PhD Students’ Research Group Networks: a Qualitative Approach

This article examines the networks within the research groups where Spanish PhD students are pursuing their doctorate. Capó et al. (2007) used quantitative data to predict PhD students’ publishing performance from their background, attitudes, supervisors’ performance and research group networks. Variables related to the research group network had a negligible explanatory power on student performance once the remaining variables had been accounted for. In this article, a qualitative follow up of the same students is carried out using extreme case sampling and indepth interviews. The qualitative research shows networking as important for students. Out of the 115 aspects that students mention in the interviews as relevant to publishing in the qualitative research, 92 have to do with their supervisors, their research group or their network as a whole. Similarly, out of the 50 hindrances mentioned, 20 have to do with the networks or relations. The most commonly mentioned network-related topics are research group members pushing PhD students to publish, meeting researchers outside the research group, existence of other PhD students in the group, help with the PhD from group members, supervisor’s interest in the thesis, the possibility of discussing with experts on the PhD’s topic and frequent contact with the supervisor and research group members. Some of these characteristics were not, however, measured in the conventional quantitative social network survey

PhD Students’ Research Group Social Capital in Two Countries: A Clustering Approach with Duocentred Network Measures

The article examines the structure of the collaboration networks of research groups where Slovenian and Spanish PhD students are pursuing their doctorate. The units of analysis are student-supervisor dyads. We use duocentred networks, a novel network structure appropriate for networks which are centred around a dyad. A cluster analysis reveals three typical clusters of research groups. Those which are large and belong to several institutions are labelled under a bridging social capital label. Those which are small, centred in a single institution but have high cohesion are labelled as bonding social capital. Those which are small and with low cohesion are called weak social capital groups. Academic performance of both PhD students and supervisors are highest in bridging groups and lowest in weak groups. Other variables are also found to differ according to the type of research group. At the end, some recommendations regarding academic and research policy are drawn