Transfering best practices of doctoral training between EU, Russia, Belarus and Armenia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katja Anniina Lauri ◽  
Sini Karppinen ◽  
Alexander Mahura ◽  
Timo Vesala ◽  
Tuukka Petaja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
Learning Material ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
European Universities

<p>MODEST (Modernization of Doctoral Education in Science and Improvement Teaching Methodologies) is a new capacity building project funded by the Erasmus+ programme. The project is coordinated by the University of Latvia. There are three other EU partners (from Finland, Poland and the United Kingdom) and a total of ten partners from three partner countries (Russia, Belarus and Armenia). Aims of the project include:</p><ol><li>To improve the structure and content of Doctoral Education and the internal capacities of services that manage doctoral studies by set up of Doctoral Training Centers (DTC) in partner universities in accordance with the modern European practices.</li> <li>To facilitate a successful adherence with Bologna process reforms and its instruments by the academic and administrative staff involved in doctoral studies and research management through the organization of special training sessions in Armenia, Belarus and Russia.</li> <li>To improve/increase the quality of international and national mobility of doctoral students of Armenia, Belarus and Russia for training and research based on development of double degree programmes and joint supervision.</li> <li>To ensure sustainability of DTC’s and their cooperation with European partners by establishing a sustainable professional network providing the use of participatory approaches and ICT-based methodologies.</li> </ol><p>The work is carried out in three phases: preparation, development, and dissemination & exploitation. In the preparation phase, a detailed analysis of organization of doctoral studies and research management structures is done in both EU and partner countries. The development phase includes preparation of training materials, a series of study visits and training sessions, and creation of DTC’s. The dissemination & exploitation phase includes open access learning material, dissemination conferences, publications and workshop/conference presentations, as well as events and open resources for stakeholders, policymakers, students and the general public.To partly serve similar purposes as MODEST, University of Helsinki and Russian State Hydrometeorological University have introduced a new project, PEEX-AC (PEEX Academic Challenge). The aims of PEEX-AC are to share knowledge and experience, to promote state-of-the-art research and educational tools through organization of research training intensive course on “Multi-Scales and -Processes Modelling and Assessment for Environmental Applications”, to improve added value of research-oriented education in Finnish and Russian Universities, and to boost the PEEX international collaboration.The MODEST and PEEX-AC projects serve as a great examples of transfer of good practices in higher education, especially on doctoral level, but they also create new connections for educational and scientific collaboration. From the PEEX perspective, MODEST is an important initiative strengthening connections between European universities and institutions in Russia, Belarus and Armenia. The project will continue until autumn 2022.</p>

Science education for doctoral students: MODEST approach and experience

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katja Anniina Lauri ◽  
Alexander Mahura ◽  
Sini Karppinen ◽  
Irina Obukhova ◽  
Tatiana Kalganova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Digital Literacy ◽  
Personal Development ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
European Universities

<p>MODEST (Modernization of Doctoral Education in Science and Improvement Teaching Methodologies) is a capacity building project funded by the Erasmus+ programme.</p><p>The project is coordinated by the University of Latvia. There are three other EU partners (from Finland, Poland and the United Kingdom) and a total of ten partners from three partner countries (Russia, Belarus and Armenia).</p><p>The project aims to improve the structure and content of doctoral education and the internal capacities of services that manage doctoral studies in accordance with the modern European practices, to facilitate a successful adherence with Bologna process reforms and its instruments, to improve and increase the quality of international and national mobility of doctoral students of Armenia, Belarus and Russia, and to establish a sustainable professional network providing the use of participatory approaches and ICT-based methodologies.</p><p>During the past year, almost one hundred members of academic and administrative personnel as well as doctoral students have contributed to creating a total of 14 new courses mainly in transferable skills: Research methodology and research design; Project writing, project management, and funding sources; International research writing and presentation skills; Research ethics, Intellectual property rights and personal data protection; 3I - Interdisciplinarity, interculturality, internationalization in research; Organization of doctoral training; Educational/constructive alignment, design and implementation of courses for doctoral studies; Digital literacy; Data analysis and expert systems; Virtual environment; Commercialization of research, managerial skills; Personal development; Complexity; and Sustainable development and global challenges of 21st century. Each course has specific target group(s) such as PhD students, university teachers, doctoral programme managers, or administrative staff.</p><p>Summary of each developed course – aims, learning outcomes, content (including course blocks on lectures, seminars, homeworks, etc.), planned learning activities and teaching methods, assessment methods and criteria, and other relevant – will be presented. The developed courses will be an integral part of the Doctoral Training Centers for PhD students to be established in the MODEST partner universities in Armenia, Belarus and Russia.</p><p>The MODEST project serves as a great example of transfer of good practices in higher education, especially on doctoral level, but it has also created new connections for educational and scientific collaboration. From the PEEX perspective, MODEST is an important initiative strengthening connections between European universities and institutions in Russia, Belarus and Armenia. The project will continue until 2022. More detailed information is available at www.emodest.eu.</p>

How has mobility become central to the EU’s idea of doctoral education?

