Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine how doctoral students in the biological sciences understand their research skill development and explore potential racial/ethnic and gender inequalities in the scientific learning process.

Based on interviews with 87 doctoral students in the biological sciences, this study explores how doctoral students describe development of their research skills. More specifically, a constructivist grounded theory approach is employed to understand how doctoral students make meaning of their research skill development process and how that may vary by gender and race/ethnicity.

The findings reveal two emergent groups, “technicians” who focus on discrete tasks and data collection, and “interpreters” who combine technical expertise with attention to the larger scientific field. Although both groups are developing important skills, “interpreters” have a broader range of skills that support successful scholarly careers in science. Notably, white men are overrepresented among the “interpreters,” whereas white women and students from minoritized racial/ethnic groups are concentrated among the “technicians.”

While prior literature provides valuable insights into the inequalities across various aspects of doctoral socialization, scholars have rarely attended to examining inequalities in research skill development. This study provides new insights into the process of scientific learning in graduate school. Findings reveal that research skill development is not a uniform experience, and that doctoral education fosters different kinds of learning that vary by gender and race/ethnicity.

This paper aims to critically evaluate the evolution of Assurance of Learning (AoL) in business education and identify gaps and responsibilities in higher institution landscapes moving into the future. This comes amidst increasing structural reforms, an increasingly digitalised world, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and wider scrutiny of graduate competencies for job readiness.

A systematic literature review comprising 27 journal articles published between 2018 and 2022 is the methodology used in this research. This approach is justified as it provides a recent synopsis of current trends on AoL and encompasses the changes over the course of the COVID-19-induced higher education landscapes.

The systematic literature review revealed a strong flavour for AoL measurement through the students' perspectives, with little emerging from faculty insights. Only six out of the 27 articles were framed in a non-English speaking background, revealing that most studies were still concentrated in a US or English environment. Also, while papers on AoL have increased in numbers from 2018 to 2022, there remains scant literature on AoL measurements related to the COVID-19 pandemic and recent digital technologies, and how these would have changed given the rapid shift to online or hybrid environments.

A comprehensive review of AoL literature from 2018 to 2022 is undertaken through Leximancer, which reveals conceptual and relational ties between core themes and concepts of interest. The findings inform business school leaders of the current state of AoL processes, by combining the views of students, faculty and managers.

This study aimed to find possible answers to whether U.S. universities are merely looking good or doing good regarding their third mission using elements of the triple bottom line (people, planet, prosperity) and the 2030 Agenda.

Qualitative exploratory empirical study based on an in-depth analysis of publicly available documents (i.e. mission statements and strategic planning) and information from the Impact Rankings 2020 edition (webpages). The study uses a multilevel analysis to capture the parameters “looking good” and “doing good.” The sample consists of 15 U.S. universities.

The findings demonstrate that universities are looking good in terms of their effort to support their third mission. Data show that all universities covered themes related to people and prosperity in their mission statements and strategic planning. However, when the authors dived into the managerial metrics, KPIs, benchmarks and other evidence to characterize them as doing good, the authors encountered some challenges in identifying evidence. The data suggest that universities most likely participated in the Impact Ranking act as “cherry pickers” and might participate in unproblematic goals for their organization.

The 3Ps and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals used in this study to examine the university public mission never used in other studies. The goal in this study was not to evaluate those universities in terms of looking good and doing good but rather to contribute to the gap in the literature and provide suggestions to university C-suite.