1.
Introduction
In
recent years there has been a burgeoning of research interest
into the
experiences of PhD/doctoral students and supervisors, although
much of this
work is limited to specific models and contexts of doctoral
education (e.g., Gardner,
2007; Golde, 2005; Ives & Rowley, 2005; McAlpine, Paulson, Gonsalves,
& Jazvac-Martek,
2012; Pyhältö, Vekkaila, &
Keskinen, 2012; Scaffidi
& Berman, 2011; Vekkaila, Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2013). There has been a clear
evolution from the individual focus of the
“master-apprenticeship” model to
more structured programmes, an increasing number of
candidates, growing
internationalisation of the academy, and the emergence of new
types of PhDs which
reconfigure the relationship between research and practice
(Brew & Peseta,
2004; Pearson, Evans, & Macauley, 2008; Walker, Golde,
Jones,
Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008). As the quality of
research and supervision are increasingly
recognised as decisive in the process of doing a PhD (and the
products that
emerge from it), the question of “what a PhD really is” is
also under
discussion, leading Wellington (2013) and others to explore
the possible meanings
of “doctorateness”. This research field has
struggled to keep pace with
proliferating PhD formats and diverging practices. Doctoral
contexts such as
“practice as research”, professional doctorates, PhDs based
entirely on publications,
etc. are less well understood than more traditional formats,
and are
stimulating increasing research interest (e.g. the Carnegie
Project on the
Education Doctorate http://cpedinitiative.org/; Kot &
Hendel, 2012; Nelson, 2006). If we look at researcher
education more broadly
conceived, there has been very little work on the extended
‘adolescence’ of
academic researchers, or on the experiences and trajectories
of researchers in
other professional fields beyond the academy; McAlpine, Amundsen, and Turner (2013)
offer one of the few contributions in this area. This raises
questions about
how far doctoral education succeeds (or perhaps has ever
succeeded) in
providing appropriate professional preparation and enhancement
to those for
whom an academic career is a clear motivation.
Even
more so than in
undergraduate education, the doctoral student has commonly
been seen as an
apprentice member of a disciplinary community. The PhD degree,
once considered
the pinnacle of academic achievement, is increasingly regarded
as a kind of
entry-level global academic passport offering junior scholars
access to an
insecure career (Pearson et al., 2008).
Yet as we have seen, the proliferation
of types of doctorate has been partly driven by the demands of
careers outside
academia. The development of professional doctorates, and the
realisation that
many, or even most, PhD graduates will experience careers outside the academic labour market have given
impetus and
legitimacy to the inclusion of employability skills in
doctoral education
(Baker & Lattuca, 2010). These developments have been
justified in terms of
harmonisation and flexibility, and have borrowed heavily from
skills models
used in vocational education (see e.g., Vitae); as yet we have
little evidence
of how effective they are at meeting their multiple (and often
unclear)
purposes. In practice, this skills-oriented approach to
doctoral education
tends to meet resistance from subscribers to a more purist
view of the university,
according to which academic freedom is not compatible with
external standardisation
initiatives (Kiley, 2014). However these changes also raise
important questions
about academic judgments and assessment processes at the
doctoral level, which
are far from standardised and remain, for the most part,
poorly understood.
These
profound changes are occurring in a context where we have
scarcely begun to
explore the nature of the formal and informal curriculum of
doctoral education
(EUA, 2007). The introduction of the idea of curriculum in PhD
programmes
necessitates urgent discussion among educators from different
backgrounds and with
different perspectives on doctoral education. We need a
clearer understanding
of how the curriculum of doctoral education works, how it can
be developed to
meet changing needs, and how its outcomes can be appropriately
assessed.
In
this paper our goal is to
explore whether an explicit curriculum approach can help us
make sense of
existing research and practices regarding the processes and
outcomes of
doctoral education. Our starting point is that, whether we
acknowledge it or
not, the curriculum is inevitably there; and adopting an
explicit curriculum
approach will help us to disclose the tensions between the
formal/informal, open/hidden,
and standardised/pluralised dimensions in doctoral education
and brought to our
attention by Enders (2002). These dimensions are summarised in
Table 1 and contribute
to a research agenda that allows us to develop more nuanced
and useful understandings
of the doctoral education curriculum. We blend the
contributions of an
ecological and socio-constructivist perspective (e.g.
Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
1986; Lave, 1988; Vygotsky, 1978) with curricular viewpoints
grounded in the
policy cycle of Stephen Ball (1994) that frame a vision of the
curriculum as a
contextual and social-cultural phenomenon entailing a
continuous meaning-making
process in which diverse interpretations struggle to emerge
(Lopes & López,
2010).
However,
before addressing the above in the context of doctoral
education we suggest
that it might be helpful as background to outline a more
standard approach to
curriculum, the sort of approach we might see in texts related
to coursework
degrees at the tertiary level (e.g. Kiley, 2014; Print, 1987).
While
the starting point in curriculum is generally contested, one
might begin with
examining the aims for the course or program. This is where a
question such as:
what is the teacher/ faculty/ university aiming to achieve
with this course?
Engaging staff in answering this question often uncovers many
of the implicit,
as well as explicit, views held by participants. At the
doctoral level, asking
what might appear to be such a simple question is likely to
highlight a wide
and complex set of responses.
Again,
while curriculum development is rarely linear, for the sake of
argument, the
next question that can be asked is: what knowledge, skills and
attitudes is it
expected that the learner will be able to demonstrate
following engagement in
this program? This stage is often termed “learning outcomes”
and at the
doctoral level it is again contested with comments ranging
from employment
skills through to higher level cognitive skills and an
original contribution to
knowledge.
A
logical next step in light of having determined the potential
learning outcomes
is the identification of the possible learning content and
activities that are to
be provided to allow the learner to engage in appropriate
learning. In some
cases this is referred to as the syllabus. Again at the
doctoral level, the
notion of content for learning is wide and varied often
depending on country,
discipline, and type of doctorate being undertaken.
Linked
to the content is the consideration of pedagogy. It is during
this stage in
curriculum development that questions are posed regarding the
teaching
approaches to be used. Until recently pedagogy was a term that
was rarely used
in relation to doctoral education (Boud & Lee, 2009).
Rather, there was an
assumption that the supervisor/mentor/adviser would work with
the candidate in private
and mysterious ways until the candidate had achieved a level
of doctorateness (Trafford
& Leshem, 2009).
The concept of achieving
doctorateness brings us to
the next stage of curriculum development, that is, assessment.
In much of the
curriculum literature there is discussion of the concept of
the aligned
curriculum, that is, where the assessment strategies closely
align with the
espoused learning outcomes (Biggs, 2003). At the doctoral
level there are
various practices ranging from the inclusion of the results of
coursework in
the assessment through to examination of the written thesis
only, or the
inclusion of assessment of the candidate’s performance in an
oral examination.
The final stage in this
formalized model of curriculum
development is evaluation where the various stages, activities
and outcomes are
evaluated in an ongoing fashion.
Following
this formal and somewhat stylised discussion of curriculum we
now discuss the
concept of the curriculum in doctoral education in more
sophisticated and
complex ways, and then address the processes and outcomes of
doctoral
education. The analysis of research and practice suggests that
there is a
strong need for a research agenda that will help reconfigure
the notion of
curriculum in doctoral education.
2.
The curriculum in
doctoral education
As
noted above, it is relatively
unusual to speak of “curriculum” in relation to doctoral
education. Jones, in
his review of 40 years of research on doctoral education
(Jones, 2013), does
not use the term at all, though it is implicit in several of
the themes he
identifies, such as programme design, doctoral writing and
research, and
socialisation; this obliquity is echoed too in Calma and
Davies’ (2015) review
of the history of one key higher education journal. The fact
that the
curriculum in doctoral education is not explicitly discussed
does not make it
less significant. However it may hinder our recognition of how
the curriculum
can generate and reproduce inequalities, and of the need for
change and
adaptation to the new challenges of doctoral education.
Moreover, a focus on
the curriculum must acknowledge the particularities of
doctoral education, and in
particular the possible incompatibility between current
tendencies towards
regulation and structure, and the flexibility and plurality
inherent in
doctoral education (Enders, 2004; Pearson et al., 2010). This
is only possible
if we recognise the curriculum as the unacknowledged “elephant
in the room”.
