africa. With the growth of internationalization in higher education, examination of the impact of marginalization serves to support representation of diversity-focused discussions in the development of regional international education organizations, multilateral networks, and cross-collaborative teaching and research projects. Methodology: The philosophical approach for this conceptual paper embraces the Sankofa tradition as a process of going back to previous trends in literature on doctoral degree completion to identify opportunities for interrogation and reinterpretation of the doctoral experience. A dimensional framework of diversity and critical race theory, CRT, guides interpretation of racial and cultural perspectives focused on exclusion, structural diversity, and the psychological/behavioral experiences related to doctoral degree completion in the United States and South Africa. A purposeful sampling strategy is used to identify of literature sources where these dimensions are identified. Contribution: A major contribution of this work is the use of a dimensional diversity framework in doctoral education in both the US and South Africa. Findings: Interpretation of previous studies reveal critical insight for understanding the racial and cultural aspects of the doctoral process through comparison of perspectives on the historically marginalized doctoral experience in the United States and South Africa. They include consideration of the social developments leading to the current predicament of marginalization for students, awareness of the different reporting strategies of data, implementation of cultural philosophies to broaden the focus on how to understand student experiences, and an understanding of the differences in student-faculty relationships. Recommendations for Practitioners: Recommendations for practitioners highlight the application of cultural approaches in the development and implementation of practical strategies for supporting historically marginalized doctoral students. Recommendations for Researchers: Recommendations for researchers consider the application of cultural ap-proaches in the development of scholarship supporting historically marginal-ized doctoral students within a global context. Impact on Society: Intended outcomes for this work include increasing awareness about historically marginalized doctoral students. Recommendations are focused on improving their academic and career experiences in the United States and South Africa with global implications regarding their contributions. Future Research: Future research should consider the application of cultural philosophical ap-proaches when examining the historically marginalized doctoral experience within global, national, and local contexts.

Curriculum of Social Movements

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Ayers ◽  
Rick Ayers ◽  
Joel Westheimer
Keyword(s):  
Social Movements ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Civil Rights Movement ◽  
21St Century ◽  
The United States ◽  
School Curriculum ◽  
Late 20Th Century ◽  
Freedom Schools ◽  
Black Neighborhoods ◽  
The World

Social movements change the world. Thus, they shape curriculum. Participation in movements educates the public by altering viewpoints and actions. Likewise, participants learn through participation in social movements; therefore, social movements can be considered curricula. The experiences of social movements are curricula that exist in and out of schools. Examples of the myriad connections among school curriculum, nonschool curriculum, and social movements interact in dynamic fluidity. Curriculum is much more than a course syllabus, set of plans, or the indoctrinations or liberations intended by schools. Curriculum includes all experiences of schooling and contexts that influence schooling: intended, taught, tested, hidden, excluded, outside, peer-driven, and more. It encompasses knowledge, relationships, and interpretations that students bring to school or anywhere else. These multiple dimensions of curriculum also exist in the diverse experiences, institutions, and gatherings of everyday life. Alternative forms of curriculum have been envisioned and enacted over the centuries to overcome the dominance of autocratic forms of education. Social movements educate and are therefore curricular. A noteworthy example of curricula of social movements is the Civil Rights Movement, particularly the Mississippi Freedom Schools in the United States. Another example is the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee, founded by Myles Horton and based on the Danish model of folk schools, which was a center of inspiration and praxis for participants in the Civil Rights Movement. Emancipatory educational movements are exemplified in the problem-posing work of Paulo Freire, initially in Brazil, evolving to counter the oppressiveness of “banking” forms of education in many parts of the world. Freire has shown how oppressed persons could be major creators of their own education, by learning to name, write, and read the world to compose a more just world. In the second decade of the 21st century, young climate activists, such as Xiye Bastida and Greta Thunberg, have advocated ecological renewal; this has grown into a worldwide movement, captured in the title “Fridays for Future.” Local examples include the insightful stories in The Journal of Ordinary Thought, inspired and evoked by Hal Adams and authored by the parents of students in some of Chicago’s most impoverished Black neighborhoods in the late 20th century. Global movements include Black Lives Matter, which has manifested itself as an act of solidarity in the second decade of the 21st century. Social movements, of which the contributions of Martin Luther King, Jr. are an emblematic example, teach the power of learning and the learning of power. They help raise the deepest and most worthwhile questions: What does it mean to be human? Who am I in relation to others? What kind of a society do we want to create? How can schools and other public spaces become generative sites of contention and authentic engagement? That is where a curriculum of social movements comes to life. What lessons might educators learn from the examples of a curriculum of social movements? How should we live? How will we live? What will you do about it?

scholarly journals Doctoral Education as an Institutional Resource for Training Research and Higher Education Personnel (Article 1)

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (8-9) ◽  
pp. 44-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. I. Bednyi ◽  
A. A. Mironos ◽  
N. V. Rybakov
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Programs ◽  
Doctoral Program ◽  
The United States ◽  
Information Support ◽  
Teaching Staff ◽  
Academic Degree

