Pub Date : 2024-06-26DOI: 10.1108/sgpe-06-2023-0050
Beverly FitzPatrick, Mike Chong, James Tuff, Sana Jamil, Khalid Al Hariri, Taylor Stocks
Purpose
Many PhD students have strong reading comprehension, but some struggle with how to read critically. The purpose of this study is to understand what reading looks like for PhD students, what they are doing when they read scholarly texts and how they bring these texts to life in meaningful ways.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors conducted a self-study using a phenomenological research approach. Five PhD students collected data on their academic reading for three weeks, including the references, purpose for reading, and what they did as part of the reading process. Second, students analyzed their reading processes according to Paul and Elder’s (2006) intellectual standards. Third, students participated in two semi-structured discussions about the standards in relation to doctoral reading.
Findings
Reading is inseparable from thinking, with Paul and Elder’s (2006) intellectual standards (e.g. clarity, relevance, logic and fairness) playing an essential role in the academic reading process. Alongside these cognitive aspects of reading, the affective domain also contributes to the reading process.
Originality/value
This study is important because being able to read scholarly work is crucial for completing doctoral programs, conducting research, and publishing. We suggest that just as we need to teach writing, we need to acknowledge that many doctoral students need guidance to read scholarly texts, they need to be educated on the intellectual standards, and supervisors must rest their assumptions about doctoral reading and explicitly teach these processes.
目的许多博士生都有很强的阅读理解能力，但有些人在如何进行批判性阅读方面却很吃力。本研究的目的是了解博士生的阅读情况，他们在阅读学术文章时在做什么，以及他们如何以有意义的方式将这些文章带入生活。五名博士生收集了他们三周学术阅读的数据，包括参考文献、阅读目的以及他们在阅读过程中所做的事情。其次，学生们根据保罗和埃尔德（Paul and Elder，2006 年）的知识标准分析了他们的阅读过程。研究结果阅读与思考密不可分，保罗和埃尔德（2006 年）的知识标准（如清晰度、相关性、逻辑性和公平性）在学术阅读过程中发挥着至关重要的作用。除了阅读的这些认知方面，情感领域也对阅读过程有所贡献。原创性/价值这项研究非常重要，因为能够阅读学术著作对于完成博士课程、开展研究和发表论文至关重要。我们建议，正如我们需要教授写作一样，我们需要承认许多博士生在阅读学术著作时需要指导，他们需要接受知识标准方面的教育，而导师也必须放弃他们对博士生阅读的假设，并明确教授这些过程。
{"title":"More than words: PhD students and critical reading","authors":"Beverly FitzPatrick, Mike Chong, James Tuff, Sana Jamil, Khalid Al Hariri, Taylor Stocks","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-06-2023-0050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-06-2023-0050","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\u0000<p>Many PhD students have strong reading comprehension, but some struggle with how to read critically. The purpose of this study is to understand what reading looks like for PhD students, what they are doing when they read scholarly texts and how they bring these texts to life in meaningful ways.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\u0000<p>The authors conducted a self-study using a phenomenological research approach. Five PhD students collected data on their academic reading for three weeks, including the references, purpose for reading, and what they did as part of the reading process. Second, students analyzed their reading processes according to Paul and Elder’s (2006) intellectual standards. Third, students participated in two semi-structured discussions about the standards in relation to doctoral reading.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Findings</h3>\u0000<p>Reading is inseparable from thinking, with Paul and Elder’s (2006) intellectual standards (e.g. clarity, relevance, logic and fairness) playing an essential role in the academic reading process. Alongside these cognitive aspects of reading, the affective domain also contributes to the reading process.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Originality/value</h3>\u0000<p>This study is important because being able to read scholarly work is crucial for completing doctoral programs, conducting research, and publishing. We suggest that just as we need to teach writing, we need to acknowledge that many doctoral students need guidance to read scholarly texts, they need to be educated on the intellectual standards, and supervisors must rest their assumptions about doctoral reading and explicitly teach these processes.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141507967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-25DOI: 10.1108/sgpe-02-2024-0020
Veselina Lambrev, Bárbara C. Cruz, Sarah M. Kiefer, Elizabeth Shaunessy-Dedrick
Purpose
In this collaborative autoethnographic study, four faculty members in a US-based Doctor of Education (EdD) program reflected individually and collectively in the authors’ community of practice through reflective journaling, self-reflection and discussion sessions to analyze the individual stories critically. This study aims to examine the influence of the authors’ involvement with an EdD program on the academic approaches to teaching, research and mentoring EdD students.