In
theories of formal
education, the curriculum is often understood as a structured
selection of
propositional knowledge and/or skills which learners need to
acquire in order
to meet the aims and objectives of the learning programme
(e.g. Eraut, 2000;
Print, 1987). With aims and outcomes clearly defined and made
explicit, it is
then possible to “align” these with appropriate learning
activities and assessment
strategies (Biggs, 2003). However, as Colley, Hodkinson, and Malcolm (2003) argue, “formal”
learning
activities are only ever one strand of any learning situation
and cannot be
extricated from the social context in which they take place.
Although there may
be broad learning objectives for higher education programmes,
it is expected
that learners will develop a degree of self-direction, and
will inevitably
emerge from the process with differing understandings of the
academic content
and with varied mastery of research skills. Thus educational
researchers have
turned increasingly to a range of alternative approaches to
the curriculum to
analyse what is learned at university, and how it is learned
(e.g. Brennan et
al., 2009). Doctoral
education specifically
entails a further shift of emphasis away from the standardised
formal
curriculum (see Table 1), and towards a highly complex set of
structures,
practices and expectations from which doctoral students and
their supervisors
create new and unpredictable learning. This complex and
pluralised perspective,
seeks to address the diversity of training needs and career
preferences by adjusting
not only to labour concerns but also to students, supervisors
and
administrators. However,
social and labour
claims for specific needs may lead into the development of
standardised
programs. Thus, curricula in doctoral education may struggle
to find a balance between
these two perspectives that contribute to defining their
orientation.
Therefore,
a curricular perspective cannot ignore core changes and
challenges doctoral
education entails. Pearson et al.
(2010) point out that in the current context of doctoral
education, “opportunities
for researchers, or employees with enhanced research skills,
now arise inside
universities and in non-university settings where knowledge
and professional
industries develop their capacity to carry out work that draws
on specialist
knowledge and research skills (e.g. contract research,
university
administration, school teaching, nursing and business)” (p.
348). Discussing
the dilemma between standardisation and pluralism, described
in Table 1, the
same authors advise that “any attempt to resolve [it] must
draw on a fully
accurate and up to date picture of the contemporary doctoral
experience and
address the goals, motivation and expectations of the
increasingly diverse
doctoral population. Particularly important is recognition
that the connection
and integration of work and learning is an issue for research
education, as for
other forms of higher education” (Pearson et al., 2010, p. 349).
A
curricular perspective on doctoral education may then take
into account the new
ecology of doctoral education, considering that students’
experience is framed
by (and frames) what happens at the different levels of the
ecological system. In
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986) ecology
of human development, for example, curriculum can be seen as
an interaction
system constituted by different “nested” subsystems:
microsystem (in this
context, what happens within typical classes in doctoral
programs), mesosystem
(what happens within universities, research centres or
professional industries),
exosystem (educational policies regarding doctoral education),
macrosystem
(cultural models in a certain period, such as representations
of doctoral
education and the mandates of universities or the significance
of professional
PhDs) and chronosystem (changes that result from specific
non-normative events,
such as the Bologna process in Europe).
This
is surely a good
departure point that must be reinforced with two additional
features: on the one
hand, the representations, contents and meanings that mark the
interactions between
each ecological system, and on the other, the experience of
students in their
journey through the doctorate. Ball’s policy cycle (1994),
particularly as
reinterpreted by Lopes and Macedo (2011) is helpful in
addressing the first
feature. Ball’s studies (1989, 1994; Ball, Bowe, &
Gold.,
1992) focus on
micro-political processes and the need to articulate macro and
micro levels in
curricular studies. Lopes and Macedo (2011) insist on the
non-hierarchical
character of the policy cycle in the field of the curriculum,
emphasising the
circularity of its three contexts: the context of influence,
i.e., of
policy-producing; the context of policy text production, and
the context of
policy practices. This perspective assumes that the curriculum
is in itself the
struggle for meaning (Lopes, 2012) and reveals how the context
of policy
practices can drive, and is driven by, the other contexts.
