Search results

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 investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctoral education. Pandemics throughout history have generated new educational theories and practices, accelerated some trends and signalled the abrupt end of others. The unpredictable effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have particularly impacted upon First Nations and transcultural communities and People of Colour throughout the globe. A second significant recent global trend that occurred at the height of the pandemic was the reignited #BlackLivesMatter (#BLM) protest campaign. This campaign drew attention to the vast inequities faced by black, transcultural (migrant, refugee, culturally diverse and international) and Indigenous peoples and triggered rapid action in higher education institutions against racism and unconscious bias.

This conceptual paper draws upon postcolonial/decolonial theory to demonstrate how the COVID pandemic and #BLM movement prompts us to revitalise doctoral education.

These two issues have created renewed urgency around the need to decolonise higher education and a desire to transform the “business-as-usual” geopolitical power dynamics that continue to privilege Northern knowledge over culturally diverse knowledge systems from First Nations and transcultural contexts. A key site where special opportunities exist to effect this transformation lies in doctoral education. Doctoral education is a significant location of new knowledge creation and the development of the world’s future researchers.

Applying post/decolonial theory enables one to rethink how doctoral education should be changed to work towards greater decolonisation.

This study applies Santos’ ideas about “the sociologies of emergence” in the global South to think about how doctoral education should be reconstructed as a liberated zone of decolonisation and epistemic justice.

Institutional framings of doctoral education mostly do not recognize the existential dimension of doctoral experience. This paper aims to offer an expanded understanding of experiences of doctoral researchers in the humanities with the concept of entangled becoming. This concept is developed through an existential lens by using Søren Kierkegaard’s philosophy – particularly his emphasis on emotions such as passion, anxiety and despair – and Denise Batchelor’s derived concept of vulnerable voices.

The conceptual framing is used for an empirical study based on ethnographic interviews with 10 doctoral researchers and supplementary observational notes from fieldwork at a university in Denmark. Two of the interview cases were selected to showcase variation across lived experiences and how doctoral researchers voice their entangled becoming.

Common experiences such as loneliness, insecurity(ies), vulnerability(ies) or passion for one’s research were identified across the interviews. On the other hand, this study shows that each doctoral journey in the humanities envelops a distinct web of entanglements, entailing distinct navigation, that makes each case a unique story and each doctoral voice a specific one.

Combining an existential philosophical perspective with a qualitative study, the paper offers an alternative perspective for doctoral education. It connects the humanities doctoral experience to the broader condition of human existence and the sophisticated uniqueness of each researcher’s becoming.

This paper aims to define a hierarchical and multi-criteria framework based on pillars of the Modernization of Higher Education to evaluate European Accounting Doctoral Programmes (EADE-Model).

The authors applied a quali-quantitative methodology based on the analytic hierarchy process and the survey approach. The authors conducted an extensive literature and regulation review to identify the dimensions affecting the quality of Doctoral Programmes, choosing accounting as the relevant and pivotal field. The authors also used the survey to select the most critical quality dimensions and derive their weight to build EADE Model. The validity of the proposed model has been tested through the application to the Italian scenario.

The findings provide a critical extension of accounting ranking studies constructing a multi-criteria, hierarchical and updated evaluation model recognizing the role of doctoral training in the knowledge-based society. The results shed new light on weak areas apt to be improved and propose potential amendments to enhance the quality standard of ADE.

Theoretical and practical implications of this paper are directed to academics, policymakers and PhD programmes administrators.

The research is original in drafting a hierarchical multi-criteria framework for evaluating ADE in the Higher Education System. This model may be extended to other fields.

This study aims to perform a scoping review of the recent studies on critical resources required for the doctoral program by mapping the resources at various levels of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems and their underlying theories. The study proposes a holistic model of supportive resources in the doctoral education.

The current scoping review is supported by Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage methodological guidance The authors reported sixty-eight articles that were published between 2010 and 2023 and complied with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

The study identified two categories of resources that promote doctoral student well-being: personal resources such as research self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation of the doctoral student. Second, the contextual resources provided by supervisors, department, family, peers, institution and Government policy impact the well-being of doctoral students. The study relied on the self-determination and conservation of resources theory to determine doctoral students' stress-free, high-quality research journey.

