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

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.

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandy R Maynard ◽  
Elizabeth M Labuzienski ◽  
Kristina S Lind ◽  
Andrew H Berglund ◽  
David L Albright

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.


2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
David H. Silvera ◽  
Bruno Laeng ◽  
Tove I. Dahl

This article describes both formal and informal aspects of doctoral training of psychology students in the United States. We first describe admission procedures and the financial support of doctoral students and then discuss the various milestones in a typical doctoral program. There follows an overview of what is expected of doctoral students and a description of the working environment (e.g., faculty and fellow students) in doctoral programs. Finally, we provide a brief analysis of the doctoral training system in the United States. One question of particular importance is whether the close supervision associated with many doctoral programs prepares the student adequately for supervising researchers and developing a research program of his/her own after graduation.


10.28945/3939 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 031-148
Author(s):  
Shahram Yazdani ◽  
Foroozan Shokooh

Aim/Purpose: This study analyses the concept of doctorateness and its defining characteristics and gives a definition for it by examining the various ways it is used in doctoral education literature. Background: The term ‘doctorateness’ is an immature unclarified concept referred to as a common quality for all doctoral awards. With the emergence of different types of doctoral studies worldwide, a clear definition for this concept is a requirement. Defining doctorateness can result in major implications for research and the practice of doctoral education, as determining attributes of doctorateness will pose serious expectations regarding standard setting for the process and outcome of doctoral programs and requirements of doctoral students. Methodology: In this study, Walker and Avant’s eight step method of concept analysis is used. The method is a systematic approach frequently used to analyze relatively new concepts. Contribution: The current study moves beyond the earlier studies by isolating defining attributes of the concept and giving a clear conceptual definition for doctorateness. Findings: Five defining attribute of doctorateness refined from literature include independent scholar, developmental and transformative apprenticeship process, original conceptual contribution/scholarship, highest academic degree, and stewardship of the discipline. Based on the defining attributes a definition is formulated for the concept of doctorateness. In addition to giving a definition a conceptual model consisting of five conceptual areas of purpose, process, product, prerequisite, and impact according to the usage of concept in the literature is also presented. Recommendations for Practitioners: By using the conceptual model and defining attributes presented in this study practitioners and professionals in doctoral education can study the effective design for doctoral programs and utilize the definition as a basis for evidencing doctoral awards. Future Research: Defining attributes can also contribute to psychometric researches related to tool development and constructing tools with explicit criteria for doctorate judgment.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 9-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. I. Bednyi ◽  
A. A. Mironos ◽  
N. V. Rybakov

Change management in the field of training and certification of academic personnel implies a reliable information support in the form of statistical and sociological data that enable the monitoring of the effectiveness of the institution of doctoral education. The current system for monitoring the activities of doctoral schools does not fully meet these requirements, thus making it difficult to assess objectively the implementation of doctoral education’s main function – the training of researchers and faculty for higher education. The article attempts to fill this information lacuna by presenting an analysis of the database created by the authors which contains information about the defense of dissertations and research results of PhD students who graduated in 2013 from nine Russian universities over the five-year period after their graduation (N = 1178). Information on the results of each graduate’s research activities was obtained from open sources: the portal of the Higher Attestation Commission, the electronic catalog of the Russian State Library, Scopus and eLibrary.ru databases, as well as the database of the Industrial Property Institute. As a result of our research, it was established that the actual timeframe of doctoral students’ advancement to their academic degree is determined by discipline-related factors. In the sample as a whole, the share of persons who defended their dissertations was 45% of the total number of graduates, which is 1.7 times higher than the share of graduates who defended their dissertations in the course of their studies at the doctoral school. Approximately 90% of graduates defend their dissertations no later than two years after graduation from the doctoral school. The quantitative data of doctoral school graduates’ retention in the academic field are given, with the breakdown by discipline. On average, more than 60% of Candidate of Sciences degree holders continue their careers in academic positions. The obtained data on Russian doctoral school graduates are in good agreement with the results of monitoring doctoral programs’ graduates in Europe and the USA. The results of this work make it possible to take a fresh look at the methodology for diagnosing the effectiveness of university doctoral schools.