Broadly
social-constructivist
and situated perspectives on learning can be helpful in
identifying significant
features of the curriculum of doctoral education that are
relevant to
understanding the journey of doctoral students (e.g. Brown, Collins,
& Duguid,
1989; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick,
1996; Lave, 1988; Rogoff,
1998). The influence of Vygotsky (1978) is apparent in a
number of alternative
theorisations of learning processes, and indeed Vygotsky’s
social-cultural
approach to learning offers the basis for rich understandings
of the contextual
and relational dimensions of the curricula. Where learning is
seen as situated,
knowledge is immersed in and generated by the activities,
relationships, tools,
contexts and culture that occur in daily activities. This
implies recognising
the collective, participative and social nature of cognition
(Rogoff, 1998),
and this emphasis on social engagement and communication has
significant
implications in a context where the PhD has increasingly
become an
interactional rather than a solitary endeavour. The notion of
communities of
practice is of particular interest here; the development of an
identity as a
researcher can be clearly understood as legitimate peripheral
participation
through engagement in research activities within a research
group or
disciplinary community. This attention to how “informal”
practices and messages
are produced and conveyed has been taken up in the literature
of learning in
the workplace, and theories of social learning developed to
explain workplace
practices have increasingly been applied to educational
settings as well (e.g.
Lave & Wenger, 1991; Billett, 2009). Doctoral students,
from this
perspective, are situated as both learners and emerging
practitioners in the
discipline, increasingly inhabiting the identity and
responsibilities of
professional disciplinary researchers in an academic workplace
(and the extent
of these responsibilities varies in different national systems
of doctoral
education) or highly qualified and innovative professionals in
a hybrid
academic and professional context. Indeed, an emphasis on inclusion
in research communities or networks and the creation of
collaborative knowledge-sharing
environments appears
to
be a significant trend in doctoral education (Johnson,
Lee, & Green,
2000; Malfroy, 2005; Pyhältö, Stubb, & Lonka,
2009). This view of doctoral education
emphasises the pluralised approach to curriculum and
specifically the impact
of the social context in which training take place
(Table 1).
The
“landscape” metaphor
proposed by Clandinin and Connelly (1995) can also be useful
in analysing
doctoral students’ experiences as they construct their
identities as
researchers. Within this metaphor, learning involves a double
transaction
(biographical and relational) that results from the
relationships between people,
places, and things, and this view of the “landscape” of
professional
development as being inherently relational (in itself made up
of relations),
provides a gateway for relating the study of identity to the
study of
curriculum (Lopes & Pereira, 2012). Recent work on
socio-material
understandings of learning (e.g. Fenwick, Edwards, &
Sawchuk, 2012)
suggests that the “landscape” metaphor can be extended to
include all of the
actors and practices present in a learning setting – social,
material,
technological, pedagogic, symbolic – and a close attention to
their multiple,
complex connections and interactions. The fact that the
profile of doctoral
students and doctoral programs has changed also implies that
issues of identity
development will also change (Baker & Lattuca, 2010).
The consensual current distinction within
curriculum theory, between “formal”, “informal”
and “hidden” curricula (Pacheco,
1996) seems to assume a special relevance here (see Table 1).
The formal
curriculum refers to qualifications frameworks, course
syllabi; the informal
curriculum relates to what is really done through teaching and
learning
processes, such as readings and discussion, interactions with
researchers in
the context of classes; and the hidden curriculum represents
the unintended
learning, often in regard to class and gender roles, social
expectations, etc.,
that emerges from structures, relationships and practices in
the educational
setting, revealing the pedagogy of the learning context,
rather than its
intended content (Apple, 1971). Doctoral education clearly
involves codified
objectives of degree programmes, as well as a complex
web of structures, practices
and expectations far beyond the more explicit/formal
dimension.
Solem, Hopwood,
and Schlemper (2011)
explore what kind of events made students feel an “academic
and belonging to a departmental
community” (p. 10) and conclude that mostly these are
“informal events [that] include
conversations [and] social events” (p. 12): some doctoral
students mentioned
joint coffee meetings or lunches as significant experiences.
However, these
events might be experienced very differently by different
students. Margolis
and Romero (1998) find “patterns of interaction with intended
and unintended
consequences that make it particularly difficult for students
of color, women,
and students from working-class background to survive and
thrive in graduate
school” (p. 2). Gender relations also appeared relevant in the
study by Solem et
al. (2011), with
women expressing
more extreme evaluations of support that interfered in their
perception of
progress in their own work; international students and
non-white minorities
also seem to report more troubles and feelings of isolation.
Margolis and
Romero consider Apple and King’s (1977) notion of the weak
(related to
professionalism) and strong (related to socialisation) hidden
curriculum,
concluding that the formal curriculum (e.g. affirmative action
policies) often
contradicts these hidden dimensions at the expense of
successful experiences
for minority students.
