Search results

This chapter focuses on academic freedom in the experiences of Black/African American doctoral students and presents an examination of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students (https://www.aaup.org/report/joint-statement-rights-and-freedoms-students) based on research and practice on the marginalized doctoral student experience. Discussion addresses AAUP policy Statements: Section I (freedom of access to higher education), Section II (freedom of expression in the classroom), and Section III (freedom of inquiry and expression). The purpose of this work is to increase awareness of issues serving as barriers to student rights and freedoms related to self-expression, cultural bias, and student activism at the doctoral level. Strategies that disrupt, minimize, and/or eradicate barriers to actively maintain and pursue student rights and freedoms will be addressed to emphasize their importance to supporting and/or hindering academic success, doctoral degree completion, and creating/sustaining pathways of transition into the career pathways.

What contributes to US professional doctoral student success in the online space is the subject of this chapter. The online doctoral student occupies two underserved categories of higher education students: doctoral students and online students, both of which have historically low graduation rates (Bawa, 2016; Stone, 2017). A number of US online doctoral programs have significantly higher graduation rates than normal, demonstrating that it is possible to create highly successful online doctoral programs. In this chapter, we apply the R. E. Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework of human performance to understanding the factors contributing to doctoral student success in online programs. We look at three stakeholder groups, faculty, staff, and students, and review the factors and solutions that could allow each group to contribute to doctoral student success. This review of the literature is informed by examples drawn from two online professional doctoral programs for which the authors either designed and taught courses, and chaired dissertations, or were enrolled in as a student.

We examine and compare current practices in teaching preparation in U.S. accounting, finance, management, and economics doctoral programs.

We conduct an anonymous online survey of the pedagogical training practices experienced by Ph.D. students in accounting, finance, management, and economics programs in the United States.

Results indicate that accounting, finance, and management perform similarly with respect to providing doctoral students with first-hand teaching experience and requiring for-credit courses in teacher training. Accounting and management appear to utilize doctoral students as teaching assistants less than the other disciplines. A lower proportion of accounting doctoral students indicate that their program requires proof of English proficiency prior to teaching, and pedagogical mentoring is rare across disciplines. Accounting and management doctoral students feel more prepared to teach undergraduate courses compared to finance and economics students. However, all disciplines indicate a relative lack of perceived preparation to teach graduate courses.

This study provides empirical evidence of the current practices in pedagogical training of accounting, finance, management, and economics doctoral students.

The results highlight several areas where accounting could possibly improve with regard to pedagogical training in doctoral programs. In particular we suggest (1) changes in the teaching evaluation process, (2) development of teaching mentorships, (3) implementing a teaching portfolio requirement, and (4) incorporation of additional methods of assisting non-native English speakers for teaching duties.

The study fills a gap in the literature regarding the pedagogical training in accounting doctoral programs.

Accounting doctoral programs have been ranked in the past based on publishing productivity and graduate placement. This chapter provides descriptions of accounting doctoral programs on a wider range of characteristics. These results may be particularly useful to doctoral applicants as well as to doctoral program directors, accreditation bodies, and search committees looking to differentiate or benchmark programs. They also provide insight into the current shortage of accounting doctoral graduates and future areas of research.

Doctoral programs can be differentiated on more variables than just research productivity and initial placement. Doctoral programs vary widely with respect to the following characteristics: the rate at which doctorates are conferred on women and minorities, the placement of graduates according to Carnegie classification, AACSB accreditation, the highest degree awarded by employing institution (bachelors, masters, doctorate), the extent to which graduates leave the USA, work in industry, are appointed to administrative positions, and hold endowed positions.

In this paper, we take up an autoethnographic review of literature on doctoral programs in order to engage notions of doctoral subjects. While the paper basically proceeds by taking up and entwining these methods, it is neither/both an autoethnography nor/and a literature review. Rather, this work – like many spaces of a doctoral seminar – emerges as an uncontainable, unpredictable monster. We have also placed a kind of “I” at the center of this project, and yet use a posthuman reading of what this “I” might be. We search for a preconfigured “I” in the literature and create an “I/we” of doctoral experiences that never quite exists and yet moves and haunts us. We take up a tentative (post-)monstrous position that recognizes our cruel attachment to the “good” doctoral student, a subject that remains the inevitable (im)possibility of graduate school. Reviewing literature as an ethnographic practice and looking at ethnography as textual helps us smash these methods together. Yet, at any moment, we defy our methods – ignoring findings in the literature and possibly making up autoethnographic stories that never happened to us. Rather than sloppy academic work, this move intends to focus on thinkable and intelligible experiences as those belonging to doctoral students/studies/school instead of focusing on “authentic” experiences of well defined “researchers.” We hope our project provides space to question the very categories and credentials built into doctoral studies by decentering the “doctoral student” subject.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the role of the doctorate as an investment in education, and to consider whose education is being invested in, how and why. We examine the role of postgraduate research within the doctorate and how this may contribute to a self-improving profession, self-improving educational institutions and self-improving education systems.

The methodology is the representation of different chapters from authors that explore the key themes that we introduce in this chapter.

We present the three main findings from a British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Doctoral Research Interest Group seminar series funded by the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS). First is the progression of a systemic basis for active educational research, engaged with the mobilization of learning-based and pedagogic knowledge leadership within doctoral scholarship, learning and pedagogy. Second is the continued examination of the internationalization of purpose, structure and function in doctoral study through evidence informed leadership. Third is the provision of opportunities to explore ways in which doctoral study may facilitate educational leaders to recognize ‘minoritised’ and marginalized communities, and disrupt dominant discourses that work within patterns of ecologies that ‘pathologise’ diversity and difference.

Here, a clearly stated focus emerged during the seminar series, emphasizing how leaders engaging with doctoral learning have the opportunity to articulate generative transformative theories of human learning for a civic curriculum, and to apply this new knowledge to work for change for students’ full economic, cultural and political participation in the society.

This chapter proposes authentic leadership as a generic competence and an integral part of doctoral education regardless of field of study. The authors explore its potential to enhance the development of doctoral candidates and academics and search for answers to the questions: Can and should authentic leadership be developed as a generic competence in doctoral education? How can it be designed and implemented in a doctoral training module? What would its learning outcomes be? The authors address these questions in the context of doctoral education. They assert that authentic leadership training should be mandatory for all doctoral candidates, and that supervisors should be actively engaged in the development of this underappreciated transferrable skill.