Search results

This paper aims to investigate existing practices of transversal skills training in doctoral education and provide recommendations for improvement for universities, industry and doctoral students in Europe. The results offer a detailed picture that has implications for the design of doctoral education programs that aim to support transferable skills development and graduate employability.

A qualitative research method was used for this study; thus, data gained from existing literature were the most significant aspect of this study, serving as the key approach to answering the research questions. A literature review approach, which involved synthesizing and analyzing existing literature, was adopted in this study. Essential themes were identified and collected from literature through an inductive coding technique to find answers to questions in this study.

The research highlights the importance of coordinated efforts to improve transversal skills training in doctoral education programs. Universities must adapt their curriculum to meet industry skill requirements and provide enabling support for faculty innovative teaching. Private enterprises must continue to provide training for doctoral graduates employed in the industry because not all skills can be taught and developed in the university. Doctoral students themselves must be intentional about creating industry networks for acquiring transferable skills needed in nonacademic jobs.

In response to industry demands, a university should not be seen as a place where doctoral students formulate a theory about the net ideology of a discipline but as a place for socializing, interacting, arguing critically and developing transferable skills for various careers. The advocacy for transversal skill training in doctoral education positively impacts society, producing doctoral researchers with an innovative mindset. Universities must continue improving existing skill-based training and work-integrated learning practices while seeking new collaboration with various industry sectors.

This study provides relevant ideas for faculty, industry and doctoral students on enhancing the employability of doctoral graduates through the development of transversal skills.

While postdoctoral research (postdoc) training is a common step toward academic careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, the role of postdoc training in social sciences is less clear. An increasing number of social science PhDs are pursuing postdocs. This paper aims to identify factors associated with participation in postdoc training and examines the relationship between postdoc training and subsequent career outcomes, including attainment of tenure-track faculty positions and early career salaries.

Using data from the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates and Survey of Doctorate Recipients, this study applies propensity score matching, regression and decomposition analyses to identify the role of postdoc training on the employment outcomes of PhDs in the social science and STEM fields.

Results from the regression analyses indicate that participation in postdoc training is associated with greater PhD research experience, higher departmental research ranking and departmental job placement norms. When the postdocs and non-postdocs groups are balanced on observable characteristics, postdoc training is associated with a higher likelihood of attaining tenure-track faculty positions 7 to 9 years after PhD completion. The salaries of social science tenure-track faculty with postdoc experience eventually surpass the salaries of non-postdoc PhDs, primarily via placement at institutions that offer relatively higher salaries. This pattern, however, does not apply to STEM PhDs.

This study leverages comprehensive, nationally representative data to investigate the role of postdoc training in the career outcomes of social sciences PhDs, in comparison to STEM PhDs. Research findings suggest that for social sciences PhDs interested in academic careers, postdoc training can contribute to the attainment of tenure-track faculty positions and toward earning relatively higher salaries over time. Research findings provide prospective and current PhDs with information helpful in career planning and decision-making. Academic institutions, administrators, faculty and stakeholders can apply these research findings toward developing programs and interventions to provide doctoral students with career guidance and greater career transparency.

While known by many names, qualifying exams function as gatekeepers to graduate student advancement to PhD candidacy, yet there has been little formal study on best qualifying exam practices particularly in biomedical and related STEM PhD programs. The purpose of this study is to examine the current state of qualifying exams through an examination of the literature and exploration of university-wide policies.

The authors conducted a literature review of studies on qualifying exams and completed an external evaluation of peer institutions’ and internal institutional qualifying exam requirements to inform our discussion of qualifying exams practices in PhD training at a research-intensive US institutions.

This study identified the need for more research on qualifying exams to establish evidence-based best practices. The authors found a wide variety of qualifying exam formats, with little evidence in support for specific formats. The authors also found little evidence that student expectations are made clear. The lack of evidence-based best practices coupled with insufficient clarity for students has a real potential to disadvantage PhD students, particularly first generation, underrepresented minority, international and/or other trainees who are not privileged or socialized to navigate training environments with vague landmarks such as the qualifying exams.