Implicit
in all of these alternative
approaches to understanding learning as social and situated,
is the fundamental
problematisation of any notion of a stable set of knowledge
and skills to be
learned and assessed. Guerin (2013) argues that “rhizomatic”
models of
knowledge structures as proposed by Deleuze and Guattari
(1980) may be a more
appropriate way to understand knowledge-content and research
cultures at
doctoral level: “In effect, this alternative model acts as a
licence to try out
new combinations of
ideas. Thus, a
rhizomatic research culture is characterised by heterogeneity,
multiplicity,
proliferation, flexibility, non-linearity, connection and
non-hierarchical
networks” (Guerin, 2013, p. 139, emphasis added). Alternative
conceptions of
knowledge as emergent in social practices (e.g. Hager, Lee,
& Reich, 2012),
socio-material assemblages (Fenwick & Nerland, 2014) and
hybrid or
interdisciplinary research fields (Clausen, Pohjola,
Sapprasert, &
Verspagen, 2012),
all offer further possible starting points for a more nuanced
analysis of the
complexities of the processes and outcomes in the doctoral
curriculum. However,
some departmental cultures seem to
emphasise the PhD as a solitary
endeavor which students should be able to cope individually
(Solem et al.,
2011). In the next two sections, we turn
our
attention first to a more detailed discussion of the processes
and experience
of the doctoral curriculum, and then to the assessment of its
outcomes.
3.
Doctoral education
processes – how the curriculum is
experienced
The
analysis of the lived curriculum
of doctoral education should firstly consider doctoral
students’ experiences
during their candidature. Recent studies suggest there is
quite a high
variation in how ECRs experience the doctoral study process,
but there are also
strong indications that good progress and satisfaction with
doctoral education
are more likely where candidates experience factors such as
good supervisory
relationships, belonging to an academic community, and/or
being able to
contribute new knowledge in science (Ives & Rowley, 2005;
Zhao, Golde,
& McCormick, 2007;
Overall, Deane, &
Peterson, 2011). It is clearly difficult to
identify what emerges from the formal or informal curriculum,
or to distinguish
formal from informal learning within student experiences.
However, some results
suggest that when doctoral students talk about their most
meaningful
experiences, they tend not to emphasise formal studies or
other activities that
might be seen as constituting the formal curriculum (Virtanen
& Pyhältö
2012, Vekkaila et al. 2013); Anderson & Anderson (2012)
also indicate that the
curriculum does not always work as intended. From the
perspective of doctoral
students, it seems, the curriculum appears undefined and
lacking in focus, but further
research is needed to explore specific conceptions about the
curriculum and its
manifestations in different contexts.
A
wide range of activities
influences students’ experiences during their doctoral
journey, these
activities shed light about the different manifestations of
curriculum (see
Table 1). The way in which curriculum is experienced goes
beyond institutional
policies; beliefs and expectations have a main role, which can
create tensions
between students’ expectations and supervisors and
administrators’ perspectives
about doctoral training.
A
recent study on postdoctoral
researchers (postdocs) who had already successfully completed
their doctoral
studies suggests that career planning should ideally have been
included in
their doctoral education from the beginning of the doctoral
study process. These
postdocs also stressed that formal study and other academic
activities should
have been designed with a view to supporting their future
careers. These findings
are in line with those of Scaffidi and Berman (2011) who argue
that for
postdocs to have the best chances of prospering in academia,
industry, or
elsewhere, they need to plan their future careers
strategically. Analysing the
experiences and conceptions of post-doctoral researchers
(Pitcher &
Åkerlind, 2009) is essential to promoting their future career
development after
the PhD; thus rethinking the curriculum of doctoral studies is
vital not only
from the perspective of doctoral students themselves, but also
from that of
higher education researchers. Åkerlind argues for “varied” and
“flexible”
provision to enable postdocs to make “informed career
decisions” (Åkerlind,
2009). Others have proposed a reconceptualisation of
postdoctoral research
pathways to produce a better “fit” between training and
professional interests
and skills (Berman, Juniper,
Pitman, & Thomson,
2008). Thus a review of the
curriculum of both doctoral and postdoctoral preparation is
acknowledged as an
essential task.
