1. NETWORK CREATION FOR DOCTORAL EDUCATION: PRACTICAL CHALLENGES Marie-Laure DJELIC ESSEC BUSINESS SCHOOL Paris, France djelic@essec.f r

2. NETWORKS – WHY?  For Schools and PhD Programs ▫ Creating synergies and sharing scarce material and intellectual resources ▫ Reducing costs ▫ We can all collectively benefit when we each do what we are best at – classical division of labour argument  For Faculty members ▫ Discussions and teaching experience are definitely more satisfactory in groups that are a bit larger ▫ Possibly associated with some mobility ▫ Access to a larger and more diverse intellectual community (students and indirectly their advisers)  For Students ▫ Dynamics of learning are better in mid-size than in very small-size groups ▫ Getting access to a much richer pool of Faculty members ▫ Creating a community of peers – and learning the ropes, early on of network and community functioning ▫ Learning from diversity but also meeting students working on parallel issues and overcoming intellectual « loneliness » ▫ Possibly associated with the benefits of partial mobility djelic@essec.fr

3. NETWORKS IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION – WHAT?  Completely externalized – structured around hub organizations (EIASM, Edamba), professional associations and their conferences, research projects or funding programs (A)  Adhoc networks of a given program to facilitate mobility during the dissertation writing period essentially (B)  Structured network to share teaching resources (C)  Joint PhD programs (D) => Nationally based, regionally based, transnational djelic@essec.fr

4. (A) EUROPEAN RESEARCH COLLOQUIUM  Initiative: from the Netherlands, with national money and then EU funding  Objective: going beyond a summer school – creating a space through time for PhD students from diverse horizons to work together  15/18 PhD students, working on a related topic (Europeanization and Transnationalization), meet approximately every six months over a two-year period  Selected at the end of their first year – rather during the active phase of dissertation writing  A common target – an edited volume  Wide diversity of countries (mostly European, East and West) djelic@essec.fr

5. WHAT WAS GAINED?  Learning by doing  Through confrontation, diversity, debate and discussion  A final process and final product  A community between students but also between students and Faculty members  The possibility to envision and launch new projects djelic@essec.fr

7. (B) ADHOC NETWORKS FOR MOBILITY  ENTER program in Economics:  Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona  University College London  Universitat Mannheim  Université Libre de Bruxelles  Stockholm Universitet  CentER (Tilburg University)  MPSE (Université des Sciences Sociales de Toulouse  Doctoral students in the program spend one or two semesters in one or two institutions of the network on the same footing as local students – take courses or pursue dissertation research under the additional supervision of faculty at the host institution. Typically first year of courses locally, then selection into the ENTER program on the basis of Academic excellence.  Annual network-wide meetings – « Jamborees ». Presentation of current research by doctoral students and faculty.  Both the exchange of students and the Jamboree have been funded under the European Union ERASMUS and TMR programs. djelic@essec.fr 7

8. (C) STRUCTURED NETWORKS TO SHARE TEACHING  SUBS – Stockholm/Uppsala Business Studies  Bringing together the two programs – in 2008 a total of 19 students  Common compulsory and elective courses, shared between Uppsala and Stockholm  The thesis process remains associated with each Department djelic@essec.fr

9. SUBS

10. (D) JOINT PHD PROGRAM  CLEI /IEL– International PhD program (Center for the Comparative Analysis of Law and Economics, Economics of Law, Economics of Institution), founded in 2004  CRG – Polytechnique, France  Cornell University  Law School at the Centre of Advanced Studies in Law and Economics, University of Gent, Belgium  University degli Studi di Torino  Joined later 5 other European programs  First year – compulsory course work in Turin with professors coming from all over the network. Preliminary exams.  Second year – development of the research at one of the schools depending on the topic/fields of their project. Mobility of at least 6 months within the network is compulsory  Third year will be devoted to completion of the doctoral dissertation. PhD degree is granted formally by the University of Torino after decision of the Doctoral Board, which is completely multi-partner djelic@essec.fr

11. CEIL/IEL PhD Program, Collegio Carlo Alberto, Turin University

12. PRACTICAL CHALLENGES (1)  Those networks imply collaboration when many of our programs are competing  How do we overcome the sense of propriety that many of our institutions have on THEIR PhD program?  How do we convince administrators of the usefulness of a process that is « costly » in many ways  Agenda and logistics issues ▫ Courses organized over compact periods – conflicts of agenda ▫ Budgetary issues for the travel of students ▫ Space availability ▫ Constraints on mobility  Issues of measurability – how do the programs compare; how do they evaluate students, how do they reward Faculty members? djelic@essec.fr 12

13. PRACTICAL CHALLENGES (2)  Supervisor « susceptibility »  Student « perplexity » - how do you ensure the continuity of supervision together with a diversity of experiences and inputs?  Differences of context creating constraints that an external teacher may not be aware of  How can this kind of experience become formally recognized, valued during and even more after the PhD? Postdoc opportunities, a real transnational job market….  How do you choose your network strategy? What should be your criteria for choosing your partner institutions?  How do you sustain such a resource consuming construction? djelic@essec.fr