Search results

Many universities international activities have increased enormously in volume, scope, and complexity in recent years (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Altbach, 2015) with education providers seeking more innovative ways to provide education across boundaries. Joint doctoral degrees are one example of such an initiative, focusing on international collaboration between institutions. Joint doctorates can provide richer and more rewarding learning experiences for PhD students, supervisors and collaborating institutions. However, all the parties involved also need to be aware of the potential challenges and considerations that underpin effective outcomes, as well as the key differences between joint degree doctorates and doctorates with more traditional approaches. It has been pointed out that the literature on joint degree programmes is ‘thin’ providing limited information for institutional leaders (and other parties involved in their setting up and conduct) who may be contemplating joint degree initiatives (Michael & Balraj, 2003). This chapter draws on a unique case study of a joint doctoral programme that operates across continents and academic cultures to illustrate the challenges and considerations that should be borne in mind prior to entering into joint doctoral arrangements. Various ways in which the associated challenges may be overcome are also suggested in order to support effective outcomes for all the parties involved.

Global leadership is a vibrant and still emerging field of study. As scholarship grows in this area, the boundaries of the field become more defined. This has a direct impact on curriculum selection for courses and degree programs focused on global leadership. This article begins by exploring how emerging areas of study become recognized as disciplines and applies this knowledge to the global leadership discipline. We also look at doctoral-level degree programs in global leadership, comparing, and contrasting their offerings and approaches, and reflecting on global leadership doctoral education’s role in the ultimate crafting of the discipline. Finally, the curriculum strategies within the doctoral program in global leadership at Indiana Tech are discussed to illustrate the complex and multidisciplinary approach required to prepare global leadership scholars-practitioners.

Universities have a long history of training students to work in industry, and in recent years the number and percentage of students, especially those trained in science and engineering, who go to work in industry has grown. Today, three-eights of all PhDs with a degree in science and engineering (S&E) work in the private sector. These placements provide a major means for universities to participate in technology transfer. Students are not only up-to-date in terms of codified knowledge; they also possess tacit knowledge that can only be transferred by face-to-face interaction. They may also have participated as research assistants or as postdocs in the development of a technology that has been licensed by the firm where they are employed. Despite the important role that alumni play in technology transfer, universities rarely track the placements of graduate students in industry. Universities do not also systematically keep information on the contributions that alums make to innovations after graduating. Moreover, few programs socialize students to think of careers in the private sector as a top choice. Instead, many programs, especially in the biomedical sciences, socialize students to aspire to research careers in academe, with industry seen as a distinct second choice. Indeed, many PhDs only take jobs in industry after failing to find an academic position after serving as a postdoc for four or five years.

This paper examines recent placements of doctoral students in industry, using the verbatim records from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) for 1997–2002. An advantage of this data is that we know the name of the firm (and the location of the firm) where the individual plans to work. This permits an exploration of several interesting dimensions regarding technology transfer not explored elsewhere, such as (1) sources (in terms of universities) educating students going to industry; (2) the R&D intensity of the firms where newly trained PhDs go to work and the industrial classification of the firms; (3) the role that proximity plays in facilitating these knowledge spillovers; and (4) the degree to which universities make placements with firms licensing their technologies.

The paper also examines the amount of information that universities provide regarding the placements of their PhDs. We find that although students are ready and willing to provide information regarding work plans after graduation, universities seldom provide information on placements. We conclude with a suggestion regarding the procedures universities could follow to create and make placement data available.

What are the current trends that mark out the process of internationalization of higher education? In what directions do these trends influence the direction of research and development in African universities? Does internationalization of higher education have the potential to boost knowledge production relevant to Africa’s development needs or it will further hasten the marginalization of both African universities and African development agendas within the global network of scientific knowledge? Internationalization of education is not new. Historically, students have sought better higher education abroad influenced by the desire to benefit from better opportunities provided by universities in the developed countries. The current phase of higher education internationalization has however emerged more vigorously in the 21st century and is associated with the twin trends of globalization and liberalization. Proponents of globalization have argued that higher education is bound to be more strongly affected by worldwide economic developments. They also point out that higher education institutions in developing countries should embrace aspects of internationalization to boost their efforts to be ranked among the best league of universities globally. At the national level, internationalization of higher education is presented as a process that institutions in developing countries must embrace in order to address the persistent challenges of sustainable development. For universities in Africa, the literature argues that internationalization provides them with opportunities that cut across disciplines, institutions, knowledge-systems, and nation-state boundaries thereby exposing the institutions and academics to the world’s best scientific research and infrastructures. In summary, it is contended that internationalization is a strategy to realize success in human-capability and institutional-capacity development in the universities. This chapter revisits these assertions and their tenacity to developing a culture of research and innovation in African universities, and linking the universities to the continent’s development aspirations.