A
“hybrid curriculum” model to
address the connections among university, profession and
workplace, is proposed
by Lee, Brennan, and
Green (2009) as a way of adapting the
curriculum for diverse doctoral needs. This idea has also
engendered further
studies reviewing the purposes of doctoral education, and
taking into account
the changing needs of the “knowledge economy” in academic,
professional, social
and labour domains. This questioning of assumed and hitherto
tacit purposes has
also encouraged the development of alternatives to traditional
doctoral
programmes, such as practitioner or professional doctorates
for those who are
engaged in leading practice and introducing change in tandem
with their
academic research (Lester, 2004).
Utilising
research on networking learning,
and on students’ socialisation in disciplinary communities and
in other
professional fields (e.g. Vaessen, van den
Beemt, & de Laat,
2014; Boden, Borrego, &
Newswander, 2011) could also strengthen
the development of interdisciplinary curriculum structures,
enabling ECRs to
construct and assume their professional roles taking broader
labour market
needs into account. Studies of the academic transitions
experienced by junior
researchers could also deepen our understanding of the
academic and
professional practices needed to offer more appropriate
training and support to
ECRs, enabling them to make the transition from doctoral
education to other
careers (McAlpine & Emmioğlu,
2014).
Where
the focus is clearly on preparation
for an academic career, the quality of supervision emerges as
key to supporting
doctoral students’ developmental processes (Roulston,
Preissle, & Freeman,
2013). In this context the supervisory relationship is of
fundamental importance
to how students experience the “doctoral journey” (Pyhältö et
al., 2012; Zhao et
al., 2007; McAlpine et al.,
2013); students’ learning experiences and satisfaction are
closely related to
the nature of the relationship developed between students and
supervisors, so the
role of the supervisor is critical to constructive doctoral
preparation (Lee,
2008). Solem et al. (2011)
emphasise how “timely,
proactive, and supportive advising and mentoring from faculty,
peers, and program
committees” (p.
13) are essential elements
for preventing difficulties. Yet the practice of supervision
(and often of
pedagogy more generally) only becomes a developmental focus after students have
completed their
thesis, thus presenting a clear obstacle to their development
as future
academics. As McAlpine et
al. (2013) point
out, this means that doctoral
supervision is a long-term and collective process, and this
needs to be
acknowledged in the structuring of the curriculum.
Existing
research on doctoral students reveals
a high degree of
variation in the experience
of doctoral study processes (McAlpine
&
Mckinnon, 2013) and further work is needed in order to
understand how the
curriculum shapes and influences these experiences,
particularly with regard to
the study of the experiences that are promoted in formal,
informal and hidden
curriculum and how these experiences affect students’ training
as well as the
role of supervisors and administrators. This could include
longitudinal studies
to examine how doctoral programmes are currently developing
and how far this
development aligns with changes in industry and the employment
market. This
could then inform discussions of how far the doctoral
curriculum and the
training of doctoral students can or should be adapted to meet
the changing and
multiple purposes of the PhD. The academic and professional
socialisation and
disciplinary networking of doctoral students also merit more
extensive study; this
remains a relatively under-researched area (Anderson &
Anderson, 2012),
despite its key importance to students and to their future
careers.
4.
The outcomes of
doctoral education – assessment and
employability
The question of how the outcomes of doctoral
education are assessed cannot
be avoided in any discussion of the doctoral curriculum,
particularly in the
light of the ongoing diversification of programmes and career
paths. In this
section we consider two of the outcomes of doctoral education:
assessment and
employability.
In spite of commonalties in terms of formality
and structure, assessment varies
significantly by discipline, country, institution, and
supervisor. In addition,
the “core competences” of a PhD may serve both academic and
non-academic
careers; these multiple purposes have complex implications
which are not yet
fully understood, and which may not be susceptible to
standardised or
comprehensive solutions.
The
final examination is only one aspect of the complex assessment
processes
occurring at the doctoral level. For example, we have forms of
assessment at
entry to a doctorate, and ongoing assessment during the
candidature. Depending
on the country or the disciplinary context, this may take
formal shape through
the marking and grading of coursework, or structural
milestones such as confirmation
of candidature seminars, annual reports of progress, mid-term
and final seminars.
Informal assessment occurs throughout candidature as judgments
are made by the
supervisory team on the quality of writing and thinking
candidates display, and
peers reach verdicts on the quality of research papers
submitted to journals
and conferences.
