Prominence, Promotion and Positioning of the ‘Thesis by Publication’ in Six Countries

IF 1.7 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Higher Education Policy Pub Date : 2024-04-27 DOI:10.1057/s41307-024-00350-7
Shannon Mason, Liezel Frick, Montserrat Castelló, Wenjuan Cheng, Sin Wang Chong, Laura Díaz Villalba, Marina García-Morante, Ming Sum Kong, Yusuke Sakurai, Nazila Shojaeian, Rachel Spronken-Smith, Crista Weise
{"title":"Prominence, Promotion and Positioning of the ‘Thesis by Publication’ in Six Countries","authors":"Shannon Mason, Liezel Frick, Montserrat Castelló, Wenjuan Cheng, Sin Wang Chong, Laura Díaz Villalba, Marina García-Morante, Ming Sum Kong, Yusuke Sakurai, Nazila Shojaeian, Rachel Spronken-Smith, Crista Weise","doi":"10.1057/s41307-024-00350-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The international nature of doctoral education creates interesting tensions where national systems, institutional policies, disciplinary customs, individual supervisor preferences, and doctoral researcher needs meet. The Thesis by Publication (TBP), a model where published works are included within the thesis, is available to doctoral researchers in many disciplines and institutions, but it is not a universally accepted format or approached in a homogeneous way. Policy has been known to shape practice, yet we know little about how institutional policies shape TBP practices across different national contexts. This study presents a content analysis of policy documents related to the TBP in public universities across six countries: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Our goal is to understand the prevalence of the TBP and related policy documentation in different contexts, and how the model is promoted and positioned within the doctoral landscape. Findings from our study challenge the often-stated notion that the TBP is a universally understood format. Our findings also show the risks in the absence of explicit policies, as well as the possible inequalities that may arise as a result of a lack of policy transparency and synergy within and across contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":47327,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education Policy","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00350-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The international nature of doctoral education creates interesting tensions where national systems, institutional policies, disciplinary customs, individual supervisor preferences, and doctoral researcher needs meet. The Thesis by Publication (TBP), a model where published works are included within the thesis, is available to doctoral researchers in many disciplines and institutions, but it is not a universally accepted format or approached in a homogeneous way. Policy has been known to shape practice, yet we know little about how institutional policies shape TBP practices across different national contexts. This study presents a content analysis of policy documents related to the TBP in public universities across six countries: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Our goal is to understand the prevalence of the TBP and related policy documentation in different contexts, and how the model is promoted and positioned within the doctoral landscape. Findings from our study challenge the often-stated notion that the TBP is a universally understood format. Our findings also show the risks in the absence of explicit policies, as well as the possible inequalities that may arise as a result of a lack of policy transparency and synergy within and across contexts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
六个国家对 "发表论文 "的重视、宣传和定位
博士教育的国际性质造成了国家制度、机构政策、学科习惯、导师个人偏好和 博士研究人员需求之间有趣的紧张关系。发表论文(TBP)是一种将发表的作品包含在论文中的模式,许多学科和机构的博士生研究人员都可以使用这种模式,但它并不是一种普遍接受的格式,也不是一种统一的方法。众所周知,政策会影响实践,但我们对不同国家背景下机构政策如何影响技术性贸易壁垒实践知之甚少。本研究对六个国家公立大学中与 TBP 相关的政策文件进行了内容分析:澳大利亚、日本、新西兰、南非、西班牙和英国。我们的目标是了解 TBP 和相关政策文件在不同背景下的普遍性,以及该模式是如何在博士生中推广和定位的。我们的研究结果对人们经常说的 "TBP 是一种普遍理解的形式 "这一观点提出了质疑。我们的研究结果还显示了缺乏明确政策所带来的风险,以及由于缺乏政策透明度和不同背景下的协同作用而可能产生的不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Higher Education Policy
Higher Education Policy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Higher Education Policy is an international peer-reviewed and SSCI-indexed academic journal focusing on higher education policy in a broad sense. The journal considers submissions that discuss national and supra-national higher education policies and/or analyse their impacts on higher education institutions or the academic community: leadership, faculty, staff and students, but also considers papers that deal with governance and policy issues at the level of higher education institutions. Critical analyses, empirical investigations (either qualitative or quantitative), and theoretical-conceptual contributions are equally welcome, but for all submissions the requirement is that papers be embedded in the relevant academic literature and contribute to furthering our understanding of policy. The journal has a preference for papers that are written from a disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspective. In the past, contributors have relied on perspectives from public administration, political science, sociology, history, economics and law, but also from philosophy, psychology and anthropology. Articles devoted to systems of higher education that are less well-known or less often analysed are particularly welcome. Given the international scope of the journal, articles should be written for and be understood by an international audience, consisting of researchers in higher education, disciplinary researchers, and policy-makers, administrators, managers and practitioners in higher education. Contributions should not normally exceed 7,000 words (excluding references). Peer reviewAll submissions to the journal will undergo rigorous peer review (anonymous referees) after an initial editorial screening on quality and fit with the journal''s aims.Special issues The journal welcomes proposals for special issues. The journal archive contains several examples of special issues. Such proposals, to be sent to the editor, should set out the theme of the special issue and include the names of the (proposed) contributors and summaries of the envisaged contributions. Forum section Occasionally, the journal publishes contributions – in its Forum section – based on personal viewpoints and/or experiences with the intent to stimulate discussion and reflection, or to challenge established thinking in the field of higher education.
期刊最新文献
The Third Space in Higher Education: A Scoping Review A Question of (Academic) Honour? Motivations for Member Participation in Advisory Boards in the German Science System Women’s Leadership Dilemma: Why Ethiopian Women in Academia Prefer to Stay away from Decision-Making? Beyond the Bench: The Professional Identity of Research Management and Administration The ‘Problem’ of University-Industry Linkages: Insights from Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1