There are very few studies that evaluate qualifying exams in US doctoral education, particularly in STEM fields, and to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no analysis of campus-wide policies on qualifying exams reported. The lack of evidence for best practices and the need for to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of qualifying exams are discussed.

With the rapid growth of leadership research and the increasing complexity of research methods, preparing doctoral students to do research in leadership studies is becoming more challenging. This article outlines an exploratory research study and presents results of what is currently being done by university PhD leadership programs to prepare students to do research in the complex area of leadership. The paper also discusses some areas of encouragement as well as some areas of concern in regard to the current state of research methodology preparation for future leadership researchers and scholars.

The purpose of this study is to examine scholarly impact which is critical to universities in their aspiration to create, disseminate and apply knowledge. However, scholarly impact is an elusive concept. First, the authors present a conceptual model to clarify different dimensions of scholarly impact (i.e. theory and research, education, organizations and society) and four key stakeholders (i.e. other researchers, students, practitioners and policy makers). Second, the authors provide actionable recommendations for university administrators, researchers and educators on how to enhance impact. The scholarly impact model is flexible, expandable, scalable and adaptable to universities in different regions of the world and with different strategic priorities.

The authors conducted a general review of the literature and offered a multidimensional and multistakeholder model of scholarly impact to guide future actions aimed at enhancing scholarly impact.

The authors describe the multidimensional and multistakeholder nature of the critical and yet elusive concept of scholarly impact. The authors delineate multiple dimensions of impact, different stakeholders involved and recommendations for enhancing scholarly impact in the future.

The authors offer practical and actionable recommendations on how to enhance scholarly impact. For university administrators, the authors recommend aligning scholarly impact goals with actions and resource-allocation decisions; ensuring that performance management and reward systems are consistent with impact goals; being strategic in selecting a journal list; developing a strong doctoral program; and promoting practical knowledge and applications. For researchers and educators, the authors recommend developing a personal scholarly impact plan; becoming an academic decathlete; finding ways to affect multiple impact dimensions simultaneously; and leveraging social media to broaden impact on external stakeholders. Implementing these recommendations will benefit other researchers, students, practitioners (e.g. managers, consultants) and policy makers.

The authors provide an innovative way of conceptualizing scholarly impact. In turn, the conceptual analysis results in actionable recommendations for university administrators, researchers and educators to enhance impact.

Students pursuing doctoral degrees are expected to become leaders in their disciplines. Given that, leadership development should be an important part of any curriculum that prepares doctoral students for professional careers after graduation. However, there are questions regarding the effectiveness and prevalence of formal leadership development structures in graduate school. With this gap in formal professional preparation, faculty mentors are expected to provide the necessary socialization, support, and guidance for doctoral students to develop as leaders in their disciplines. This mixed-methods study of graduate students was conducted using online questionnaires and personal interviews to determine the impact of faculty mentoring behaviors on the development of doctoral student leadership self-efficacy. Findings suggest that students in doctoral programs experience significant negative emotional arousal in the form of uncertainty, anxiety, and self-doubt. Faculty mentors that are accessible, trustworthy, and provide constructive feedback can mitigate these negative feelings and encourage the development of leadership self-efficacy through verbal support and mastery experiences. In addition, the data suggests that active student cohorts and effective departmental leadership are also important to the development of doctoral student leadership self-efficacy.

Strengths-based professional development has been associated with positive outcomes in academia and in the organizational workplace. Students pursuing their doctoral degrees in the biomedical sciences in the US are often on graduate assistantships, where they experience an academic component to their training integrated with an employee-like existence. The individual who serves as their academic and research advisor is often their supervisor, who pays their stipend. The traditional training structure poses unique challenges and may be accompanied by stress, burnout and imposter phenomenon. The purpose of this study is to utilize a strengths-based approach to equip students with essential personal and professional skills that build self-awareness and self-confidence further preparing them for their future in the scientific workforce.

