Guidelines for best practice in doctoral education

In recent years the Australian Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies has become increasingly concerned about the quality and standards of doctorates, that is, PhDs, professional and other doctorates. It has become clear that PhD programs are not always of sufficient quality and that some PhD students do not receive a quality doctoral experience and outcome. Similarly, the Council has been concerned about the quality of some Australian professional and other doctorates. As a result of these concerns, the Council established a working party to prepare a set of guidelines for best practice in Australian doctoral programs. The draft guidelines are consistent with the Australian Qualifications Framework and were reviewed and refined at the last Council meeting in May, 2003. In this presentation, an overview of the guidelines is offered for further discussion and advice to the Council.

The disembodied apprentice : reflections on doctoral exchange

This presentation explores my experience as a full-time on-campus doctoral candidate involved in an international postgraduate exchange. My doctoral work, concerned with the use of networks as a policy mechanism to understand and manage risk for young people, is being completed within an ARC Linkage Project. As such, my doctoral journey is undertaken collaboratively with an industry partner and alongside a community of academics. This stands in contrast to the more common experience of the part-time off-campus Education doctoral candidate largely isolated from an academic community and interacting, to a greater or lesser extent, with only a principal and/or associate supervisor. Lave and Wenger's (1991) theory of legitimate peripheral participation explores the nature of situated learning, moving the focus from the observation and imitation that occurs between the master/apprenticeship to the learning that occurs within the community of which the master forms a part and in which learning occurs as access to practice. The idea of communities of practice is further developed by Wenger (1999) to include both questions of practice, including meaning, community, learning, boundaries and locality and questions of identity including identity in practice, participation, modes of belonging, identification and negotiability. My doctoral process as a disembodied experience of situated learning within a community of practice was highlighted by the opportunity to witness aspects of the academic apprenticeship of higher degree students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. That comparative experience provides new understandings about the distinctive model of research training that constitutes my academic apprenticeship within Australian higher education.

Working doctoral students : challenges and opportunities

Doctoral education is traditionally conceptualised in policies and practices about young, full-time students with no work or related commitments. However, nowadays, doctoral candidates constitute a diverse population working in various institutional, community and industry sites. This paper will report on initial work conducted as part of an ARC Linkage Project in which three postgraduate student associations are involved as industry partners – viz. CAPA, PARSA and DUSA. The main objective of the paper is to identify and explore some of the issues identified by two researchers who are working independently and collaboratively in this project to investigate the contemporary experiences of full and part-time doctoral candidates.

Risky doctorates : managing doctoral studies in Australia as managing risk

This paper draws on work by the author as part of a team undertaking an ARC Discovery project entitled: The Impact of Risk Management on Doctoral Research Policy and Pedagogy in Australian Universities. The team is Erica McWilliam, Peter Taylor, Terry Evans and Alan Lawson, with Eluned Lloyd and Karen Tregenza. Some of the ideas in this paper reflect our discussions, reading and other work as part of this project.

Arguably, part of any manager’s work involves the identification and assessment of risks and then working to minimise or manage them. However, never has this been more important than is the case today for the manager of doctoral studies in Australia. Partly this is related to the rising risk consciousness and risk aversion in contemporary societies, but more particularly it is related to the dangers and harms that have been infused by the Australian government into its policies on ‘research training’ (that is, principally doctoral education) and quality assurance. This article explores the consequences of these two trends, one general and one specific, on the management and nature of doctoral research in Australia.

Predicting timely doctoral completions : an institutional case study of 2000-2005 doctoral graduates

Federal government changes to the funding of doctoral students have focussed the attention of university management on their completion rates. The aims are to inform the allocation of institutional resources in a manner that improves the likelihood of timely doctoral completions and to highlight a process that can also be used for analyses of other key indicators of progression and attrition. The analyses and model development used national data readily available to all universities, which is collected in a standard approach through the Graduate Destinations Survey (GDS). The findings show that the most important variable for timely completion was attendance (full‐ versus part‐time), where in terms of full‐time equivalent (FTE) years of study, part‐time students were far more likely to complete quickly than full‐time students. For the full‐time students the key predictors of timely completion were residency, field of study and English‐speaking background (ESB). The timeliness of part‐time students was predicted by field of study and ESB. This study confirms that there is considerable variation by discipline for timely doctoral completions. The pragmatic application and prospective test of the derived models present a variety of opportunities for research student administrators. For example, those full‐time students scoring highly represented a concentration of timely graduates more than 7.5 times higher than the lowest‐scoring group – almost an order of magnitude of difference. In short, university management could gain tremendous value from more widely using the data available.

The failure of dissertation advice books : toward alternative pedagogies for doctoral writing

Anxious doctoral researchers can now call on a proliferation of advice books telling them how to produce their dissertations. This article analyzes some characteristics of this self-help genre, including the ways it produces an expert–novice relationship with readers, reduces dissertation writing to a series of linear steps, reveals hidden rules, and asserts a mix of certainty and fear to position readers "correctly." The authors argue for a more complex view of doctoral writing both as text work/identity work and as a discursive social practice. They reject transmission pedagogies that normalize the power-saturated relations of protégé and master and point to alternate pedagogical approaches that position doctoral researchers as colleagues engaged in a shared, unequal, and changing practice

Rethinking doctoral publication practices : writing from and beyond the thesis

This article addresses the importance of giving greater pedagogical attention to writing for publication in higher education. It recognizes that, while doctoral research is a major source of new knowledge production in universities, most doctoral students do not receive adequate mentoring or structural support to publish from their research, with poor results. Data from a case study of graduates in science and education are examined to show how the different disciplinary and pedagogic practices of each discourse community impact on student publication. It is argued that co-authorship with supervisors is a significant pedagogic practice that can enhance the robustness and know-how of emergent scholars as well as their publication output. There is a need, however, to rethink co-authorship more explicitly as a pedagogic practice, and create more deliberate structures in subject disciplines to scaffold doctoral publication - as it is these structures that influence whether graduates publish as informed professionals in their chosen fields of practice.