Design/methodology/approach
Professional practice doctorates have emerged in response to the growing need for practitioners to use evidence for continuous improvement. Although the literature has highlighted faculty members as change agents redefining the EdD as a professional practice doctorate, minimal research has explored how their involvement in such design work may affect their academic practices.
Findings
The authors perceived the involvement with the EdD program as transforming the faculty practices in five ways (i.e. shifting the epistemologies, embracing practice-based pedagogies, engaging in practice-based research, mentoring scholarly practitioners and intentional community building) and creating a shared vision of preparing scholarly practitioners.
Originality/value
The authors draw implications for redesigning EdD programs through participation in a faculty community of practice, prompting faculty to shift their practices to better support scholarly practitioners and affecting their identity as teachers, mentors and program developers.
{"title":"Creating a shared vision of preparing scholarly practitioners: an EdD faculty collaborative autoethnography","authors":"Veselina Lambrev, Bárbara C. Cruz, Sarah M. Kiefer, Elizabeth Shaunessy-Dedrick","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-02-2024-0020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-02-2024-0020","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\u0000<p>In this collaborative autoethnographic study, four faculty members in a US-based Doctor of Education (EdD) program reflected individually and collectively in the authors’ community of practice through reflective journaling, self-reflection and discussion sessions to analyze the individual stories critically. This study aims to examine the influence of the authors’ involvement with an EdD program on the academic approaches to teaching, research and mentoring EdD students.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\u0000<p>Professional practice doctorates have emerged in response to the growing need for practitioners to use evidence for continuous improvement. Although the literature has highlighted faculty members as change agents redefining the EdD as a professional practice doctorate, minimal research has explored how their involvement in such design work may affect their academic practices.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Findings</h3>\u0000<p>The authors perceived the involvement with the EdD program as transforming the faculty practices in five ways (i.e. shifting the epistemologies, embracing practice-based pedagogies, engaging in practice-based research, mentoring scholarly practitioners and intentional community building) and creating a shared vision of preparing scholarly practitioners.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Originality/value</h3>\u0000<p>The authors draw implications for redesigning EdD programs through participation in a faculty community of practice, prompting faculty to shift their practices to better support scholarly practitioners and affecting their identity as teachers, mentors and program developers.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141507968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-28DOI: 10.1108/sgpe-07-2023-0064
Andrea Kunze, Rodney Hopson
Purpose
This study aims to explore how science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM) graduate students’ experiences with and conceptualizations of racism can more clearly expose the current racial climate across multiple academic institutions.
Design/methodology/approach
A mixed-method approach using a single online questionnaire consisting of open-ended and Likert scale questions about their perceptions of the racial climate in their department was completed by 34 graduate students of different races and STEMM disciplines.
Findings
Results from this study suggested that graduate students, regardless of race, consistently perceive STEMM as colorblind. The results also suggest that experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination is potentially predictive of perceptions of negative social support. Furthermore, multiracial and international graduate students often face different experiences of discrimination than do other graduate students.
Originality/value
By better understanding STEMM academic climates, higher education institutions can begin to reflect on the social barriers that may limit minoritized students from matriculating in academic STEMM spaces and affect retention.
