scholarly journals Kształcenie w szkołach doktorskich a opłaty

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 35-44
Author(s):  
Przemysław Brzuszczak ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Academic Performance ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Student ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Recruitment Process ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Legislative Amendments

This article discusses the issue of fees that may be charged to doctoral students at doctoral schools. In compliance with Article 198 par. 8 of the Act – the Law on Higher Education and Science: “Doctoral education shall not be subject to fees.” This regulation may be prima facie interpreted as excluding the possibility of charging any fees to doctoral students at doctoral schools. However, this is an oversimplification. Whereas, indeed, any activities directly related to the education of doctoral students should be free of charge, doubts arise with regard to other types of fees enumerated in Article 79 of the referred Act. And so, in literature there is a consensus that three admissible types of fees potentially paid by doctoral students are those referred to in Article 79 par. 2 points 1–2 and 6 that is those charged for conducting the recruitment process (point 1), carrying out the verification of learning outcomes (point 2), using student dormitories and canteens (point 6). The interpretation of the regulations concerning fees in the entities running doctoral schools should not have an extensive or implicit character. Thus, in this context the objective scope of these regulations seems to be relatively narrow. In the practice of doctoral schools’ functioning, a certain problem, although potentially probably small, may prove to be the legislator’s waiver as of 1 October 2019 (as opposed to the fees charged at the hitherto doctoral studies) of fees due to repeating by a doctoral student of classes due to unsatisfactory academic performance and while issuing copies of certain documents. A lack of relevant provisions at a statutory level excludes charging fees in a situation when a doctoral student achieves unsatisfactory grades from taken classes or repeatedly loses such documents as, for instance, a doctoral student’s ID card, a student book, diplomas and copies thereof, supplements to diplomas. Therefore, the author postulates de lege ferenda relevant legislative amendments.

scholarly journals “I Don’t Think I’m Prepared”: Perceptions of U.S. Higher Education Doctoral Students on International Research Preparation

10.28945/3489 ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 197-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina W. Yao ◽  
Louise M Vital
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
International Research ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Student ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
International Perspectives ◽  
Student Training

Although internationalization is often touted as a priority in higher education, little attention is given to infusing international perspectives into the formalities of doctoral education. Further, limited attention is given towards doctoral student training for conducting international research. This qualitative study provides insight on how 21 U.S. doctoral students in higher education programs perceive their preparation as emerging international researchers. Implications for practice include fostering cross-departmental collaborations and supporting co-curricular international opportunities.

scholarly journals Socio-Technological Enrollment as a Driver of Successful Doctoral Education

10.28945/4196 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 161-185
Author(s):  
Georges Djohy
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Supervisor Relationships ◽  
Doctoral Socialization ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Individual

Aim/Purpose: This article uses the enrollment approach contained in the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) to challenge the deterministic perspectives of doctoral socialization and offers a new perspective based on co-construction between social and technological entities mobilized during the doctoral education as a driver of success. Background: Most studies have used deterministic approaches to show that the success of doctoral education is the outcome of socialization as shaped by the individual/personal, racial/ethnical, national/cultural, organizational/institutional and disciplinary contexts in which supervisors and supervisees cooperate. In doing so, they overlook the complexity of student-supervisor relationships and the gradual power-based processes of negotiation and persuasion that make the doctoral education successful. Analyzing the author’s own doctoral journey, the article highlights that the doctoral success is rather the result of a socio-technological enrollment as reflected in power-based supervisory politics. Methodology: The methodological approach consisted in an autoethnography that self-reflected on all stages of the doctoral processes and the author’s collaboration with his thesis supervisor from March 2012 until October 2016. Contribution: This paper reveals that the use of an approach of co-construction between technology and society also makes it possible to better understand the relationships between students and supervisors and the implications for socialization in a doctoral setting. Findings: The success of doctoral socialization is not necessarily a matter of individuals, disciplines, or contexts, but rather it depends on the level of articulation and implementation of the supervisory politics inspired by the imbalanced power relations among those involved. The deconstruction of the doctoral supervisory politics reveals that enrollment is an important component that mobilizes human and non-human resources from various scales. Enrollment strategies play a key role in how doctoral students start, progress and complete their doctorate. Recommendations for Practitioners: The results and analysis on socio-technological enrollment-based doctoral education can be useful in the context of support policies towards improving student supervision and facilitating doctoral studies in higher education. Recommendation for Researchers: The paper invites researchers in sociology, anthropology, psychology, education sciences, and other scientific disciplines to a theoretical reconsideration of student-supervisor relationships in the context of research and support to higher education. Impact on Society: The content of this article will help improve collaboration among supervisors and supervisees in higher education and could, thus, contribute to reducing attrition and doctoral dropout.

