Search results

This paper asks whether doctoral assessment has escaped the regulation of quality assurance procedures. Raising questions about the affective and micropolitical dimensions of an oral examination conducted in private, it explores how current concerns about quality assurance, standards, benchmarks and performance indicators in higher education apply to the assessment of doctoral/research degrees in Britain, and in particular to the viva voce examination. Successful PhD completion is a key performance indicator for universities and an important basis for the accreditation of their staff. Despite the rise of new managerialism, a general preoccupation with calculable standards and outcomes and an emphasis on student entitlements, transparency of decision making and information for “consumers”, there still seems to be considerable variation, and some mystification, in how doctoral assessment is conducted and experienced. The massification of doctoral studies and the doubling in number of institutions awarding their own doctorates, post‐1992, are both likely to increase product variety still further.

Research and informed debate reveals that institutional practices in relation to research degree examining vary considerably across the sector. Within a context of accountability and quality assurance/total quality management, the range and specificity of criteria that are used to judge doctoral work is of particular relevance. First, a review of the literature indicates that, although interest in and concern about the process is burgeoning, there is little empirical research published from which practitioners can draw guidance. The second part of the paper reviews that available research, drawing conclusions about issues that seem to pertain at a general level across disciplines and institutions. Lest the variation is an artefact of discipline difference, the third part of the paper focuses on a within discipline study. Criteria expected/predicted by supervisors are compared and contrasted with those anticipated and experienced by candidates and with those implemented and considered important by examiners. The results are disturbing.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the current interest in accountability for educational results within the context of US graduate education.

The paper takes the form of a survey of significant aspects of assessment in graduate education: historical contexts, current challenges, and an envisioned future.

A greater concern for and active inclusion of students' perspectives distinguishes discussions of educational results in graduate education from discussions of results in undergraduate education.

The paper presents a clear distinction between graduate and undergraduate contexts for discussions of accountability and educational results

This study aims to focus on survey reports of doctoral students’ experiences in the USA, providing a look at factors influencing “in the moment” decisions students make about persistence. Specifically, the authors investigate the reasons doctoral students consider leaving their programs, and how these reasons may differ for international and domestic students. The authors also examine international–domestic patterns by sex and by program of study.

As part of a campus-wide doctoral program assessment, doctoral students and recent graduates at a large, public, Research I institution in the Midwest region of the USA are asked to complete a program satisfaction survey. Content analysis of open-ended survey responses is the basis of the analysis. Next, a code by committee approach is used whereby two members of the research team coded all open-ended responses and discussed discrepancies to reach consensus on all codes assigned, and to reduce individual biases. Each open-ended response is assigned at least one of 16 codes, with more than one code used as necessary.

The results suggest that, although both academic and social factors are important influences of doctoral departure in general, academic concerns – specifically, alignment with goals, career preparation and program structure – may be particularly important for international students, whereas social aspects – faculty relationships and program climate – may be more important for domestic US students.

Researchers should consider conducting larger, multi-institutional studies in the USA, which would reflect a diversity of perspectives and experiences within the American context. Parallel studies of doctoral programs in other countries may be useful in identifying whether similar factors are found for international and domestic students attending those programs. Follow-up interviews could be used to further delve into and understand the emergent patterns from the surveys. The findings of such future studies have the power to inform programs and policies designed to increase the retention of both domestic and international doctoral students.

Given that faculty/advising is one of the most important factors cited by both domestic and international students, our findings suggest that US faculty members may need to give more attention to nurturing supportive relationships with their advisees. Furthermore, American university administrators might consider changing tenure requirements and reward systems for professors to place more emphasis on cultivating positive relationships with advisees, publishing, presenting and writing grants with advisees, and providing high-quality mentoring for doctoral students. Doctoral-granting institutions should consider implementing regular program reviews that include surveys from doctoral students to help programs identify and meet their students’ needs.