The authors developed and implemented a novel strengths-based professional development cohort program for doctoral students in the biomedical sciences at a research-intensive (R1) institution. The program was designed to create a supportive and inclusive space for participants (n = 18) to explore their identity as a student and scientists and to develop and leverage their talents for more effective and strategic use. Program outcomes were evaluated through a mixed methods case study design using a post-program Likert-based survey (n = 10 participants) and participant interviews (n = 13). Explanatory sequential design was used in the interpretation of the findings.

The results show that the program had a positive impact on students’ perceptions of themselves as scientists, as well as on their self-efficacy, self-confidence and interpersonal interactions in the research setting.

This strengths-based professional development program demonstrates immense potential as a model to equip students with self-awareness and a new foundation of essential skills needed to supplement their technical and scientific training for their future careers in the team-based workplace.

This study demonstrates how professional development programming can complement scientific training by equipping students with self-awareness and other lifelong skills to navigate feelings of imposter phenomenon and interpersonal relationships in the team-based workplace.

The purpose of this paper was to undertake a comprehensive review of Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model. Included was a brief discussion on the additions that have been suggested by critics attempting to make it more responsive to training practitioners’ needs as well as researchers’ inquiries. Also included is a contrast of Kirkpatrick’s model with the expanded model offered by Holton (1996) and a discussion of several key areas of agreement with his model as well as areas of concerns with Holton’s criticism of Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. This article also discussed the relationship of two key factors, not widely examined in the transfer of training literature that could impact the transfer of training to the workplace, namely trainee attributes and the supervisory role in training transfer as affected specifically by a manager’s degree of transformational leadership. A model depicting the balance between these two factors on training transfer was presented in an attempt to assist training professionals seeking to further understand the effects of this interaction on training transfer. Several recommendations were suggested to help training practitioners. Finally several recommendations were given for future studies.

During the lengthy process of PhD studies, supervisory changes commonly occur for several different reasons, but their most frequent trigger is a poor supervisory relationship. Even though a change in supervisors is a formal bureaucratic process and not least the students’ rights, in practice it can be experienced as challenging. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore how doctoral students experience a change in supervisory arrangements.

This study highlights the voices of 19 doctoral students who experienced at least one supervisory change during their doctoral studies.

The findings were structured chronologically, revealing the students’ experiences prior, during and after the changes. In total, 12 main themes were identified. Most of the interviewed students experienced the long decision-making processes as stressful, difficult and exhausting, sometimes causing a lack of mental well-being. However, once the change was complete, they felt renewed, energized and capable of continuing with their studies. It was common to go through more than one change in supervisory arrangements. Further, the students described both the advantages of making a change yet also the long-lasting consequences of this change that could affect them long after they had completed their PhD programs.

The study fulfills an identified need to investigate the understudied perspective of doctoral students in the context of change in supervisory arrangements. A change in the academic culture is needed to make any changes in supervisory arrangements more acceptable thus making PhD studies more sustainable.

This exploratory study aims to help contribute to the understanding of online information search behaviour of PhD students from different humanities fields, with a focus on subject searching.

The methodology is based on a semi-structured interview within which the participants are asked to conduct both a controlled search task and a free search task. The sample comprises eight PhD students in several humanities disciplines at Linnaeus University, a medium-sized Swedish university from 2020.

Most humanities PhD students in the study have received training in information searching, but it has been too basic. Most rely on web search engines like Google and Google Scholar for publications' search, and university's discovery system for known-item searching. As these systems do not rely on controlled vocabularies, the participants often struggle with too many retrieved documents that are not relevant. Most only rarely or never use disciplinary bibliographic databases. The controlled search task has shown some benefits of using controlled vocabularies in the disciplinary databases, but incomplete synonym or concept coverage as well as user unfriendly search interface present hindrances.

The paper illuminates an often-forgotten but pervasive challenge of subject searching, especially for humanities researchers. It demonstrates difficulties and shows how most PhD students have missed finding an important resource in their research. It calls for the need to reconsider training in information searching and the need to make use of controlled vocabularies implemented in various search systems with usable search and browse user interfaces.