|
courses | hecs/oldps
| higher education home | higher
education links
publications | issues | research | scholarships | statistics | universities
Research Training in Doctoral Programs
What can be learned from professional doctorates?
Executive Summary
Doctoral education in Australia is currently under pressure to become more
industry focused. This report discusses the relatively recent experience of
offering doctoral education through professional doctorate programs as a
contribution to the improvement of doctoral education in Australian
universities. The evaluation focused on the extent to which such programs had
developed practices for sustaining closer collaboration between universities and
industry, through:
• a review of the general literatures relating to the role of doctoral
research in contributing to the growth of knowledge and innovation;
• a multi-method exploration of the range of practices and relationships
associated with professional doctorate programs; and
• the development of strategies and policy recommendations for optimising
doctoral education in Australian universities in terms of industry-focused
outcomes.
When set against the 800-year history of the PhD, the professional doctorate
is a young doctorate, the first being set up in Australia within the last two
decades. The nature and status of professional doctorates remains unclear to
many, including a number of university administrators of research training, as
well as government and industry personnel. The fact that 61 per cent of
professional doctorate programs fall under the classification of ‘research’
higher degrees is not widely understood. Moreover, the 131 programs we found to
exist in 35 of the 38 Australian public universities, exhibit a wide range of
structures and features.
While there is strong evidence of an increase in the number of professional
doctorates being offered in Australian universities, and there is some evidence
of innovation in a number of professional doctorate programs, it appears that
industry-focused doctoral education is still in its infancy. With a few
exceptions, neither industry nor universities were engaging in any significant
way to develop sustainable partnerships to serve and support the work of
doctoral education. While the government White Paper Knowledge and Innovation
(Kemp, 1999a) is clearly having an impact on universities in terms of active
improvement of the quality and accountability of research training, industry
remains to be engaged in any systematic or sustained way.
Most operational professional doctorates programs may be characterised as
having ‘surface’ level links, in that they exhibit the following features:
• A particular industry or group of industries is the source from which
most clients come and to which they return;
• There is some attempt made to involve non-academic individuals from
industry and/or a professional group in course delivery, supervision or
assessment (this is likely to be limited and ad-hoc);
• Research and research activities are workplace-based; and
• Marketing materials stress the value of the program to targeted
professions.
A few programs exhibited ‘deep’ levels of linkage with professional and
industry bodies as indicated by the following:
• Their establishment is driven by a particular industry or professional
association (eg, peak industry groups define the nature of the training to be
undertaken and the skills/attributes that are to be developed);
• Industry and/or professions are partners in the delivery and supervision
of programs, and this is built into the funding and/or sponsorship
arrangements that exist between universities, participants and external
bodies;
• Industry/professional bodies play a substantial role in the assessment
and credentialing process;
• Research training outcomes are of a nature and in a form that is
recognisable as beneficial to the industry/professional partner; and
• The community of learning built around the program includes both academic
and industry and/or profession based participants.
While the strengths in a number of the ‘surface’-linked programs investigated
are impressive, the potential for professional doctorates to offer a context for
more innovative and industry-focused doctoral training is yet to be realised. In
particular, there are significant possibilities for the design and development
of doctoral programs that deliver new types of quality research training.
Programs that are deeply linked to industry and/or the professions are needed to
achieve this. There is no evidence that surface levels of engagement evolve into
deeper ones.
Recommendations of this report
1. That program coordinators of prospective or new industry-focused
doctoral programs seek to develop ‘deep’ links with industry partners, with
the understanding that they may provide a number of advantages, including:
leverage advantages in terms of gaining access to resources within and beyond
the university; direct links to prospective participants; and, significant
curriculum enrichment.
2. That universities seek to assist programs with surface-level links to
optimise their engagement with industry and professional bodies.
3. That each of the partners in the triple helix should seek to identify
ways in which they can create incentives for developing ‘deep’ linked,
industry-focused doctoral programs.
4. That universities actively explore ways to develop joint ownership and
delivery of programs with external bodies and institutions, including
‘competitor’ universities.
5. That universities and industries/professions develop well-integrated
collaborative research as a means of mapping this new practice of
industry-focused research to promote deep partnerships between industry and
higher education.
6. That coordinators of doctoral programs and their respective Offices of
Research develop and promote the use of research methodologies consistent with
deep linkage development within doctoral training programs be further
developed.
7. That industry, government and universities revise their assumptions
about research training in higher degrees, in order to acknowledge and take
advantage of the different contributions and outcomes of all doctoral programs
and their participants.
8. That DEST categories used for reporting and monitoring research training
be adjusted to acknowledge the professional doctorates as ‘differently
rigorous’ doctorates in their own right.
9. That coordinators of doctoral programs ensure that coursework components
be closely integrated with any subsequent research work, if the latter is the
major focus of the program.
10. That universities ensure ongoing monitoring of rates of completion in
all doctoral programs.
11. That universities ensure that student intake is matched to the
long-term availability of appropriately qualified and oriented supervisors.
12. That coordinators of doctoral programs use course-work teaching as a
strategy to enhance participation and accessibility for mid-career, employed
potential students.
13. That coordinators of doctoral programs use intensive and/or flexible
teaching as an opportunity to maximise networking, and to introduce
participants to senior / international peers and/or researchers.
14. That universities and coordinators of doctoral programs further develop
and maintain online resources and communication technologies in support of
participants who are work-based.
15. That universities ensure that the needs of off-shore and at-a-distance
candidates have been anticipated and appropriate arrangements to respond to
those needs are fully in place.
16. That universities that admit international and NESB students into
doctoral programs, irrespective of the entry requirements in terms of IELTS or
TOEFEL scores, should anticipate the very significant additional levels of
resources required to meet quality expectations in relation to all written
products.
Full Report
Return to the Top of the Page
|
