Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present an overview and analysis of a professional doctorate that was designed specifically for the training of psychologists in the fields of counselling psychology and psychotherapy, namely, the Doctorate in Counselling Psychology and Psychotherapy by Professional Studies (DCPsych).

This programme has needed to combine the demands of different professional bodies for the development of a range of clinical competencies with the doctoral level demands of the university and of the UK Quality Assurance Agency in terms of adherence to a required set of doctoral level descriptors.

The paper presents a critical review of a number of key areas that have needed to be addressed in both the design and delivery of this programme. It addresses in some detail the interface between clinical training and research activities, demonstrating how these can intertwine and mutually complement each other. Specific issues that are addressed in the paper include the articulation of relevant doctoral level descriptors, the teasing out of key areas that define doctoral level work and the complexities of putting some of these into practice within the DCPsych programme.

In particular, the paper reflects on the issue of critical capability at doctoral level, the challenge of making a significant contribution to the practice field and the implications for candidates of journeying towards a position of authority as they develop their doctoral work. The paper concludes with the suggestion that what has been developed is an extremely interesting and innovative programme that is not for the faint hearted.

This discussion paper supports the new development of Apprenticeships at Level 8 of the UK’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (QAA, 2014). This exciting development, one that employers and universities had been waiting for paves the way for, apprenticeships, sold as the ladder of opportunity, to go all the way to the top.

Here, we explore in brief the emergence of the new apprenticeship landscape and the importance of the addition of this new highest of levels.

Importantly, however, we make the case that such progress needs to be met with an equally progressive approach to the design of the new doctoral pathway.

We sketch out a possible shell for the assessment of a Doctoral Apprenticeship, one that allows for flexible occupationally relevant inputs to create an applicable role-based and academically rigourous whole.

The importance of such a design is discussed within the context of the potential for impact in three priority areas: social justice, broadening the talent pool and ensuring the relevance and sustainability of the doctoral award.

The purpose of this paper is to outline some of the issues related to enabling the accreditation of prior experiential learning (APEL) in doctoral level awards, and illustrate the effects for candidates, others involved in the process and higher education (HE).

The paper is a mainly qualitative evaluation study of those involved with 12 graduates from a professional doctorate that uses an in‐depth reflective and critical analysis of prior high level work based learning as its main product for assessment. In‐depth semi‐structured telephone interviews, focus group and questionnaires were used to gather data from candidates, their advisers and consultants, internal and external examiners, and chairs of their presentation.

Findings included the development of understanding about work‐based epistemologies by all the participants and changes in the candidates' understanding of their professional identity. The recognition of scholarliness and the evaluation and accreditation of professional knowledge was a key issue for external examiners.

As a small‐scale evaluation case study the results are indicative and presented alongside experience of facilitating and assessing prior learning in this UK‐based professional doctorate, in order to stimulate further discussion.

APEL is a valuable and valued, student‐centred learning and teaching method for experienced professionals that could provide a useful entrée to other pedagogies that develop a personal understanding of professional knowledge production and ability to reflect on practice.

The paper provides some evidence for claims in the current literature that there is an important place for work‐based knowledge in contemporary HE. The pedagogic processes described in this paper appear to work effectively with doctoral level candidates.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of work-based research projects at postgraduate level. The focus of this paper is to measure the impact of masters- and doctoral-level work-based projects which was the specific contribution of one group of researchers to the Nixon et al.’s (2008) study.

This paper is based on data generated as part of a wider study that examines the impact of work-based learning projects across undergraduate through to doctoral level from the perspective of employers and from the employees perspective. The research study is based on a sample of alumni who had graduated from work-based masters and professional doctorate programmes and their corresponding employers in a UK higher education institution.

At masters and doctorate level the work-based project can often make an impact on the work context and also have a developmental effect on the employee who becomes a practitioner-researcher to undertake the project.

This paper finds that work-based projects are often an investment that companies make that have the propensity to yield tangible business success as well as providing an incentive for key staff to remain in the company and achieve university recognition.

Many doctoral students apply theoretical frameworks to writing assignments as part of their academic coursework and, later, in the practice of analyzing and reporting research. However, students often struggle to effectively apply theoretical frameworks to their writing processes. Thus, as one way of contributing to the writing pedagogies of doctoral-level instructors, the purpose of this study is to explore doctoral students’ learning experiences with analyzing and reporting organizational data using theoretical frameworks.

This study examines the perspectives of 29 doctoral students through analytical papers and reflections, letters and interviews.

Five themes within the context of current literature on writing were identified. These included students experiencing discomfort, even fear, about writing; students needing to write and receive honest feedback to learn how to write; the need for an instructional process that moves from conceptual to detailed instructions; understanding that writing has conceptual and skills implications that cannot be achieved in a single class; and the analytical writing process contributes to an understanding of the complexity of holding a doctoral degree.

The findings demonstrate the importance of helping doctoral students gain confidence and improve writing with theoretical frameworks, which can be accomplished with structured formats, through repetition and from instructor feedback.

This study offers unique insights into the challenges that doctoral students face when writing through theoretical frameworks and how instructors can interact with and potentially improve students’ writing skills and abilities.

The paper aims to explore the approaches that may be used by library and information science (LIS) higher doctoral candidates when preparing their submissions, especially in terms of highlighting the quality of their publications and the impact they have made.