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-29
Author(s):  
Pavel Zgaga
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Policy Tool ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Erasmus Programme ◽  
The Bologna Process ◽  
The Eu

This article addresses why and how mobility has become central to the EU’s idea of doctoral education, aiming to reconstruct, in a historical perspective, the gradual conceptualisation of mobility as a policy idea. This process began with the discussion of academic mobility in the 1970s, when the European Communities had as yet no responsibility in the field of education, which resulted in the Erasmus Programme. In the late 1990s, the Bologna Process strengthened the discussion, substantially contributing to a consideration of mobility as a policy tool and the establishment of a mobility strategy. In connection with the EU research policy, the integration of doctoral studies into the Bologna Process is specifically analysed. The article concludes with some open questions, including the potentially negative consequences of the instrumentalisation of higher education for the concept of mobility.

scholarly journals The “New Doctorate” in Austria: Progress toward a Professional Model or Status Quo?

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 91-110
Author(s):  
Hans Pechar ◽  
Gülay Ates ◽  
Lesley Andres
Keyword(s):  
Public Awareness ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Academic Degree ◽  
European Universities ◽  
The Status ◽  
Policy Direction

Until recently, both policy direction and public awareness of the Bologna Process has been focused almost unilaterally on the introduction of the Bachelor’s degree to European universities. This is understandable, as for most European countries, the Bachelor is a new academic degree. However, commencing with the Berlin Ministerial Conference (Realising the European Higher Education Area, 2003), reform of doctoral studies has been highlighted as a second equal pillar in the Bologna reform process. In this paper, we begin by providing anoverview of the general policy background and the rationales that underlie the attempts to restructure doctoral studies in Europe. Next, we focus on the specific situation in Austria, where peculiarities of the status quo collide with uniquely Austrian approaches to reforming doctoral education. Finally, through two case studies, we examine initial attempts – and related challenges – to implement the “New Doctorate” in Austria.

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 De/constructing the Academic Hood

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (S1) ◽  
pp. 68-85
Author(s):  
Louise Michelle Vital ◽  
Christina W. Yao
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Research Training ◽  
The United States ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Methodological Nationalism ◽  
Spatial Positioning ◽  
A Site ◽  
The U.S

Doctoral education is often lauded as a site of academic socialization and research training for nascent scholars. However, discussions of socialization seldom problematize the dangers of intellectual imperialism and methodological nationalism inherent in doctoral researcher socialization. As such, the traditional socialization practices for doctoral students in the United States (U.S.) must be interrogated and expanded to move towards equitable practices for research, especially for students conducting international research. Using social and spatial positioning as our conceptual framing, we problematize and question current approaches and practices to doctoral researcher training in the U.S. We use the academic hood, which is granted upon successful completion of doctoral studies, as a metaphor to reconsider how to reflect upon and navigate power dynamics and knowledge production within the U.S. academy.

scholarly journals Exploring doctoral students’ expectations of work-based skills training

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-417
Author(s):  
Jenny Candy ◽  
Padmali Rodrigo ◽  
Sarah Turnbull
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
Perceived Fit ◽  
Snowball Sampling ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Team Working ◽  
Uk Higher Education

Purpose Doctoral students are expected to undertake work-based skills training within their doctoral studies in areas such as problem solving, leadership and team working. The purpose of this paper is to explore student expectations of doctoral training within a UK Higher Education context. Design/methodology/approach The data for the study were gathered via two focus groups conducted among doctoral students from different faculties in a post-92 UK University. Participants were selected using a snowball sampling approach. Findings The findings suggest that the expectations of doctoral students are contingent upon their year of study, study mode, perceived fit between training goals and available training, peer recommendations, word-of-mouth (WoM) and the scholarly support they received from their supervisors. Practical implications The study suggests a better understanding of students’ segmentation can help Higher Education Institutions deliver training that meets the expectations of doctoral students in a way that result in zero or a positive disconfirmation. Originality/value This paper develops and deepens the understanding of the doctoral students’ expectations of work-based skills training and highlights the need for universities to adapt their doctoral training according to the expectations of different student segments.

scholarly journals The AGESW Pre-Dissertation Fellows Program: Participants’ Perceptions of Mentorship and Training for Academia

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 549-549
Author(s):  
Noelle Fields ◽  
Allison Gibson ◽  
Stephanie Wladkowski ◽  
Cara Wallace ◽  
Abigail Latimer
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
Social Work ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Student Success ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Student ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
And Training