A collaborative autoethnography (CAE) conducted by six Belizean educators in a US-based PhD program in Language, Literacy, and Culture Education and one of their faculty members is presented in a creative, dialogic format in this chapter. The group of educators embarked on this reflective self-study to explore how their programmatic language and literacy education knowledge was taken up, remixed, rejected, indigenized, or transformed into local Belizean pedagogies and curricula. Using CAE methods of narrative data generation and dialogic analysis and reflection, the educator-researchers examined the degree to which their program met the expectations of Tierney's (2018) global meaning making endeavor. They found that being vulnerable learners and building their own disciplinary confidence and competence enabled them to take up the new ideas they were encountering, and that new learning led to transformative shifts in their pedagogical philosophies that included culturally relevant and proactive pedagogies. They also innovated and remixed pedagogies in their teaching contexts while wobbling with how to create sustainable changes. This work indicates that Western, US-based universities and programs can, with intentional macro- and micro-curriculum design and ongoing critical reflection, facilitate cross-cultural, international language and literacy programs that enact decolonizing and emancipatory curricula and practices.

This chapter considers internationalisation strategies to promote international student recruitment and mobility as the central tools of contemporary universities operating in a global and competitive context. It presents an overview of these strategies in the public university context in Italy, which serves as a case study to highlight how universities increasingly give relevance to the internationalisation of education in their strategic plans to attract overseas students and encourage incoming and outgoing student mobility. The document-based analysis of the Italian case reveals a prominent commitment from public universities to promoting internationalisation through different strategic performance objectives that contribute to the internationalisation of students and fuel their mobility and recruitment on a global scale. This research provides empirical evidence of the saliency of the internationalisation of education within the strategic missions of universities. It also addresses the connection between the internationalisation of university education and performance-based funding.

The purpose of this conceptual chapter is to critically review the efficacy of diversity management in institutions of higher education with the intention of highlighting context-specific challenges in South African Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).

Diversity is conceptualized with the assumption that equity and redress should form part of institutional practices for managing and integrating diverse workforce in HEIs. Because HEIs are tasked to reduce inequalities and exclusions and to ensure integration through redress at all levels, the argument in this chapter is that diversity and social inclusion go hand in hand and that discrimination of people in whatever form should be eliminated.

Findings reveal that diverse learning environments in HEIs help sharpen critical thinking and analytical skills and prepare institutional members to succeed in an increasingly diverse and interconnected world.

The challenge with diversity management, however, is in implementing diversity management in a practical HEI environment.

Implications are that managers should empower diverse institutional members with the ability to accommodate ethnic and cultural diversity, to succeed in maintaining institutional unity.

The study is significant for ensuring effective management of diversity and institutional workforce integration.

The chapter informs policy choices for the day-to-day management of diversity.

Professional Doctorates (PDs) have been added to the curriculum of many universities worldwide, as an alternative to the traditional Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). PDs are more focused on practice-based knowledge that advances professional practice and contributes to society, industry and the economy. The dominance of the PhD as the typical higher degree by research has led universities to develop frameworks for their PDs which are very similar to the PhD framework. This includes the assessment of the PD, which in many cases follows the same process and is based on the same criteria as for the PhD. This similarity in the assessment of the two types of doctorates creates challenges for external examiners (EEs), who are invited to evaluate the contribution of the PD within frameworks which are tailored around the PhD. Here, the authors focus the investigation on the Doctorate in Business Administration and conduct a review and analysis of institutional documents from universities in England in an attempt to understand the similarities and differences between the examination process of the PD and the PhD and the extent to which the examination process of the PD supports the evaluation of the practice-based contribution that is at its heart. Through this review and analysis, the authors identify the challenges that exist for EEs who are called to assess PDs, and make recommendations which will support EEs to evaluate the contribution of the PD.