scholarly journals Doctoral supervision and COVID-19: Autoethnographies from four faculty across three continents

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 90-107
Author(s):  
Dannelle D. Stevens ◽  
◽  
Rajendra Chetty ◽  
Tamara Bertrand Jones ◽  
Addisalem Yallew ◽  
...  

Doctoral students represent the fresh and creative intellectuals needed to address the many social, economic, political, health care, and education disparities that have been highlighted by the 2020 pandemic. Our work as doctoral student supervisors could not be more central nor vital than it was at the beginning of, during, and following the pandemic. Written during the pandemic of 2020, the purpose of this paper was to describe how four faculty from three continents navigated their relationships with doctoral students in the research and dissertation phase of their doctoral programs. Using a common set of prompts, four faculty members each wrote an autoethnography of our experience as doctoral student supervisors. Even though our basic advising philosophies and contexts were quite different, we learned about the possibility and power of resilience, empathy, and mentoring online. Our findings imply that new online practices could be closely examined and retained after the pandemic to expand the reach, depth and impact of doctoral education.

10.28945/4484 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 089-110
Author(s):  
Rebecca G. Mirick ◽  
Stephanie P Wladkowski

Aim/Purpose: This study explored the experiences of women doctoral students and their perceptions of the impact of this experience on their academic careers. Background: While more women than men graduate from doctoral programs in all non-STEM fields, women are more likely to take non-tenure positions or positions at less prestigious programs such as community colleges or teaching focused institutions. This creates a lack of diversity at research intensive programs as well as potentially highlighting gender inequities within the pipeline from doctoral education to full professorship. The source of these differences in career outcomes are not fully understood, and it is unclear whether mothers are self-selecting away from research intensive positions, they are less able to obtain the required professional training for these experiences, perhaps in part due to a lack of university based supports, or they experience discrimination based on gender biases around caregiving. Methodology: In this cross-sectional, descriptive study, women doctoral students and graduates (N=777) completed a survey about their experiences as doctoral student mothers. Contribution: Little is known about the availability of supports for doctoral student mothers across fields, or their experiences with parenting during their doctoral programs. This study provides a broader view of doctoral student mothers’ perspectives as well as their understanding of the impact of their doctoral education experience on their career trajectories. Findings: Participants reported informal supports were often available (e.g. flexibility (57.1%), peer support (42.9%)) but identified a need for subsidized childcare (67.7%) and paid leave (53.3%). Many found motherhood decreased productivity (70.1%) and 55.8% said it impacted their career, including a new definition of an “ideal” position, changed career goals, professional development opportunities, being less competitive job candidates, delays in completing their program and entering the job market and a positive impact on career. Recommendations for Practitioners: Implications for doctoral programs are the need for more formal family-friendly policies, including subsidized childcare and conference travel support, improving the quality of mentoring for these students and facilitating access to a diverse array of professional development opportunities. Recommendation for Researchers: These findings suggest that there are multiple, complex factors impacting women’s career trajectory post-graduation once they have children. Researchers should consider multiple pathways to career decisions for women with children. In addition, these findings suggest that researchers exploring this topic should consider both field of study and whether women have a child at the point of program entry. Impact on Society: An underrepresentation of women in prestigious academic positions and leadership positions has a negative impact on young women who desire an academic career. The lack of women with children in these positions creates a problematic lack of diversity in leadership and a dearth of role models for women students with children. The benefits of diversity in leadership are well known. These findings can be used by doctoral programs and academic institutions to increase gender and parental status diversity in these positions, to the benefit of students, faculty, departments, and institutions. Future Research: Future research should explore the impact of supports on measures of doctoral student success (e.g. publications, conference presentations) and the impact of these experiences on students’ careers following graduation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 51-64
Author(s):  
S. K. Bekova ◽  
E. A. Terentev

The article provides a comparative review of principles for the implementation of doctoral programs in education at leading world universities. The analysis is focused on the following aspects of doctoral education: organizational model (1), principles of doctoral candidates’ enrollment (2), educational program and workload (3), principles and mechanisms for tracking doctoral students’ progress (4), principles and procedures for completing educational programs and defending a thesis (5). The key differences of the Russian doctoral education are distinguished. The first difference is related to the rigidity of the recruitment rules and procedures: the universities in Russia pay no or little attention to the previous academic achievements of candidates. The second difference refers to the specifics of educational program, which, as a rule, is not aimed at the development of “soft skills”. Finally, Russian doctoral programs are based on the traditional model of doctoral supervision, when a supervisor is usually the only person who controls the doctoral student progress and helps him or her to work on thesis. Based on the experience of the world leading universities, the authors discuss some opportunities to develop doctoral programs in Russia.


10.28945/2347 ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 015-034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meghan J. Pifer ◽  
Vicki L. Baker

Studies of doctoral education have included an interest not only in processes, structures, and outcomes, but also in students’ experiences. There are often useful recommendations for practice within individual examinations of the doctoral experience, yet there remains a need to strengthen the application of lessons from research to the behaviors of students and others engaged in the doctoral process. This paper is the first to synthesize research about doctoral education with the particular aim of informing practical strategies for multiple stakeholders. In this article, we summarize findings from a literature review of the scholarship about doctoral education from the past 15 years in a stage-based overview of the challenges of doctoral education. Our aim is to apply theory to practice through the systematic consideration of how research about doctoral education can best inform students and those who support them in the doctoral journey. We first present an overview of the major stages of doctoral education and related challenges identified in the research. We then consider key findings of that research to offer recommendations for doctoral students, faculty members, and administrators within and across stages.


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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-34
Author(s):  
Clinton A. Patterson ◽  
Chi-Ning Chang ◽  
Courtney N. Lavadia ◽  
Marta L. Pardo ◽  
Debra A. Fowler ◽  
...  

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.


2009 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leigh Hall ◽  
Leslie Burns

In this essay, Leigh Hall and Leslie Burns use theories of identity to understand mentoring relationships between faculty members and doctoral students who are being prepared as educational researchers. They suggest that becoming a professional researcher requires students to negotiate new identities and reconceptualize themselves both as people and professionals in addition to learning specific skills; however, the success or marginalization that students experience may depend on the extent to which they attempt to enact identities that are valued by their mentors. For this reason, Hall and Burns argue that faculty mentors must learn about and consider identity formation in order to successfully socialize more diverse groups of researchers, and they believe that formal curriculum designs can be used more intentionally to help students and faculty understand the roles identity plays in professional development and to make doctoral education more equitable.


2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-44
Author(s):  
Lilian H. Hill ◽  
Simone C. O. Conceição

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.


Author(s):  
Ruth Neumann ◽  
James Guthrie

AbstractGovernments play an important role in providing an appropriate national framework and structure for the development of doctoral education. Nevertheless, ultimate responsibility for quality supervision processes lies with institutions, in particular with their departmental units and their policies and processes (DETYA, 1999c). This paper presents a case study of recent developments in the quality enhancement of doctoral supervision in the Macquarie Graduate School of Management (MGSM). In doing so it looks at three areas in particular: (1) the key role of infrastructure support, including the introduction of a code of practice in doctoral supervision; (2) the induction and acculturation processes; and (3) supervision quality, including the selection, development and training of supervisors. The aim of the developments is to make a recognized private process more public and transparent. MGSM currently enrolls a significant number of doctoral students and the enhancement of their doctoral experience is a key priority. The paper concludes by highlighting key issues for future development.


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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Gopaul

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document