{"title":"“That does not apply”: graduate students’ (mis)perceptions of the racial climate in STEMM","authors":"Andrea Kunze, Rodney Hopson","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-07-2023-0064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-07-2023-0064","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\u0000<p>This study aims to explore how science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM) graduate students’ experiences with and conceptualizations of racism can more clearly expose the current racial climate across multiple academic institutions.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\u0000<p>A mixed-method approach using a single online questionnaire consisting of open-ended and Likert scale questions about their perceptions of the racial climate in their department was completed by 34 graduate students of different races and STEMM disciplines.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Findings</h3>\u0000<p>Results from this study suggested that graduate students, regardless of race, consistently perceive STEMM as colorblind. The results also suggest that experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination is potentially predictive of perceptions of negative social support. Furthermore, multiracial and international graduate students often face different experiences of discrimination than do other graduate students.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Originality/value</h3>\u0000<p>By better understanding STEMM academic climates, higher education institutions can begin to reflect on the social barriers that may limit minoritized students from matriculating in academic STEMM spaces and affect retention.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141166994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-30DOI: 10.1108/sgpe-05-2023-0048
Rachel Spronken-Smith, Kim Brown, Claire Cameron
Purpose
PhD graduates are entering an increasing range of careers, but past research has highlighted a lack of preparation for these careers. This study aims to explore the reflections of PhD graduates from science and humanities and social science disciplines regarding support for career development (CD) during their study.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design and collected 136 survey responses and interviewed 21 PhD graduates from two US and one New Zealand universities to investigate their career readiness. Using the lens of Cognitive Information Processing theory, the authors explored the development of self-knowledge and career options-knowledge, and how support at the macro (institutional), meso (departmental) and micro (supervisors) levels influenced CD.
Findings
During doctoral study, there was very poor engagement with CD activities. Graduates displayed limited self-knowledge and poor knowledge about career options. Graduates reported drawing mainly on their departments and supervisors for career guidance. Although there were pockets of good practice, some departments were perceived as promoting academia as the only successful outcome, neglecting to support other possible pathways. Some graduates reported excellent supervisor support for CD, but others described disinterest or a damaging response if students said they were not wanting to pursue academia.
Originality/value
The enabling aspects for developing self- and options-knowledge are collated into a conceptual model, which identifies key factors at institutional, departmental and supervisor levels, as well as for PhD students themselves.
{"title":"Retrospective perceptions of support for career development among PhD graduates from US and New Zealand universities","authors":"Rachel Spronken-Smith, Kim Brown, Claire Cameron","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-05-2023-0048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-05-2023-0048","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\u0000<p>PhD graduates are entering an increasing range of careers, but past research has highlighted a lack of preparation for these careers. This study aims to explore the reflections of PhD graduates from science and humanities and social science disciplines regarding support for career development (CD) during their study.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\u0000<p>The authors used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design and collected 136 survey responses and interviewed 21 PhD graduates from two US and one New Zealand universities to investigate their career readiness. Using the lens of Cognitive Information Processing theory, the authors explored the development of self-knowledge and career options-knowledge, and how support at the macro (institutional), meso (departmental) and micro (supervisors) levels influenced CD.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Findings</h3>\u0000<p>During doctoral study, there was very poor engagement with CD activities. Graduates displayed limited self-knowledge and poor knowledge about career options. Graduates reported drawing mainly on their departments and supervisors for career guidance. Although there were pockets of good practice, some departments were perceived as promoting academia as the only successful outcome, neglecting to support other possible pathways. Some graduates reported excellent supervisor support for CD, but others described disinterest or a damaging response if students said they were not wanting to pursue academia.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Originality/value</h3>\u0000<p>The enabling aspects for developing self- and options-knowledge are collated into a conceptual model, which identifies key factors at institutional, departmental and supervisor levels, as well as for PhD students themselves.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140810579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Highly developed and agile learners who can clearly convey and call on their skills are sought in all walks of life. Diverse demand for these capacities has called attention to how the skills and knowledge gained during doctoral study can be conveyed, translated and leveraged in non-academic settings; however, the complex learning reality underneath doctoral development is challenging to convey.
Design/methodology/approach
The data set for this particular analysis was obtained from 245 in-depth telephone interviews with PhD candidates collected prior to COVID-19. Candidates were asked about learning processes, challenges and changes, and both the questions and thematic analysis were guided by theories of doctoral development and transformational learning.
Findings
For many participants, learning and development were not familiar topics, while a small proportion deflected questions about learning altogether. One fifth of participants presented rich and lucid accounts of learning in which cognisance of complexity, metacognitive processes and transformational experiences were embedded and multiple avenues of development were in evidence. They were well-placed to convey the complexion of doctoral development. Candidates more deeply engaged in learning also commented more about changes they noticed in themselves. The most identified avenue of development was in understanding and approach to knowledge.
