UNIKE Survey on Doctoral Education

By Corina Balaban and Sue WrightLjubljana 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. Context2. Motivation 3. Design

2. Results 1. Population2. Environment3. Requirements4. Supervision practices5. Role of supervisor6. Skills7. UNIKE project8. 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. Environment2. Requirements3. Supervision practices4. Role of supervisor5. Skills6. UNIKE project7. 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

1 2 3 40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

H1. Number of PhDs enrolled

Full timePart time

Individual responses of heads

Num

ber o

f PhD

s

Population

Employees Students Other 0

1

2

3

4

H2. Status of PhDs

Num

ber o

f hea

ds

Population

Less than 3 years 3 years More than 3 years Do not complete 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

H3. Percentages of PhDs completing

Head 1Head 2Head 3Head 4

Perc

enta

ge

Population

Less than 5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years More than 15 years0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

S1. Experience in supervising PhD students

Supe

rviso

rs

Population

1 2 3 4 5 6 70

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

S2. PhD students supervised to completion vs. currently supervised

supervised to completioncurrently supervised

Individual supervisors

Num

ber o

f stu

dent

s

Environment

Particip

ate in

seminars

with

colle

agues

Assign

ed to

a res

earch

group

Choose va

rious a

udiences

for d

issem

ination

Main point o

f refe

rence

superv

isor

Doctoral

studen

ts’ w

orkshops a

nd writi

ng gro

ups

Joint publica

tions

Creating o

wn envir

onment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

H6S4. PhD engagement with research environment, as seen by heads and supervisors

HeadsSupervisors

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

Environment

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

F1. Means of engagement with local environment

Very well wellnot so wellnot at all

Num

ber

of fe

llow

s

Environment

Very often (daily) Often (weekly) Not so often (monthly) Never0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

F2. Interaction with other Phds and staff

num

ber o

f fel

low

s

Requirements H4. YES NO

Submitting and defending thesis 4 0

Attending courses of one’s own choice 3 1

Attending compulsory courses 4 0

Presenting research at international conferences 2 2

Publishing articles in academic journals 3 1

Publishing in non-academic outlets 1 3

Publishing in English 3 1

Publishing in the local language 1 2

Teaching/ supervising undergraduate students 0 3

Doing internship/ placement/ secondment 0 3

Doing commissioned or consultancy research 0 3

Requirements

Yes No0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

F4. Compulsory courses

Num

ber o

f fel

low

s

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

Every week Every 2 weeks Every month Every two months Other0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

S3. Frequency of supervision

Num

ber o

f sup

ervi

sors

Supervision Practices

Every week Every month Every 2 month Other – please specify 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

F3. Supervision frequency

Num

ber o

f fel

low

s

Role of Supervisor

facilit

ator in

the l

earn

ing pro

cess

valuab

le so

urce of in

formati

on

advis

or - how to

conduct

resea

rch

advis

or -how to

writ

e acad

emica

lly

advis

or- how to

writ

e in differe

nt gen

res

advis

or - how to

publish-ac

adem

ic arti

cle

advis

or- how to

presen

t at c

onferen

ce

advis

or- how to

apply

for gran

ts

advis

or- how to

build a

caree

r in ac

adem

ia

advis

or- how to

build a

caree

r outsi

de acad

emia

Other0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

S5F6. Perceived role of supervisor

By supervisorsBy fellows

Perc

enta

ge

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

Researc

h

Communication

Presen

tation

Writi

ng

Creativit

y

Critical

thinkin

g

Problem

solvi

ng

Analytical

skills

Indepen

dent th

inking

Argumen

tation

Forei

gn la

nguag

e

Inter

-cultu

ral aw

areness

Team

work

Different k

inds of a

udiences

Diverse

envir

onments

Lead

ership

Teach

ing/ su

pervisin

g

Entre

preneu

rial

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

H7S6. Skills developed through supervision

HeadsSupervisors

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

Skills – part 2

Researc

h

Communication

Presen

tation

Writi

ng

Creativit

y

Critical

thinkin

g

Problem

solvi

ng

Analytical

skills

Indepen

dent th

inking

Argumen

tation

Forei

gn la

nguag

e

Inter

-cultu

ral aw

areness

Team

work

Different k

inds of a

udiences

Diverse

envir

onments

Lead

ership

Teach

ing/ su

pervisin

g

Entre

preneu

rial

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

H7S6. Skills developed through taught curriculum

HeadsSupervisors

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

UNIKE Skills – part 1

Researc

h

Communication

Presen

tation

Writi

ng

Creativit

y

Critical

thinkin

g

Problem

solvi

ng

Analytical

skills

Indepen

dent th

inking

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

F7. UNIKE activities developing skills I

very wellwellnot so wellnot at all

Num

ber o

f fel

low

s

UNIKE Skills – part 2

Argumen

tation

Forei

gn la

nguag

e

Inter-cu

ltural

aware

ness

Team

work

Addressin

g differe

nt audien

ces

Worki

ng in dive

rse en

vironmen

ts

Leaders

hip

Teach

ing/ su

pervisin

g

Entre

preneu

rial sk

ills

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

F7. UNIKE activities developing skills II

very wellwellnot so wellnot at all

Num

ber o

f fel

low

s

Skills

very well well not so well not at all0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

F10. UNIKE preparation for work

Inside academiaOutside academia

Num

ber o

f fel

low

s

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

Good balance Too many courses Too much supervision Too much independent research 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

F5. Balance between UNIKE activities

Num

ber o

f fel

low

s

UNIKE Project

Access to resources Access to academic networks

Ability do to fieldwork abroad

Funding Quality of supervision0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

F8. Experiences of UNIKE PhDs as seen comparatively to other PhDs

SameBetterWorse I don’t know

Num

ber o

f fel

low

s

UNIKE Project

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

F9. Main challenges

Nu

mb

er

of

fello

ws

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…