10.18060/201 ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice K. Johnson Butterfield

What does it mean to internationalize doctoral education by working abroad? What does it mean to internationalize doctoral education in one’s home country? This article offers a perspective based on the Social Work Education in Ethiopia Partnership, which established Ethiopia’s first-ever master’s degree in social work in 2004. To ensure sustainability of the MSW program, a doctoral program in Social Work and Social Development was launched in 2006. This article describes the development and research base of the doctoral program. Beginning in the first semester, teams of doctoral students join with poor communities in action research.Overall, these efforts lead to an emerging model of university-based development. Through engaged action research, faculty and students use human capital resources and the educational process to function as “development actors.” Some ideas for internationalizing doctoral education are offered. Deans and directors in the United States and Canada are challenged to expand doctoral education within a developing country and to prepare doctoral students to include international perspectives in their teaching and research.


10.28945/4210 ◽  
2019 ◽  

[This Proceedings paper was revised and published in the 2019 issue of the International Journal of Doctoral Studies, Volume 14] Aim/Purpose: This work expands discussions on the application of cultural frameworks on research in doctoral education in the United States and South Africa. There is an emphasis on identifying and reinterpreting the doctoral process where racial and cultural aspects have been marginalized by way of legacies of exclusions in both contexts. An underlying premise of this work is to support representation of marginalized students within the context of higher education internationalization. Background: Decades of reporting provide evidence of statistical portraits on degree attainment. Yet, some large-scale reporting does not include representation of historically marginalized groups until the 1970’s in the United States, and the 2000’s 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: Qualitative research synthesis of literature focused on a dimensional framework of diversity provides a basis for this discussion paper regarding the potential of Sankofa as a cultural framework for examining the historically marginalized doctoral experience in the United States and South Africa. Contribution: A major contribution of this work offers critical questions on the use of cultural frameworks in doctoral education in the US and South Africa and broader dynamics of higher education internationalization. Findings: Sankofa reveals critical insight for reinterpretation 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 frameworks 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 frameworks in the development and implementation of practical strategies in the support of historically marginalized doctoral students. Recommendations for Researchers: Recommendations for researchers consider the application of cultural frameworks in the development of scholarship supporting historically marginalized 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 for this student population. Future Research: Future research should consider the application of cultural frameworks when examining the historically marginalized doctoral experience within global, national, and local contexts.


10.28945/4630 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 485-516
Author(s):  
Laura Roberts

Aim/Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine tough-love mentoring theory (TLM) as a potential way to address the problem of low graduation rates among doctoral students. Background: In order to address this purpose, the researcher presents the following: a) a validation study for assessment tools pertaining to TLM and b) a validation study of TLM theory and its two sub-theories: mentor integrity and trustworthiness sub-theory (MIT) and the mentor high standards sub-theory (MHS). Methodology: The researcher tested the validity of the mentor integrity and trustworthiness scale from the protégés’ perspective (MIT-P), the mentor high standards scale from the protégés’ perspective (MHS-P) and the protégés’ perceptions of their own independence (PPI) scale. The sample consisted of 31 doctoral protégés recruited with multi-phase sampling at four education-related doctoral programs in the eastern part of the United States. Contribution: The study provides evidence to support TLM as a strategy to address the problem of low graduation rates among doctoral students. In addition, the study contributes validation of assessment tools that can be used to measure doctoral protégés’ perceptions of their mentors. Findings: For each scale, the data show acceptable levels of internal consistency and evidence of content validity. The data are consistent with the TLM theory and its two sub-theories. The unique contribution of the current study is that it draws from the protégés’ perspective. Recommendations for Practitioners: The researcher presents a) strategies protégés can use to find trustworthy mentors with high standards and b) strategies program administrators can use for professional development of doctoral mentors. The researcher also provides the Right Angle Research Alignment (RARA) table to help protégés organize and manage the research methods section of their dissertation. Recommendation for Researchers: It is recommended that researchers use experimental methods to test TLM theory and the sub-theories, MIT and MHS. Impact on Society: This theory may be useful in business and in the arts and in other teaching relationships such as coaching and tutoring. The researcher encourages scholars to test TLM theory in these other contexts. Future Research: Further research questions that arise from this study are as follows: How can protégés find mentors who have high standards and who are trustworthy? What can doctoral program administrators do to help mentors develop high standards and trustworthiness?


2015 ◽  
pp. 23-24
Author(s):  
Richard Skinner

International education has deep historical roots and has spurred relationships that persist for decades. In the case of the United States and the field of engineering, American dependence since the mid-1960s on other countries' students – especially Indian ones – for enrollments and graduates of engineering doctoral programs has been, is and will likely continue to be significant. But long-term trends portend a time when the appeal of American higher education may be less than has been the case.