These
various strategies vary by institution and country. For
example in some systems
an advisory committee additional to the supervisor/s will have
an overview of
the quality of the candidate’s work and progress, and meet to
assess key
milestones. Some institutions have developed rubrics to use
for assessing these
various milestones. Others require candidates to provide
reflective essays on
learning, or to develop a portfolio, or to produce a number of
peer-reviewed
publications prior to completion. All of these assessment
strategies support
the expectation of experienced examiners that the thesis they
are about to
examine is passable (Golding, Sharmini, & Lazarovitch, 2014;
Mullins
& Kiley, 2002).
Despite
the variety of formal and informal assessment strategies
employed during
candidature, the most common formal assessment at doctoral
level is the final
examination, known by a number of different names and
exhibiting a wide range
of types (Hartley, 2000; Morley, Leonard, & David (2002).
Variations in
Vivas: Quality and equality in British PhD assessments, 2002).
For example, in
parts of Europe and Scandinavia, following examination and
approval of the
written thesis, the candidate publicly defends her/his thesis
before an
audience of academics and others. This process is in stark
contrast to the UK
model where the written thesis is generally examined by one
internal and one or
two external examiners, and then a private viva
voce is held, in some cases in the presence of a neutral
chair who oversees
the process. While an oral examination in held in Canada this
is generally a
semi-public affair, often with four to five supporters joining
the candidate.
The US model is different again: the candidate has a
“committee” with whom they
interact on occasions throughout their candidature, and when
the supervisor
thinks the candidate is ready, the committee conducts a
private oral examination
where the candidate “defends” the thesis. A very different
model exists in
Australia and South Africa, where the written thesis is the
sole examinable
item (although universities offer the option of an oral if the
examiner requires
one). A high level of confidentiality is maintained; the
candidate does not
know who the examiners are, and the examiners are generally
unaware of each
other’s identity, and do not discuss the work among
themselves. Each university
has a process for bringing together the various reports into a
single
recommendation, as a journal editor might do with reviewers’
reports (Kiley,
2009).
Given
the diversity of approaches to assessment, in the complex
settings of various
approaches to curriculum in doctoral education (Table 1) one
particular
question arises: what is being examined? When the written work
is examined, one
could argue that it is the candidate’s demonstrated ability to
be a researcher
that is being assessed, judged by the quality of the research
and its
presentation. With the oral component, it is arguable that
other qualities are
being assessed, such as the candidate’s broader knowledge of
the discipline,
and their ability to deal with challenges to their work.
However, in view of
curriculum considerations and the substantial international
developments in
doctoral education outlined above, we suggest that there may
be other
assessable outcomes of the doctoral learning experience which
are not yet fully
developed, and are not currently the focus of formal
assessment. International
research in this area is in its early stages; we suggest that
it is time to
reconsider formal and informal types of assessment for future
academic
researchers, as well as for those in, or aiming for, other
kinds of
professional employment. Future research will need to take
into account the
specifics of such forms of assessment in terms of the demands
of different
disciplines, sub-disciplines, academic and professional
fields, and will also
need to recognise the significance of local settings and
histories. At the
simplest level we are asking: are we assessing the candidate
or their research?
And is this assessment formal, informal or a mixture of both?
Finally,
the question of how
the curriculum of doctoral education enhances employability is
of key interest,
and not only from the doctoral students’ point of view.
Academic communities –
both universities and disciplinary organisations – have
increasingly been
concerned to support career development for early career
researchers and
diversify their employment opportunities, recognising that
their training is
often predicated on the assumption that will pursue an
academic or
research-only career (Åkerlind, 2005). Yet there is still
little reliable evidence
regarding the employability and the career pathways of ECRs,
particularly in
relation to careers in industry and other non-academic
settings, and in the
increasingly international labour market. This situation calls
for a clearer
understanding of multiple doctoral pathways and a review of
curriculum
structures within doctoral education that might facilitate
diverse transitions.
The tacit assumption of many supervisors, also implicit in
many doctoral
programmes and in the popular press (Economist, 2010; ),
is that the PhD
is a training ground for the next generation of academics.