Originality/value
Candidate communication about learning and development is an under-explored dimension of doctoral experience and skill that is relevant to advancing knowledge about doctoral development and illuminating graduate potential both within and outside academe. This must constitute a key element of the re-vitalisation of the doctorate post-pandemic. The salience of framing transferable skills within a learning development perspective is discussed.
{"title":"Conveying the learning self to others: doctoral candidates conceptualising and communicating the complexion of development","authors":"Allyson Holbrook, Erika Spray, Rachel Burke, Kylie M. Shaw, Jayne Carruthers","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-04-2023-0034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-04-2023-0034","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\u0000<p>Highly developed and agile learners who can clearly convey and call on their skills are sought in all walks of life. Diverse demand for these capacities has called attention to how the skills and knowledge gained during doctoral study can be conveyed, translated and leveraged in non-academic settings; however, the complex learning reality underneath doctoral development is challenging to convey.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\u0000<p>The data set for this particular analysis was obtained from 245 in-depth telephone interviews with PhD candidates collected prior to COVID-19. Candidates were asked about learning processes, challenges and changes, and both the questions and thematic analysis were guided by theories of doctoral development and transformational learning.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Findings</h3>\u0000<p>For many participants, learning and development were not familiar topics, while a small proportion deflected questions about learning altogether. One fifth of participants presented rich and lucid accounts of learning in which cognisance of complexity, metacognitive processes and transformational experiences were embedded and multiple avenues of development were in evidence. They were well-placed to convey the complexion of doctoral development. Candidates more deeply engaged in learning also commented more about changes they noticed in themselves. The most identified avenue of development was in understanding and approach to knowledge.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Originality/value</h3>\u0000<p>Candidate communication about learning and development is an under-explored dimension of doctoral experience and skill that is relevant to advancing knowledge about doctoral development and illuminating graduate potential both within and outside academe. This must constitute a key element of the re-vitalisation of the doctorate post-pandemic. The salience of framing transferable skills within a learning development perspective is discussed.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140583209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-29DOI: 10.1108/sgpe-09-2022-0059
H. Matheka, Ellen P.W.A. Jansen, C. Suhre, Adriaan W.H. Hofman
Purpose Given declining tuition funds and government grants, Kenyan universities need to develop strategies, including increased research grants and collaborations, to diversify their income sources. Well-managed doctoral students can boost a university’s teaching and research outputs. However, numbers of students enrolled in doctoral programmes at Kenyan universities are low, and graduation rates and time-to-graduate statistics are disturbing. Research undertaken elsewhere underline the important role played by supervisors and peers in facilitating students’ sense of belonging and their success. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the influence of supervisory and peer support on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success at Kenyan universities. Design/methodology/approach In this cross-sectional study, data were gathered through an online questionnaire from 614 students admitted to doctoral programmes at Kenyan universities between 2010 and 2018. We used multi-item scales to collect data on PhD students’ self-efficacy, supervisory and peer support and a sense of belonging. Findings Structural equation modelling results revealed that PhD students’ modes of study and self-efficacy were significantly associated with the quality of supervision, peer support and a sense of belonging. However, only age, a sense of belonging and the quality of supervision were directly linked to their success. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature on doctoral-level education, responding to the need for research on the influence of relationships with supervisors and peers on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success, especially in developing countries.
{"title":"The influence of supervisors and peers on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success at Kenyan universities","authors":"H. Matheka, Ellen P.W.A. Jansen, C. Suhre, Adriaan W.H. Hofman","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-09-2022-0059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-09-2022-0059","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000Given declining tuition funds and government grants, Kenyan universities need to develop strategies, including increased research grants and collaborations, to diversify their income sources. Well-managed doctoral students can boost a university’s teaching and research outputs. However, numbers of students enrolled in doctoral programmes at Kenyan universities are low, and graduation rates and time-to-graduate statistics are disturbing. Research undertaken elsewhere underline the important role played by supervisors and peers in facilitating students’ sense of belonging and their success. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the influence of supervisory and peer support on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success at Kenyan universities.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000In this cross-sectional study, data were gathered through an online questionnaire from 614 students admitted to doctoral programmes at Kenyan universities between 2010 and 2018. We used multi-item scales to collect data on PhD students’ self-efficacy, supervisory and peer support and a sense of belonging.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000Structural equation modelling results revealed that PhD students’ modes of study and self-efficacy were significantly associated with the quality of supervision, peer support and a sense of belonging. However, only age, a sense of belonging and the quality of supervision were directly linked to their success.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000This study contributes to the literature on doctoral-level education, responding to the need for research on the influence of relationships with supervisors and peers on PhD students’ sense of belonging and their success, especially in developing countries.\u0000","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140365131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-11DOI: 10.1108/sgpe-02-2023-0016
Signe Skov, Søren Smedegaard Bengtsen
Purpose
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.