Likewise, while other research on international students’ doctoral experiences has been conducted, such as the relationship with their faculty advisor (Kim, 2007; Rice et al., 2009), single studies that focus on factors affecting the attrition of domestic versus that of international students’ remain limited. The purpose of this study is to address the following research questions: What factors contribute to doctoral students’ considerations of departure in the USA? How might these factors differ between domestic and international students? We seek to expand understandings of doctoral attrition by using larger-scale qualitative data to address limitations of existing studies that focus on the experiences of only a few students.

Although doctoral education has experienced substantial development in recent decades, it remains an elite, hence fragile, dimension of university policy and practice. This study aims to articulate perspectives to guide the next phase of strengthening and growth.

Working from theoretical and empirical research conducted in China, including scholarship on workforce ecosystems, education design and the student experience, this study contributes a framework with qualitative insights which clarify the goals and experiences of doctoral education in ways that will render it more relevant, effective and contributing.

The paper identifies areas for doctoral reform to ensure career readiness, including three distinctive outcomes and four indispensable experiences.

This study advances a doctoral design framework which can render transparent the substance of programs and prompt program coordinators to develop and ensure career relevance.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical framework for conceptualizing critical and creative thinking within doctoral study and to illuminate the connecting and diverging points between the two phenomena in a way that clarifies their developmental relationships.

The conceptual framework is founded in a synthesized understanding of both new and established theories on critical and creative thinking, and worked out through a reconstruction and expanded re‐conceptualization of the Four C Model of Creativity.

The results show that responsible scholars are moved by both critical and creative thinking, which is conceptualized as critical creativity. The authors introduce the ECC‐model which illustrates how different Expressions of Critical Creativity (CC) is manifested in scholarship: Experiential CC (in cognition), Experimental CC (in action), Enunciated CC (in speech), and Eulogized CC (in recognition). Whereas Experiential, Experimental and Enunciated CC constitute important fields of developmental practice in doctoral education, Eulogized CC is a possible outcome of the completed doctorate. It appears that Enunciated CC especially seems to be a field of urgent need for further development.

The paper offers a conceptual framework for new ways of understanding critical creativity in doctoral education by outlining how critical creativity is manifested in an educational context. Thereby the authors provide a valuable tool for supporting doctoral students in becoming professional scholars through a pedagogy that is reflective, integrative and deliberate.

The Lesley University PhD program in Educational Studies offers a new specialization in adult learning and development. This hybrid, interdisciplinary degree is geared toward mid-career professionals in higher education, community services, non-formal adult learning, and a number of other fields. Since 2008, the program has graduated 36 students whose dissertations have a strong focus on practitioner research. This case study covers the planning process of an interdisciplinary faculty team responding to the need for educators to teach and research adult learners. The guiding philosophy of adult learning and the delivery method of this competency-based curriculum are explained. Students present a research interest upon application and begin to develop a dissertation question in their first year. They attend a weeklong campus residency every semester where they work on competencies through workshops and lectures. This is followed by online course completion in dialogue with faculty mentors and peers. Students finish 45 credits before beginning the dissertation. The importance of a cohort learning community, advising as pedagogy, online support, library resources, qualifying examination, pilot study, and dissertation preparation are discussed. Data gathered from a current self-study highlight both the strengths and the challenges posed by this unique program.

The purpose of this paper is to define the concept of guanxi deviant behaviour (GDB) initially on the basis of a theoretical study of guanxi, guanxi behaviour and workplace deviant behaviour and to analyse the influence of GDB and the relationship between GDB and counterproductive work behaviour.

This study collects interview data from 30 enterprise executives, summarises relevant literature from four major databases (two in English and two in Chinese) and applies a grounded theory methodology to refine and further define the core category of GDB, and the main category is interpreted and validated using triangulation.

The three dimensions of GDB are guanxi bribery behaviour, irregular connected transaction behaviour and guanxi allied behaviour. There are links amongst the three dimensions, no dimension has an independent existence and that is not the end of the GDB issue. Generally, the occurrence of a kind of GDB can be construed to be a preparation for the implementation of another kind, and the latter is the real purpose of the perpetrators.

This paper is expected to attract the attention of managers and improve the ability of recognising, preventing and punishing GDB.

This study not only enriches organisational behaviour theory but also enhances the awareness of, and insights into, the negative effects of guanxi.