Doctoral student support programs in diverse national contexts

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-576
Author(s):  
Omer Caliskan ◽  
Karri Holley
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Student ◽  
Student Support ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Support Programs ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Usa

Purpose The growing demand for doctoral education and the role of the doctoral degree to advance nations socially, economically, and culturally forces countries and individual institutions to respond to concerns stemming from the doctoral process. Numerous initiatives to support doctoral students have been adopted with varying features across countries. The purpose of this paper is to examine doctoral student support programs in two countries: the USA and Turkey. These countries offer higher education systems at different stages of maturity and stability. Design/methodology/approach The data for this study came from a comparative case study analysis of doctoral student experiences in support programs at two research universities, one in the USA and one in Turkey. Ten American doctoral students and eight Turkish doctoral students were interviewed, for a total of 18 interviews. The study utilized the conceptual framework specified by the PhD Completion Project initiated by the US Council of Graduate Schools. Findings The two national systems featured in this study are at different points of their development. These developmental starting points influence the rationale and construction of a student support program, particularly one focused on advanced degrees, research activity, and knowledge production. The Turkish higher education system faces the challenge of building its infrastructure to be responsive to national needs in future decades, including producing qualified faculty as teachers and researchers. The American model of doctoral student support concentrates on increasing diversity within the academy. By focusing on first-generation students, students of color, and women in STEM disciplines, efforts are directed toward not just improving the quantity of graduates, but also the diversity of those graduates. Originality/value While doctoral student support programs are increasingly common in multiple national contexts, analyses of these programs are rare, and comparative analyses even more so. The emergence of new academic disciplines, the trend toward interdisciplinary research, and the prevalence of neo-liberal policies has made the doctoral experience increasingly complex. The data presented here reveal that while doctoral education is influenced by country-specific contexts, doctoral students from multiple countries share many of the same experiences.

scholarly journals Transforming doctoral education: preparing multidimensional and adaptive scholars

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-34
Author(s):  
Clinton A. Patterson ◽  
Chi-Ning Chang ◽  
Courtney N. Lavadia ◽  
Marta L. Pardo ◽  
Debra A. Fowler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transformative Learning ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Student ◽  
Pedagogical Practices ◽  
Career Adaptability ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Transferable Skills ◽  
Curricular Design

Purpose Concerning trends in graduate education, such as high attrition and underdeveloped skills, drive toward a new doctoral education approach. This paper aims to describe and propose a transformative doctoral education model (TDEM), incorporating elements that potentially address these challenges and expand the current practice. The model envisions discipline-specific knowledge coupled with a broader interdisciplinary perspective and addresses the transferable skills necessary to successfully navigate an ever-changing workforce and global landscape. The overarching goal of TDEM is to transform the doctoral student into a multi-dimensional and adaptive scholar, so the students of today can effectively and meaningfully solve the problems of tomorrow. Design/methodology/approach The foundation of TDEM is transformative learning theory, supporting the notion learner transformation occurs throughout the doctoral educational experience. Findings Current global doctoral education models and literature were reviewed. These findings informed the new TDEM. Practical implications Designed as a customizable framework for learner-centered doctoral education, TDEM promotes a mentor network on and off-campus, interdisciplinarity and agile career scope preparedness. Social implications Within the TDEM framework, doctoral students develop valuable knowledge and transferable skills. These developments increase doctoral student career adaptability and preparedness, as well as enables graduates to appropriately respond to global and societal complex problems. Originality/value This proposed doctoral education framework was formulated through a review of the literature and experiences with curricular design and pedagogical practices at a research-intensive university’s teaching and learning center. TDEM answers the call to develop frameworks that address issues in doctoral education and present a flexible and more personalized training. TDEM encourages doctoral student transformation into adaptive, forward-thinking scholars and thriving in an ever-changing workforce.

scholarly journals Program and Instructional Strategies Supportive of Doctoral Students’ Degree Completion

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-44
Author(s):  
Lilian H. Hill ◽  
Simone C. O. Conceição
Keyword(s):  
Instructional Strategies ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Degree Completion ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Student ◽  
Instructional Support ◽  
Adult Educators ◽  
Student Progress ◽  
Significant Time ◽  
Support Strategies

Doctoral education demands significant time, energy, financial, and emotional commitments. Depending on the characteristics of the doctoral student, barriers to completion and challenges with the doctoral process can require unique types of support. The purpose of this article is to examine perspectives expressed in the literature of varied disciplines regarding program and instructional support strategies that lead to doctoral student progress to degree completion. The article concludes with program and instructional support implications for adult educators.