Design/methodology/approach
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.
Findings
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.
Originality/value
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.
{"title":"Living with the impact agenda – humanities academics negotiating and resisting the impact agenda as researchers and doctoral supervisors","authors":"Signe Skov, Søren Smedegaard Bengtsen","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-02-2023-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-02-2023-0016","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\u0000<p>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.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\u0000<p>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.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Findings</h3>\u0000<p>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.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Originality/value</h3>\u0000<p>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.</p","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140075150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-29DOI: 10.1108/sgpe-03-2023-0031
Karri Holley, Joretta Joseph
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to understand US federal government policy during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and the connections to graduate education. Using the multiple streams framework, the paper outlines these actions through various streams (problems, policy and political) and perspectives (defining problems, articulating options and mobilizing responses).
Design/methodology/approach
The primary sources of data collected for this study were US federal government policies from March 2020 through May 2021. Policies were examined through introduction, implementation and alteration (when possible) within the specific time period of the study. The policies outlined in this paper were connected to the US Department of Education, and to a lesser extent, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies. Data analysis was a two-fold process. First, the individual policy was considered as a single case and second, a cross-case comparison occurred across the multiple cases.
Findings
Analysing the study’s data in the problem stream provides a strong indicator of how the pandemic was perceived as a challenge for US graduate education. The pandemic served as a focusing event and illuminated the connections of graduate education to key institutional functions, including research and teaching. Broadly, US federal policy actions in this area focused on giving institutions resources and flexibility to support graduate students and allow them to continue their academic work while also seeding funding and incentives to continue the movement of knowledge, activities and people in the research pipeline. Actions in the policy stream aligned with the decentralized nature of the US higher education system and allowed for choice by academic institutions within the parameters of options.
Originality/value
This paper extends extant literature related to policy-making and graduate education to consider policy-making during a time of crisis. The paper offers methodological and conceptual ideas for consideration in future research.
{"title":"Graduate education and government policy in times of crisis: a case study of the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"Karri Holley, Joretta Joseph","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-03-2023-0031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-03-2023-0031","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\u0000<p>The purpose of this paper is to understand US federal government policy during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and the connections to graduate education. Using the multiple streams framework, the paper outlines these actions through various streams (problems, policy and political) and perspectives (defining problems, articulating options and mobilizing responses).</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\u0000<p>The primary sources of data collected for this study were US federal government policies from March 2020 through May 2021. Policies were examined through introduction, implementation and alteration (when possible) within the specific time period of the study. The policies outlined in this paper were connected to the US Department of Education, and to a lesser extent, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies. Data analysis was a two-fold process. First, the individual policy was considered as a single case and second, a cross-case comparison occurred across the multiple cases.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Findings</h3>\u0000<p>Analysing the study’s data in the problem stream provides a strong indicator of how the pandemic was perceived as a challenge for US graduate education. The pandemic served as a focusing event and illuminated the connections of graduate education to key institutional functions, including research and teaching. Broadly, US federal policy actions in this area focused on giving institutions resources and flexibility to support graduate students and allow them to continue their academic work while also seeding funding and incentives to continue the movement of knowledge, activities and people in the research pipeline. Actions in the policy stream aligned with the decentralized nature of the US higher education system and allowed for choice by academic institutions within the parameters of options.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Originality/value</h3>\u0000<p>This paper extends extant literature related to policy-making and graduate education to consider policy-making during a time of crisis. The paper offers methodological and conceptual ideas for consideration in future research.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140001638","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-29DOI: 10.1108/sgpe-10-2023-0098
Marion Heron, Doris Dippold, Karen Gravett, Adeeba Ahmad, Samaher Aljabri, Priyanki Ghosh, Raniah Kabooha, Mohammad Makram, Dina Mousawa, Ayesha Mudhaffer, Beyza Ucar Longford, Lingyu Wang, Junyi Zhou, Fengmei Zhu
Purpose
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.