This encourages
graduates to aspire to, and apply for, academic research
positions (Manathunga,
Pitt, & Critchley,
2009), though only a minority will get a
position in academia. This situation constricts the scope of
academic training
and skill development by focusing on a narrow range of labour
market
possibilities, and promotes a perception that many doctoral
graduates have effectively
“failed”. This problem accentuates the relevance of exploring
the changing
relationships between university and social and professional
spheres (Lee et al.,
2009), and ensuring that ECRs are aware of and willing to
pursue options other
than the academic role. This in turn requires the development
of new academic
cultural practices (Boud & Tennant, 2006) based on a much
clearer
understanding of the ‘fit’ between the doctoral curriculum and
the doctoral labour
market.
5.
Developing a research
agenda
This
paper has explored some
emerging themes in doctoral education from a curricular
perspective. This focus
on the curriculum is significant not only because it might
help to uncover
existing tensions, but also because it allows us to face and
reinterpret current
challenges to doctoral education by undertaking intentional
and meaningful
change, especially in terms of the processes and outcomes of
doctoral education.
Whilst recognising that knowledge and practices in this field
are situated in
historical and cultural contexts, we suggest here a number of
possible themes
for a future research agenda:
1.
The diversity of training
programmes developed for researchers around the world calls
for a review. We
need to improve our understanding of the historical context of
current
curriculum models and their impact on the training and
experience of doctoral
students and ECRs.
2.
Despite the extensive
research already conducted on the changes in doctoral
education, in terms of
public policy, internationalisation, formats, etc. there is a
need for more
research on how these changes are being dealt with at the
level of the formal,
the informal and the hidden curriculum.
3.
In order to avoid the
unintended and perverse reproduction of inequalities, we need
to explore the
central role of departmental cultures and practices (involving
both weak and
strong elements of the hidden curriculum) in the integration
and progression of
doctoral students, and the diverse ways in which these are
perceived by students
from different backgrounds.
4.
Networking and professional
socialisation have become increasingly important strategies in
the development
of doctoral students as researchers. These elements need to be
explored as part
of the doctoral curriculum, and supported by research on the
roles of
communities of practice and networks in supporting the
construction of early
career researchers’ identity.
5.
In the light of the issues
addressed in this paper, there is clearly a need for more
research on the process
of “becoming a supervisor”, and a review of the training and
support available
to doctoral supervisors and examiners.
6.
Assessment is a core
curricular process in doctoral education, and yet there is
very little research
evidence on assessment practices (compared to, for example,
the extensive
literature on assessment in undergraduate education). Our
understanding of
assessment needs to incorporate critical analysis of formal
and informal practices
and the variety of purposes which they fulfil. The fluidity of
the “knowledge
economy” presents new challenges to traditional forms of
assessment, raising
the possibility of replacing or extending traditional
examinations with more
flexible assessment models more appropriate to the diversity
of ECRs’ academic
and professional futures.
7.
The current evidence on the
destinations of ECRs illustrates the need for further research
on the new
relationships developing between universities and the labour
market. From an
international perspective there is a lack of evidence on the
employability,
career aspirations and mobility of ECRs, particularly those
who do not follow
academic careers.
8.
The new demands of the
labour market suggest a need to address the competencies of
ECRs and a critical
appraisal of the career pathways enabled through doctoral and
postdoctoral
education.
This
paper has been shaped
very much by the interests and experiences of its diverse
group of authors, and
we recognise that consequently, any proposed research agenda
is likely to be
partial and incomplete. We welcome further discussion of the
themes raised here
and wider contributions to this important debate.
Keypoints
The PhD
has become a “global academic passport”, although doctoral
education practices
are increasingly diverse; we argue for the need of an explicit
discussion of
what constitutes the “doctoral curriculum”, including its
formal, informal and
hidden dimensions.
Review of the doctoral
curriculum should consider how
PhD students experience the
curriculum, including identity as researchers, supervision,
insertion in
research networks, and the role of departmental cultures.
Review of the doctoral
curriculum requires further
research on assessment practices and the preparation of
supervisors and
examiners, and a consideration how these can be improved.
Review of the doctoral
curriculum needs to take
account of the multiple purposes of the PhD and the divergent
professional
pathways of doctoral graduates, both inside and outside the
academy.
Acknowledgments
This work was
funded (in part) by National
Funds through the FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
(Portuguese
Foundation for Science and Technology) within the strategic
project of CIIE,
with the ref. “PEst-OE/CED/UI0167/2014”.