10.28945/4665 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 685-704
Author(s):  
Patrícia Silva Santos ◽  
Maria Teresa Patrício

Aim/Purpose: This article examines the experience and practice of doctoral students by focusing on different dimensions of the PhD socialization process. It addresses the question of whether university collaborations with businesses influence the experience and practice of PhD students. Background: The study explores the academic culture in the PhD process through the analysis of the experiences and practices of doctoral students in two groups – those without business collaborations (academic trajectories) and those with business collaborations (hybrid trajectories). Academic trajectories are seen as traditional academic disciplinary based doctoral education, while hybrid trajectories cross boundaries collaborating with companies in the production of new knowledge. Methodology: The article uses a qualitative methodology based on extensive interviews and analysis of the curriculum vitae of fourteen Portuguese PhD students in three scientific domains (engineering and technology sciences, exact sciences, and social sciences). The doctoral program profiles were defined according to a survey applied to the directors of all doctoral programs in Portugal. Contribution: The study contributes to the reflection on the effects of collaboration with companies, in particular on the trajectories and experiences of doctoral students. It contributes to the understanding of the challenges associated with business collaborations. Findings: Some differences were found between academic and hybrid trajectories of doctoral students. Traditional products such as scientific articles are the main objective of the PhD student, but scientific productivity is influenced by trajectory and ultimately by career prospects. The business culture influences the trajectories of doctoral students with regard to outputs such as publishing that may act as a barrier to academic culture. PhD students with academic trajectories seem to value international experiences and mobility. Minor differences were found in the choice of topic and type of research activity, revealing that these dimensions are indicative of the scientific domain. Both hybrid and academic students indicate that perceptions of basic and applied research are changing with borders increasingly blurred. Recommendations for Practitioners: It is important for universities, department chairs, and PhD coordinators to be concerned with the organisation, structure, and success of doctoral programs. Therefore, it is useful to consider the experiences and trajectories of PhD students involved with the business sector and to monitor the relevance and results of such exchange. Key points of contact include identifying academic and business interests, cultures, and practices. A student-centred focus in university-business collaboration also can improve students’ well-being in this process. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should consider the processes of interaction and negotiation between academic and business sectors and actors. It is important to understand and analyse the trajectories and experiences of PhD students in doctoral programs and in university-company collaborations, since they are the central actors. Impact on Society: This analysis is relevant to societies where policy incentives encourage doctoral programs to collaborate with companies. The PhD is an important period of socialization and identity formation for researchers, and in this sense the experiences of students in the context of collaboration with companies should be analyzed, including its implications for the professional identity of researchers and, consequently, for the future of science inside and outside universities. Future Research: More empirical studies need to explore these processes and relationships, including different national contexts and different scientific fields. Other aspects of the academic and business trajectory should be studied, such as the decision to pursue a PhD or the focus on perceptions about the future career. Another point that deserves to be studied is whether a broader set of experiences increases the recognition and appreciation of the doctoral degree by employers inside and outside the academy.


10.28945/3713 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 001-019
Author(s):  
Sydney Freeman Jr. ◽  
Gracie Forthun

Aim/Purpose: Executive doctoral programs in higher education are under-researched. Scholars, administers, and students should be aware of all common delivery methods for higher education graduate programs. Background This paper provides a review and analysis of executive doctoral higher education programs in the United States. Methodology: Executive higher education doctoral programs analyzed utilizing a qualitative demographic market-based analysis approach. Contribution: This review of executive higher education doctoral programs provides one of the first investigations of this segment of the higher education degree market. Findings: There are twelve programs in the United States offering executive higher education degrees, though there are less aggressively marketed programs described as executive-style higher education doctoral programs that could serve students with similar needs. Recommendations for Practitioners: Successful executive higher education doctoral programs require faculty that have both theoretical knowledge and practical experience in higher education. As appropriate, these programs should include tenure-line, clinical-track, and adjunct faculty who have cabinet level experience in higher education. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should begin to investigate more closely the small but growing population of executive doctoral degree programs in higher education. Impact on Society: Institutions willing to offer executive degrees in higher education will provide training specifically for those faculty who are one step from an executive position within the higher education sector. Society will be impacted by having someone that is trained in the area who also has real world experience. Future Research: Case studies of students enrolled in executive higher education programs and research documenting university-employer goals for these programs would enhance our understanding of this branch of the higher education degree market.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document