Applying cultural capital and field to doctoral student socialization

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Gopaul
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Cultural Capital ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Student ◽  
Doctoral Study ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Student Socialization ◽  
Doctoral Student Socialization

Purpose Although the production of a dissertation and the transition to an independent researcher undergird the outcomes of doctoral education, this study aims to emphasize issues of inequality in doctoral study through the use of Bourdieu’s (1977, 1986) concepts of cultural capital and field. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study with 15 doctoral students in Engineering and in Philosophy revealed that activities in doctoral study that tend to socialize students possess value, given the conventions of various contexts or social spaces related to academe. Findings Doctoral students who attain particular accomplishments experience doctoral study in ways that suggest that doctoral study is a system of conventions and norms that imbue particular activities with value, which then impact students’ doctoral education experiences. Originality/value Inequality is tied to students’ portfolio of achievements, as the value of these achievements suggests differential socialization experiences, such that different students learn about the norms and practices within doctoral study in different ways.

scholarly journals Wybrane problemy dotyczące statusu doktoranta

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 111-124
Author(s):  
Agata Pyrzyńska ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
School System ◽  
Academic Staff ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Status ◽  
Education Model ◽  
New Education ◽  
Academic Group

The Act of 20 July 2018 Law on Higher Education and Science modifies the system of education of PhD students in a significant way. In this act, the doctoral studies model was abandoned in favor of the doctoral school system. Along with the indicated change, the status of PhD students as a separate academic group was also ordered. Thus, the practice of treating PhD students as quasi -students has been broken. The new education model also provides for a number of institutional guarantees, which should have a pro -quality impact on the education system of future academic staff. The paper discusses selected solutions in this area, paying special attention to the universal scholarship system, the social security system of PhD students and mechanisms of parenthood protection among doctoral students.

scholarly journals Interaction Equivalency Theorem: Towards Interaction Support of Non-Traditional Doctoral Students

10.28945/4238 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 187-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constance D Graham ◽  
Liezel Massyn
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Student ◽  
Risk Identification ◽  
Dropping Out ◽  
Students At Risk ◽  
Risk Profiles ◽  
Identification Process ◽  
Conceptual Paper

Aim/Purpose: This conceptual paper proposes interaction support based on the Interaction Equivalency Theorem (EQuiv) to support interaction for non-traditional doctoral students who have been identified as attrition risks. Background: The master-apprentice form of doctoral education consists primarily of interaction with the supervisor for academic purposes. If this interaction is impaired, it may affect the ability to complete the dissertation due to insufficient knowledge, and it may also create a sense of isolation, which can lead to attrition. Nontraditional students have many characteristics that may inhibit this interaction such as being part-time or studying at a distance. Institutions have been urged to develop profiles of students at risk of dropping out based on past trends and offering intervention to students at risk. In conjunction with risk profiles, the EQuiv offers the potential to individually optimize interaction under time and resource constraints, with a view towards deep and meaningful learning. Methodology: The paper is a conceptual paper using a systematic review of the literature, covering 50 years. Articles were sourced from various databases and journals. Contribution: This article offers recommendations for improving interaction opportunities for nontraditional doctoral students in the master-apprentice form of doctoral education who are at risk of dropping out. It sheds a light on a distinct population whose needs are often overlooked. Additionally, the envisioned use of the EQuiv by organizations and academic departments is an expansion of its intended use by course designers. Additional original work is demonstrated by (a) the development of an EQuiv quality matrix to assess and rank the EQuiv literature, (b) a model of how the EQuiv might be employed to compensate for insufficient interaction, and (c) a representative model of socialization agents and knowledge transmission. Findings: The doctoral experience and EQuiv literature have shortcomings regarding interaction support to non-traditional doctoral students. The literature on the doctoral experience does not capture the invisible problems of the nontradi-tional doctoral student who is under the master-apprentice form of doctoral education. Although institutions are urged to develop risk profiles based on characteristics of students who have dropped out, it still does not capture this specific group of students. Additionally, the socialization requirements of traditional doctoral students under the master-apprentice system are unclear, so the requirements of nontraditional doctoral students under this system are also not specified. Most EQuiv research does not pay attention to the cautions of Anderson (2003a), so the literature is based on situations that do not reflect the intent of the EQuiv. However, it is proposed that the EQuiv could be used as a substitution or augmenting of the S2T interaction in the master-apprentice model. Recommendations for Practitioners: The proposed recommendations might assist practitioners in developing a risk identification process to support non-traditional doctoral students at risk within cost and time constraints for both students and departments. Recommendation for Researchers: An empirical study of nontraditional doctoral student interaction experiences and requirements should be conducted, followed by an analysis of the interactions in the EQuiv. Additionally, the role of socialization of nontraditional doctoral students in the master-apprentice form of education should be explored. Furthermore, a literature review on various risk profiles might be of use to institutions wishing to develop preliminary profiles. Further research on the Interaction Equivalency Theorem is proposed. The EQuiv in its current form has been largely confined to the distance education discipline, mostly focusing on structured courses. The article enlarges the scope of the theory to also contribute to the field of doctoral education. Further research could focus on exploring the applicability of interaction pref-erences, substitutability and the strength of the interactions with this cohort of students. An adaptation of the EQuiv might assist practitioners in developing a risk identification process to support non-traditional doctoral students at risk within cost and time constraints. Impact on Society: Support to non-traditional doctoral students in other countries may improve if the interaction is optimized, which in turn may affect persistence. Future Research: Exploration of management models in support of doctoral student interaction.