The methods discussed are those that were considered – and often actually used – by the author when assembling his own submission. Frequent references are made in the paper to pertinent literature on research and to British universities’ regulations on higher doctorates.

The author warns against the tendency of applicants to concentrate too heavily on citation data. Although such statistics are undoubtedly important, a more convincing case for being awarded a higher doctorate may be made by drawing on a variety of sources of evidence, by no means all of which will be quantitative.

The paper is based on the experiences of one individual, i.e. the author, and consequently the perspective is narrower than would have been the case had it been written by a team of academics, all of whom had prepared their own higher doctoral applications, with each bringing their own unique experience to bear.

The article is wholly practical in its focus; it covers a range of issues and offers realistic guidelines that should be considered by applicants.

Published advice for the higher doctoral candidate is currently extremely limited. It would appear that no significant books or journal articles offer any support to scholars seeking the qualification. This paper has been written to help plug that gap.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) programmes currently offered by UK universities are appropriate to the needs of all stakeholders, including those of the experienced business and management professionals who enrol on them.

The paper proceeds to its conclusions by scrutinising DBA programme descriptors on UK university websites, by critically reviewing the content of recent academic papers on doctorates in the fields of business and management, and by considering current provision in the light of ongoing debates about the nature of “doctorateness” taking place in the field of doctoral education as a whole.

On the basis of a detailed review of relevant scholarly literature and of UK university website material, the paper concludes by suggesting, among other things, three possible futures for the DBA: one in which essentially the status quo prevails; a second in which all doctorates carry the award title PhD (though with two variants); and a third in which, in response to views expressed elsewhere in Europe, the current “professional doctorate” in business administration is no longer referred to as a “doctorate” but takes on a new title.

This paper is an original contribution to the debate about the value and purpose of professional doctorates (and, in particular of the DBA) to the professional development of experienced managers and to their skills in research and workplace problem solving and decision making.

In the past 20 years, doctoral programmes have become the focus of policy initiatives. This has led to considerable changes in their structures and consequently student experience. In this essay, the author explores some of the changes by situating an examination of doctoral education-past, present, future-within the broader context of academic life, and the nature and role of research in developed economies. This analysis provides the context in which to draw out some implications for the future study of doctoral education.

The essay draws on a synthesis of the research on doctoral education, early career researcher trajectories, research structures and academic work environment.

The analysis suggests the following: doctoral education reform is being driven largely by policy concerns, rather than by evidence or disciplinary intention; and academic work environment is becoming less and less attractive due to increasing demands for productivity and accountability.

The author concludes with a call to action: unless we, as academics, take action on several fronts, we may find that the PhD becomes purely a policy instrument, and that in the long-term, life of an academic will no longer be attractive to PhD graduates.

This paper aims to critically examine the quality of professional doctorates (PDs) from the perspective of programme supervisors in terms of how quality assurance provisions have to meet their expectations.

The study employed an interpretative approach, using semi-structured interviews and online semi-structured questionnaire to generate data from 25 programme supervisors across universities in the UK. Data analysis and interpretation were carried out using the interactive data analysis approach (Miles and Huberman, 1994), the “bottom–up” approach to data analysis (Creswell, 2012) and the interpretative strategy recommended by Mason (2002). Four themes emerged from the data that encapsulated programme advisors’ perspectives: characteristics of supervisors; opportunities in institutional quality assurance provision; challenges in quality assurance process for PDs; and supervisors’ views on how quality assurance in PD can be enhanced.

Quality assurance provisions have not adequately provided for the unique characteristics of PDs owing to a number of issues including lack of clarity on the philosophy and focus of PDs and conflicting perspectives among PD supervisors relating to what should ideally constitute a quality assurance process for PDs. This paper argues that to develop a relevant and robust quality assurance provision for PDs, it would be essential to ensure that the PD fundamental philosophy and focus are coherently explained. In addition, it is crucial to ensure that quality assurance provisions cover not only the academic rigor of higher level learning but also the value and potential impact of outcomes on practice and the professions. The paper also highlights a list of useful suggestions from supervisors on how to enhance quality assurance.

The research identifies a number of issues confronting quality assurance in PDs and the need for academics and policymakers to work together to deal with these to achieve the full value in PDs. As the research was based on a sample of 25 supervisors in a conference, it would be difficult and unsustainable to generalise. Hence, further research using large sample sizes of supervisors and other stakeholders based on whole programmes would be useful to achieve a sustained understanding of how quality assurance provisions of PDs have to meet expectations of the professions and professional contexts.

To get the practical value and benefits of PDs, all stakeholders (academics, policymakers and professionals) would need to work together to ensure that appropriate quality assurance processes are developed to reflect the unique nature of the programmes.

The paper provides a critical perspective to the current debate on quality assuring PDs from the perspective of PD supervisors who have generally been left out. It highlights issues related to quality assuring PDs, the misalignment between quality assurance provisions and the philosophy and expectations of PDs, and suggests ways through which these can be appropriately addressed to enhance quality assurance in PDs. The main contribution from this research is that it brings to the fore what supervisors, who are a part of the major players in the PD process, think about the current state of quality assurance and what can be done to make it more effective.

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.