UNIKE Survey on Doctoral Education By Corina Balaban and Sue Wright Ljubljana Summer School 7-11 July 2014

Introduction to survey Looks at doctoral education practices across the UNIKE partner institutions. Distributed to heads of doctoral schools, supervisors and PhD fellows.

Outline 1.Background 1.Context 2.Motivation 3.Design 2.Results 1.Population 2.Environment 3.Requirements 4.Supervision practices 5.Role of supervisor 6.Skills 7.UNIKE project 8.Changes 3.Discussion

Context/ background Most surveys so far have focused on: – PhD students and their experiences – working conditions (EURODOC survey) – Quality assurance (EUA-ARDE project) – Cooperation (EU-China Doc survey) – Career path after PhD (Vitae UK)

Motivation of survey To find out how doctoral education is organised in different institutions across Europe. To provide a view of doctoral education practices as experienced at different levels (heads of doctoral schools, supervisors, fellows). To explore how doctoral education practices have changed in recent years. To generate a reflexive ability about doctoral education practices within UNIKE.

Doctoral Practices Very diverse and can include many aspects (…) For the purpose of this survey we chose to focus only on a few 1.Environment 2.Requirements 3.Supervision practices 4.Role of supervisor 5.Skills 6.UNIKE project 7.Changes The survey does not aim or claim to exhaust all doctoral education practices.

Design of survey Online distribution. Multiple choice questions, combined with open questions. – rationale: comparable factual responses across institutions accompanied by more elaborate explanations. – some questions easy to frame, some questions difficult to put into survey format – further discussion needed.

Population 3 target groups to receive own version of survey: – heads of doctoral schools (H) – UNIKE supervisors (S) – UNIKE PhD fellows (F)  Rationale: gaining comprehensive understanding of doctoral education as perceived by actors playing different roles in the process. Chosen discipline for distribution of survey: education and social sciences  Rationale: access facilitated by UNIKE partners, close to our interest, comparable results.

Population Small, but good response rates: – Heads: 4 out of 6 – Supervisors: 7 out of 8 – Fellows: 11 out of 12 Limitations but also possibilities.

Population

Environment

Requirements H4. YESNO Submitting and defending thesis40 Attending courses of one’s own choice31 Attending compulsory courses40 Presenting research at international conferences22 Publishing articles in academic journals31 Publishing in non-academic outlets13 Publishing in English31 Publishing in the local language12 Teaching/ supervising undergraduate students03 Doing internship/ placement/ secondment03 Doing commissioned or consultancy research03

Requirements

Supervision Practices H5. Number of supervision hours a student is entitled to receive per year: 2 heads - Officially determined. 2 heads - Left to the agreements between supervisor and student. Actual number of hours per year: 50 hours full-time, 25 hours part-time (1 head). Not officially determined (2 heads).

Supervision Practices

Role of Supervisor

Role of Supervisor S7. Has the role changed throughout career? 50% Yes - 50% No Comments: More focus on preparing students for academic jobs than it used to be, as a result of the competitive environment. The implementation of the Bologna process (three years time to complete PhD) has had an impact on the intensity of research. The focus on 'relevance' of the research has been influencing the choice of research topics. There are more PhDs today and therefore more group work – role of supervisor changed that way. The role has remained roughly the same.

Skills – part 1

Skills – part 2

UNIKE Skills – part 1

UNIKE Skills – part 2

Skills

UNIKE Project S8. Setup of UNIKE influencing supervision: 3 Yes 4 No Comments: Not any difference to the way I work with them as supervisor. But helping them fit in all the activities and demands of UNIKE is an 'extra'. UNIKE fellows have more: – fieldwork opportunities – research and career opportunities – opportunities for collaborative work with other PhD fellows – international contacts Higher time pressure to complete in 3 years.

UNIKE Project S9. Dissemination of training ideas from UNIKE Comments: UNIKE project – presented and explained in the Faculty governing bodies. Regularly inform colleagues in doctoral school, and wider audiences, on UNIKE experiences. In contact with the head of local PhD school and the pro-dean for research and talent development. Involvement in a working group on the future of PhD supervision. UNIKE's research Training Handbook is being used as a model in a new training course for supervisors. UNIKE fellows made presentations of their projects to other PhD students; actively participate in monthly seminars. Mutual exchange generated by 'difference' of UNIKE, through students' participation with other non-UNIKE students. Much of the UNIKE set up is already common practice in my institution. Graduate School is extremely rigid and has poor routes for communication.

UNIKE Project

Changes (qualitative) H8. Changes in doctoral education practices over the last 5 years Granted an award for high quality PhD; initiated an international exchange. More systematic training and integration of research and publishing opportunities. Doctoral study program accredited according to Bologna guidelines Now part of larger doctoral training centre that operates across the social sciences in more local universities. Research council has devolved the operation and management of the funding for doctoral training through a series of such centres.

Changes (qualitative) H9. Origin of the changes Initiated and funded by the national research councils. International: Bologna process. Both national and international. Bologna system implemented at national level, inspired by international bodies.

Changes (qualitative) H10. Responsibility for implementation Decisions made by Education Committee for whole university or Faculty Graduate Studies Board, led by Graduate dean for Social Sciences and Law. Scientific Council in articulation with the Dean, the University Senate and the Rector. Director of EdD/ Director of PhD. Faculty level: Commission for Doctoral Study and Program Council for Doctoral Study.

Discussion…