The study findings can help higher education institutions, supervisors, peers and academicians plan and implement the finest resources to improve the well-being of doctoral students. The institutions can develop a wide range of strategies, tailored supportive programs, and interventions that can help in improving students' mental and emotional health, based on the developed multifaceted resource framework. Doctoral students can also use the review's findings to help them deal with program obstacles by encouraging themselves internally and participating in mentoring programs.

This review article proposes a comprehensive conceptual framework by considering Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems on multilevel resources that help to understand the inter-relationship between resources required in the doctoral student's program.

This paper aims to present demographic characteristics and postgraduate employment trends of business doctoral graduates, especially the proportion that are underrepresented minorities (URMs) over time.

The authors analyze the near census of individuals receiving doctoral degrees in a wide range of business disciplines from US-accredited universities from 1973 to 2018 (n = 50,091) contained with the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates. The authors analyze how the proportion of URM graduates, by discipline, has changed over time both in terms of receiving a doctoral degree and entering an academic position.

The proportion of URM graduates fluctuated between approximately 5% and 15% annually, steadily increasing across decades. Overall, 64.4% of all graduates entered an academic position, with notably higher rates among whites (72.1%) compared to Blacks (51.8%), Hispanics (60.4%) and other URMs (56.4%) (p < 0.001). In adjusted models, the proportion of URMs that entered academic positions significantly increased overtime, beginning in the 1990s and peaked in the 2000s. Although the few institutions that graduated the highest number of URMs do not currently have an Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business-accredited business school, the authors identify several exemplar institutions where URM graduates entered academic jobs at the highest rates.

The authors provide demographic trends that shed light on ways to influence an increase in URM doctoral graduates from business disciplines into academic careers. This discussion is of interest to university administrators and other stakeholders interested in diversity issues in higher education.

In Denmark, there has been, over decades, an intensified political focus on how humanities research and doctoral education contribute to society. In this vein, the notion of impact has become a central part of the academic language, often associated with terms like use, effects and outputs, stemming from neoliberal ideologies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humanities academics are living with the impact agenda, as both experienced researchers and as doctoral supervisors educating the next generation of researchers in this post-pandemic era. Specifically, the authors are interested in the supervisor-researcher relationship, that is, the relationship between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda as researchers and then the way they tell their doctoral students to do likewise.

The authors have studied how the impact agenda is accommodated by humanities academics through a series of qualitative interviews with humanities researchers and humanities PhD supervisors, encompassing questions of how they are living with the expectation of impact and how it is embedded in their university and departmental context.

The study shows that there is no link between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda in relation to their own research work and then the way they tell their doctoral students to approach it. Within the space of their own research, the supervisors engage in resistance practices towards the impact agenda in terms of minimal compliance, rejection or resignation, whereas in the space of supervision, the impact agenda is re-inscribed to embody other understandings. The supervisors want to protect their students from this agenda, especially in the knowledge that many of them are not going to stay in academia due to limited researcher career possibilities. Furthermore, the paper reveals a new understanding of the impact agenda as having a relational quality, and in two ways. One is through a positional struggle, the reshaping of power relations, between universities (or academics) and society (or the state and the market); the other is as a phenomenon very much lived among academics themselves, including between supervisors and their doctoral students within the institutional context.

This study opens up the impact agenda, showing what it means to be a humanities academic living with the effects of the impact agenda and trying to navigate this. The study is mapping and tracking out the many different meanings and variations of impact in all its volatility for academics concerned about it. In current, post-pandemic times, when manifold expectations are directed towards research and doctoral education, it is important to know more about how these expectations affect and are dealt with by those who are expected to commit to them.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the role an intentional and cohesive research group for doctoral researchers and supervisors can play in surfacing and de-mystifying many of the implicit doctoral literacy practices involved in doctoral study.

This participatory, collaborative project, involving 11 doctoral researchers and three supervisors, was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, doctoral researchers and supervisors engaged in a discussion which resulted in a shared concept map. The concept map was then used as a prompt for stimulated recall interviews in which the participants reflected on the connections and peer learning afforded by the research group.

Drawing on ideas from Communities of Practice theory, the data revealed that the research group, including both supervisors and doctoral students, developed knowledge, relational connections and an awareness of a range of doctoral literacies.

This paper makes suggestions for how those in doctoral education can develop and embed research groups into institutional practices.

This study demonstrates the significant role a research group which is structured, intentional and guided plays in supervisors’ and doctoral students’ development of doctoral literacies and the fundamental intellectual and relational connections afforded by participating in such communities.