The diversification of professional trajectories of academic degree holders is now becoming a global trend, and it prompts us to take a fresh look at the problem of evaluating the effectiveness of existing institutions for the training of academic and research personnel – the systems of doctoral education in Russia and abroad – in terms of the training of academic researchers and higher education teaching staff. Our two articles which share the scope of problems and have a single general concept, consecutively address the following issues: the collection and analysis of empirical data on training in doctoral programs; the dynamics of dissertation defense by graduates after the completion of doctoral programs; the actual timeframe of doctoral students’ advancement to their degree; the proportion of graduates who continue their scientific career after graduating from the doctoral program. The first article analyzes the organizational and methodological aspects of information and analytical support of institutions responsible for doctoral education in the countries of the European Union, the United States and Russia. It provides information about the organization of the systems for monitoring doctoral education and doctoral program graduates’ professional careers in foreign countries. The authors note the insufficient information support for the programs aiming to develop doctoral education in Russia, as well as the lack of empirical data necessary to assess the effectiveness of Russian doctoral education in the reproduction of human resources for the research and education sector. The results of the authors’ scientometric research concerning doctoral program graduates’ retention in the field of research and higher education are announced. The second article will present the details of the method and the results of these studies.

scholarly journals While Collaboration Is Increasing in the Profession the LIS Dissertation Remains a Solo-Authored Monograph

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Diana K. Wakimoto
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Committee Member ◽  
The United States ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Assistant Professors

Objective – To investigate collaboration in LIS doctoral education, in particular the extent and perception of collaboration between advisors and advisees, and the dissertation as a collaborative product. Design – Quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire data. Qualitative analysis of interviews. Bibliometric analysis of curricula vitae (CVs) and dissertation citations. Setting – American Library Association (ALA)-accredited, doctorate-granting schools in the United States and Canada. Subjects – A total of 374 full-time, tenured faculty members with the rank of associate or full professor (advisor group) and 294 assistant professors (advisee group) comprised the pool of faculty members (n=668) who were sent the questionnaire. Of these, 30 individuals participated in follow-up telephone interviews, which were equally split between the two groups. There were 97 faculty members from the original pool of 668 faculty members were included in the bibliometric analyses. Methods – The author developed two questionnaires, one for the advisors (associate and full professors) and one for the advisees (assistant professors), and sent the surveys to faculty members at ALA-accredited schools in the United States and Canada. The questionnaires gathered information about the extent of collaboration and perceptions of collaboration in LIS doctoral education. The author also collected contact information from those interested in participating in a follow-up interview. The author selected the first 30 individuals who responded as the interview participants. The interview participants were split equally between advisors and advisees. A separate subpopulation of 97 faculty members was chosen for the bibliometric analysis phase of the study. These faculty members were chosen with the following criteria: graduation from an ALA-accredited school; full-text of dissertation available online; and a current, full CV available online. CVs were searched to determine the level of co-authoring before and after graduation. Main Results – A total of 215 faculty members completed the questionnaires. The results from the surveys showed that more than 61% of the advisors reported collaborating with at least half of their advisees, while 58% of the advisees reported collaborating with their advisors. Both advisors and advisees defined collaboration mainly as publishing, researching, and presenting together. More than 50% of the advisors reported co-publishing with half of their advisees during the advisees’ doctoral education. The advisors reported co-publishing with less than 30% of their advisees after the students completed their doctoral education. Advisees reported similar numbers: 44% and 31%, respectively. Following graduation, the majority of advisees (96%) planned to publish from their dissertations. Of these, 78% did not plan to include their advisor as co-author in these publications. 42% of the advisors reported that none of their advisees included them as co-authors, while 3% of advisors stated that their advisees always included them as co-authors. After the 30 interview transcripts were coded using inductive and deductive approaches, the results showed that advisees saw research as a process whereby they became collaborators with their advisors. Advisees also found collaboration with other doctoral students as “kind of key” (p. 7). Advisors saw collaboration as a form of mentorship. However, both advisees and advisors reported that the dissertation itself was not a collaborative product, with the responsibilities of the dissertation tasks falling more heavily on the advisees than the advisors, except in the realm of reviewing and approving the final version of the dissertation. Analysis of the CVs for co-publishing between advisees and their advisor and/or committee members showed that 41% of the advisees published with their advisors and 34% published with at least one committee member before receiving their doctorate. After receiving their doctorates, 31% of the advisees published with their advisors and 32% published with a committee member. Conclusion – The author concluded that a majority of advisors and advisees see collaboration as joint publication during the period of doctoral studies. Both advisors and advisees see the doctoral dissertation as a solo-authored monograph and not a collaborative product. However, other forms of collaboration among advisees and their advisors, committee members, and fellow doctoral students are viewed as important parts of the doctoral education experience. Based on these findings, the author suggests that the profession may need to adapt its model of doctoral education to become more aligned with the increasingly collaborative nature of LIS research.

Making social scientists, or not? Glimpses of the unmentionable in doctoral education

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 73-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Mills ◽  
Julia Paulson
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Higher Education Policy ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Policy Reforms ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Face ◽  
Research Students

Recent research on doctoral education in the U.K. has revealed the increasing number and diversity of academic relationships that shape the lives of research students, and students' own role in activating, mobilising and maintaining these relationships. Higher education policy reforms promoting doctoral 'skills training', interdisciplinary communities, thematic centres and supervisory teams, all create new networks for students to negotiate. Often beneficial and supportive, this article explores the 'unmentionable' consequences of relationships that gradually go awry.This study began as a project exploring the everyday experiences of doctoral students and early career researchers in the Social Sciences within the U.K. As the research unfolded, we began to encounter accounts of neglect, exploitation and denigration. While such stories have long been part of postgraduate life, their seeming persistence in the face of robust quality assurance and supervisory codes needs further exploration. We offer three portraits of difficult doctoral journeys to explore these 'unmentionable' experiences and explore whether they are linked to growing institutional and career pressures on academics to prioritise research 'productivity'.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document