scholarly journals Individual and Structural Challenges in Doctoral Education: An Ethical Perspective

10.28945/4738 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 211-236
Author(s):  
Liana Roos ◽  
Erika Löfström ◽  
Marvi Remmik
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Structural Level ◽  
Ethical Perspective ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Individual

Aim/Purpose: The study set out to understand the challenges doctoral students experience at different systemic levels of doctoral education through the perspective of ethical principles. Background: Doctoral students experience various challenges on their journey to the degree, and as high dropout rates indicate, these challenges become critical for many students. Several individual and structural level aspects, such as student characteristics, supervisory relationship, the academic community as well national policies and international trends, influence doctoral studies, and students’ experiences have been researched quite extensively. Although some of the challenges doctoral students experience may be ethical in nature, few studies have investigated these challenges specifically from an ethics perspective. Methodology: The study drew on qualitative descriptions of significant negative incidents from 90 doctoral students from an online survey. The data were first analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis, and then the themes were located within different systemic levels of doctoral studies: individual (e.g., doctoral student, the individual relationship with supervisor) and structural (e.g., the institution, faculty, academic community). Finally, the ethical principles at stake were identified, applying the framework of five common ethical principles: respect for autonomy, benefiting others (beneficence), doing no harm (non-maleficence), being just (justice), and being faithful (fidelity). Contribution: Understanding doctoral students’ experiences from an ethical perspective and locating these among the systemic levels of doctoral studies contributes to a better understanding of the doctoral experience’s complexities. Ethical considerations should be integrated when creating and implementing procedures, rules, and policies for doctoral education. Making the ethical aspects visible will also allow universities to develop supervisor and faculty training by concretely targeting doctoral studies aspects highlighted as ethically challenging. Findings: In doctoral students’ experiences, structural level ethical challenges out-weighed breaches of common ethical principles at the individual level of doctoral studies. In the critical experiences, the principle of beneficence was at risk in the form of a lack of support by the academic community, a lack of financial support, and bureaucracy. Here, the system and the community were unsuccessful in contributing positively to doctoral students’ welfare and fostering their growth. At the individual level, supervision abandonment experiences, inadequate supervision, and students’ struggle to keep study-related commitments breached fidelity, which was another frequently compromised principle. Although located at the individual level of studies, these themes are rooted in the structural level. Additionally, the progress review reporting and assessment process was a recurrent topic in experiences in which the principles of non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice were at stake. Recommendations for Practitioners: Going beyond the dyadic student-supervisor relationship and applying the ethics of responsibility, where university, faculty, supervisors, and students share a mutual responsibility, could alleviate ethically problematic experiences. Recommendation for Researchers: We recommend that further research focus on experiences around the ethics in the progress reporting and assessment process through in-depth interviews with doctoral students and assessment committee members. Impact on Society: Dropout rates are high and time to degree completion is long. An ethical perspective may shed light on why doctoral studies fail in efficiency. Ethical aspects should be considered when defining the quality of doctoral education. Future Research: A follow-up study with supervisors and members of the academic community could contribute to developing a conceptual framework combining systemic levels and ethics in doctoral education.

scholarly journals Changing Doctoral Education at the University of Maribor

2020 ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Zoran Ren ◽  
Nataš Vaupotič
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
European Higher Education Area ◽  
European Higher Education ◽  
The University

The paper gives an overview of changes in the European Higher Education Area regarding the Doctoral studies, and outlines the steps that the University of Maribor undertook to renovate the Doctoral studies in line with the Salzburg principles and Principles of Innovative Doctoral Education.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document