Abstract Good mentoring is key for doctoral student success. In 2010, AGESW began offering the Pre-Dissertation Fellows Program (PDFP) to enhance social work doctoral students’ professional development and skillset for academia. The purpose of this study was to examine student participants’ perceptions of the PDFP in its role to providing mentorship and training for an academic position. This qualitative study examined eight cohorts (2010-2018) of the AGESW PDFP (N=85). Using thematic analysis, responses identified a number of aspects of professional development gained, gratitude for the training, an appreciation for candid advice received, and areas of professional development they felt they were lacking within their doctoral training. Findings bolster support for structured programs and professional development that supplement doctoral education in a student’s first two years. Implications for doctoral education, mentorship training, and avenues to enhance the AGESW pre-dissertation program will be discussed

scholarly journals Experiences of doctoral students enrolled in a research fellowship program to support doctoral training in Africa (2014 to 2018): The Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa odyssey

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0252863
Author(s):  
Folusho Mubowale Balogun ◽  
Yolanda Malele-Kolisa ◽  
Sara Jewett Nieuwoudt ◽  
Hellen Jepngetich ◽  
Jepchirchir Kiplagat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Institutional Development ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Program Outcomes ◽  
Research Fellowship ◽  
Practice Elements

Background The Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA) aims to transform higher education in Africa. One of its main thrusts is supporting promising university faculty (fellows) to obtain high quality doctoral training. CARTA offers fellows robust support which includes funding of their attendance at Joint Advanced Seminars (JASes) throughout the doctoral training period. An evaluation is critical in improving program outcomes. In this study; we, CARTA fellows who attended the fourth JAS in 2018, appraised the CARTA program from our perspective, specifically focusing on the organization of the program and its influence on the fellows’ individual and institutional development. Methods Exploratory Qualitative Study Design was used and data was obtained from three focus group discussions among the fellows in March 2018. The data were analyzed using thematic approach within the framework of good practice elements in doctoral training–Formal Research Training, Activities Driven by Doctoral Candidates, Career Development as well as Concepts and Structures. Results In all, 21 fellows from six African countries participated and all had been in the CARTA program for at least three years. The fellowship has increased fellows research skills and expanded our research capacities. This tremendously improved the quality of our doctoral research and it was also evident in our research outputs, including the number of peer-reviewed publications. The CARTA experience inculcated a multidisciplinary approach to our research and enabled significant improvement in our organizational, teaching, and leadership skills. All these were achieved through the well-organized structures of CARTA and these have transformed us to change agents who are already taking on research and administrative responsibilities in our various home institutions. Unfortunately, during the long break between the second and the third JAS, there was a gap in communication between CARTA and her fellows, which resulted in some transient loss of focus by a few fellows. Conclusion The CARTA model which builds the research capacity of doctoral fellows through robust support, including intermittent strategic Joint Advanced Seminars has had effective and transformative impacts on our doctoral odyssey. However, there is a need to maintain the momentum through continuous communication between CARTA and the fellows all through this journey.

scholarly journals Defining Doctorateness: A Concept Analysis

10.28945/3939 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 031-148
Author(s):  
Shahram Yazdani ◽  
Foroozan Shokooh
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Programs ◽  
Concept Analysis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Step Method ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Academic Degree ◽  
New Concepts

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.

Student reflections on doctoral learning: challenges and breakthroughs

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
Alison Owens ◽  
Donna Lee Brien ◽  
Elizabeth Ellison ◽  
Craig Batty
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Intellectual Development ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Action Learning ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Collaborative Action

Purpose There has been sustained interest in how to support doctoral students through the often-gruelling journey they undertake from enrolment to graduation. Although doctoral numbers and successful completions have been steadily increasing globally as well as in Australia, the quality of student progression and outcomes has been widely interrogated and criticised in the literature that is reported in this paper. The authors’ interest as experienced research higher degree supervisors and research leaders in the creative arts and humanities prompted a research project that aimed to better understand the challenges and breakthroughs involved in completing a doctorate from the perspective of candidates themselves. Design/methodology/approach This was implemented through an action learning collaboration with 18 students from three Australian universities facilitated by four research supervisors. Findings The main findings presented in this paper include the necessity for maintaining, brokering and supporting a range of relationships; understanding expectations of research study and embracing the need for agility in managing these; and finally, using techniques to improve personal agency and ownership of the transformative journey of research higher degree candidature. The importance of establishing an understanding of the multidimensional human experience of doing a doctorate and providing appropriate support through enhanced forms of research training emerged as a core finding from this research project. Research limitations/implications The relatively small number of research participants in this study and the discipline-specific focus prohibits generalizability of findings; however, the collaborative, action learning method adopted represents an approach that is both productive and transferable to other contexts and disciplines. Practical implications Further research might investigate the relevance of the findings from this research to doctoral students in other disciplines and/or institutions or apply the collaborative action learning approach to doctoral training presented here to a range of contexts and cohorts. Social implications Improving doctoral training options to support the multidimensional needs of candidates can better assure the mental and emotional well-being of doctoral students (essential to their continuing intellectual development and sense of agency) through developing sustainable relationships and realistic expectations. This in turn has the potential to address the consistently high attrition rates in doctoral programmes. Originality/value This research contributes new insights from doctoral students on the challenges and breakthroughs experienced by them as they pursue original research through formal study and present a novel, collaborative and empowering approach to doctoral training that can be applied in diverse setting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document