Design/methodology/approach
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.
Findings
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.
Practical implications
This paper makes suggestions for how those in doctoral education can develop and embed research groups into institutional practices.
Originality/value
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.
{"title":"Building a community of practice through a doctoral research group","authors":"Marion Heron, Doris Dippold, Karen Gravett, Adeeba Ahmad, Samaher Aljabri, Priyanki Ghosh, Raniah Kabooha, Mohammad Makram, Dina Mousawa, Ayesha Mudhaffer, Beyza Ucar Longford, Lingyu Wang, Junyi Zhou, Fengmei Zhu","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-10-2023-0098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-10-2023-0098","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\u0000<p>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.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\u0000<p>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.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Findings</h3>\u0000<p>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.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Practical implications</h3>\u0000<p>This paper makes suggestions for how those in doctoral education can develop and embed research groups into institutional practices.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Originality/value</h3>\u0000<p>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.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140001641","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-07DOI: 10.1108/sgpe-06-2023-0057
Jennifer M. Blaney, David F. Feldon, Kaylee Litson
Purpose
Supporting community college transfer students represents a critical strategy for broadening participation in STEM. In addition to being a racially diverse group, students who pursue STEM degrees by way of community college report frequent interests in graduate study and academic careers. Thus, supporting and expanding transfer students’ PhD interests can help to diversify the STEM professoriate. This study aims to identify the experiences that predict PhD interests among students who transferred into the computer science major from a community college.
Design/methodology/approach
Relying on longitudinal survey data from over 150 community college transfer students throughout their first year at their receiving four-year university, we used regression analysis to identify the post-transfer college experiences that predict early interest in PhDs.
Findings
We found that receiving information about PhDs from a professor strongly predicted PhD interest among transfer students. Relationships with other variables indicate that the provision of information about graduate school was more likely to occur for students who participated in undergraduate research experiences than for those participating in internships. Descriptive data document inequities in who has access to these types of experiences.
Originality/value
This paper provides new insight into how STEM departments can develop targeted efforts to ensure that information about PhD training is equitably available to all transfer students. Working to ensure that faculty equitably communicate with students about PhD opportunities may go a long way in countering potential deterrents among transfer students who may be interested in such pathways.
{"title":"Tapping into early PhD aspirations to advance gender equity in computing: predicting PhD interest among upward transfer students","authors":"Jennifer M. Blaney, David F. Feldon, Kaylee Litson","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-06-2023-0057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-06-2023-0057","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\u0000<p>Supporting community college transfer students represents a critical strategy for broadening participation in STEM. In addition to being a racially diverse group, students who pursue STEM degrees by way of community college report frequent interests in graduate study and academic careers. Thus, supporting and expanding transfer students’ PhD interests can help to diversify the STEM professoriate. This study aims to identify the experiences that predict PhD interests among students who transferred into the computer science major from a community college.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\u0000<p>Relying on longitudinal survey data from over 150 community college transfer students throughout their first year at their receiving four-year university, we used regression analysis to identify the post-transfer college experiences that predict early interest in PhDs.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Findings</h3>\u0000<p>We found that receiving information about PhDs from a professor strongly predicted PhD interest among transfer students. Relationships with other variables indicate that the provision of information about graduate school was more likely to occur for students who participated in undergraduate research experiences than for those participating in internships. Descriptive data document inequities in who has access to these types of experiences.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Originality/value</h3>\u0000<p>This paper provides new insight into how STEM departments can develop targeted efforts to ensure that information about PhD training is equitably available to all transfer students. Working to ensure that faculty equitably communicate with students about PhD opportunities may go a long way in countering potential deterrents among transfer students who may be interested in such pathways.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139751219","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号